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

artessa

Postby artessa » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:54 pm

Of course that I`m aware of this. But I insist that on this particular car the road speed is within the 5% range. How do I know?
Well in Spain many national roads and highways are equipped with small roadside kilometre monoliths
So you can both test a given distance and thereafter calculate a certain speed. That is something that I have done with all my cars. Since I usually drive the same distance on the highway and have done so fore many years (25) I know 2 things no car shows the same and I do have a very good figure on the actual value.
I start the car and drive it warm, and by then I have came to the gas station. From the gas station to the highway I have 3 km highway limited to 100km/h then I get of the highway (120 km/h) and do another fill up before I start with urban traffic.

I have cars with huge volume which are extremely sensitive of a speed increase of 10% above 100 km/h but the BMW is not that sensitive.

Here you can see what the manual says:

http://picasaweb.google.es/muchomasener ... 5247201298

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:16 pm

Ah, OK, your car is pretty old - early 1990s, I guess - which explains the way the fuel economy is stated.

artessa wrote:I have cars with huge volume which are extremely sensitive of a speed increase of 10% above 100 km/h but the BMW is not that sensitive.

Well, according to the figures in your handbook, slowing from 120 to 90 kph (25% reduction) changes fuel consumption from 8.3 to 6.8 litres/100 km (18% reduction). So I'd say even a 5% reduction in speed makes a significant difference to economy.

artessa wrote:I start the car and drive it warm, and by then I have came to the gas station. From the gas station to the highway I have 3 km highway limited to 100km/h then I get of the highway (120 km/h) and do another fill up before I start with urban traffic.

What is the distance and fuel amount involved? I ask because there has to be a tolerance of at least +/-1 litre (probably a lot more) in how much fuel you can get into the tank before it is "full". And don't forget that the fuel in the tank will be warming up, and hence expanding, during the drive - so you will get less in than you have used, thus appearing to get better economy.

Now do you see why I prefer dynamometer tests? :)

artessa

Postby artessa » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:58 pm

You are very right in pointing out that there are variables that can have significant importance. Talking about temperature first. I have actually measured how much the relatively warm gasoline contracts overnight and that is actually almost 1/3 litre in a tank of 60. No doubt that counts. My methods of measuring are not that precise to take a change of specific weight into consideration during a single journey but It could not be of such a great importance. Starting a journey in early morning hours when the gas temperature in the tank could be as low as 15ºC , filling up with gas from a storage tank situated in the ground with more or less same temperature. Driving on the highway for another hour and again filling up. In this case the temperature in the tank would have risen a little, maybe as much as 10 degrees. I do trust the GPS and the values I get out of it, I do not believe they are in the 5% error range.
But anyway this really does not matter. With this car I have done readings before and after and then quitted the treatment and then repeated it again I even did a smoke test in between to se if values got back to old readings again (they did almost but not totally, maybe the cat. was in better shape after the mpg use or maybe it was a result that the cat could have been warmer). But I must admit that there is one thing I did not do at the beginning and that was using the “metal lube “ stuff and on these journeys I must admit that I before using this never achieved reading as low as 7.2 litres.
I do se a pattern and the consumption values in the owner’s manual are very close to the figures I used to have, both before and after having quitted the use of MPG. But once again my methods do not scientifically prove anything else except that smog values are drastically improved. I suppose there still is a small statistically possibility that the recorded improvements are caused by some difficult to explain circumstances but to me they are likely to be considered as to small to take in account. You allso have a piont in atacking my fill up method, of course there is a risk of making something wrong but the error is constant, I do the same every time and I do know that it is not permited to fill up until it just starts to overflow but it is to me the only way to be sure it is full.

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:48 pm

I doubt we will ever agree, but I'm glad you understand the issues anyway.

In any case there are two additional problems with regarding your testing as proof of effectiveness:

1) Your car is something like 15 years old (correct me if I'm wrong), so improvements you see may not read across to newer cars

2) Any testing by a non-independent person such as yourself is going to be regarded as suspicious by skeptics. If somebody is selling a product, of course they are going to hype it.

fuelsaving

Re: Tuv testing

Postby fuelsaving » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:19 pm

On Sept 22nd john 10 wrote:FFI just gave an official statement about the tuv test.

The tekst was posted by ffi-europe to all european distributors.

TUV Testing

In Spring 2007, FFi initiated testing of the MPG-CAPSTM at the TUV testing site in Austria. TUV has reported on their initial testing, which confirmed several significant improvements. These included:

Increase in engine performance
Increase in power
These are great findings! There are also some findings that have confused both TUV and FFi. Jerry Lang, FFi's technical expert, analysed the raw data that confirmed the above and an increase in fuel economy. Subsequent independent testing by Jerry discovered a flaw in the software algorithm used by the manufacturers of Dynamometers. We are now working to correct this so our data and results are accurate worldwide. We will advise you as this evolves. Once these corrections are made we will confirm the accurate TUV test results!


john 10

Well, there's a month gone and still nothing. Sounds very much like what happened with the Millbrook test - a lot of hype, then nothing.

John, any news for us? Have FFI "advised you as this evolves", as they claimed?

artessa

Postby artessa » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:46 pm

Fine, I think we can agree on that we never will agree about whether MPG ( and maybe also MPG extreme witch really has not been the issue here but could as well be discussed) Has any effectiveness.
I have learnt that it takes to much of an ordinary driver to determine the amount of fuel saving actually obtained but It aught to be possible to actually determine if there is any fuel saving at all if the effectiveness is 7% or more. I seriously doubt that there are many drivers that has got that kind of patience but if we look at drivers with older cars that can actually feel a tremendous performance difference and see the smog check improvements why not be glad for them and the environment.

I think you have a small tiny doubt ness that there actually might exist a positive effect after all but your pride actually prohibits you from trying it for yourself. Why don’t you find a car , specially one that does not perform all that well and to start with and don’t care about mileage, just feel the difference. That would satisfy me.
Then you can say: “exactly as I thought, the pill has got no effect at all, nothing happened to car”

I would also appreciate you commenting on the functional description of the MPG.

I copy it as follow.

How Does it Work?

The MPG-CAPS™ compound uses the fuel (gas or diesel) as a carrier to
deliver it into the engine combustion chamber where it actually does its work. The
ingredients in the MPG-CAPS™ are used to treat the combustion chamber metal
surfaces. A film is formed on all the surfaces. Technically, the film is thermally
derived oxidation. The carboxylic metal creates an oxide residue on the hot
surfaces at the time of combustion.
A simple similar example of this is the scorching of a pan when cooking.
We are all familiar with how a residue from cooking will form a layer on a pan if
the food is overheated. In most cooking cases, the amount of material oxidized is
of sufficient quantity to form a heavy film. However, if you scrub the pan many
times, the film will get so thin that all you see is discoloration with a film so thin it
appears to be part of the pan impregnating the pours of the metal.
The high temperature in the cylinder of an engine combined with the small
amount of material that will oxidize or carbon out produces a very thin layer very
rapidly. This film coats the walls of the cylinder, the piston face, and the fire deck.
Once this film is deposited, it provides several benefits. First, it changes the
surface heat absorption characteristics of metal. Note: The greatest loss in
efficiency in an automobile engine is the loss of heat. Heat is energy released by
the fuel, and air mixture as it burns producing a heat spike, which creates
expansion used to drive the piston down. The cylinder walls and head are water
cooled, and the piston is oil cooled. The film inhibits the transfer of radiant heat.
This means higher combustion temperature, greater expansion, and more power.
The second positive effect of the film is the provision of a surface to more evenly
distribute the fuel. A polished surface tends to cause beading as a polished paint
job. The micro film attracts the liquid fuel. More even fuel distribution better
shapes the charge yielding more power. The third work of the film is being a
catalyst precursor to react with the catalyst component in the MPG-CAPS™. With
the temperature in the cylinder and the presence of the catalyst, a catalytic reaction
occurs to promote better disassociation of chemicals and better burn. The catalytic
reaction is also exothermic and produces heat. The combination of all the above
produces 30 to 40% more expansion in the cylinder with an equal amount of fuel.
Changes in the automotive industry in the last 15 years have increased fuel
efficiency. The EPA has mandated rules to lower emissions. Fuel manufacturers
have removed lead and added oxygenates to fuel. These changes have caused
modern vehicles to build harmful deposits that tend to soak up the fuel and cause
performance problems. The MPG-CAPS™ provide a micro-thin coating that
inhibits build-up of harmful deposits.
An added benefit of using the MPG-CAPS™ is lower emissions. The
catalytic process found in catalytic converters on exhaust systems is started in the
firing cylinder, which reduces the formation of nitrous oxides (NOx). The work
required by the converter is reduced, and life of the converter is extended.
The film produced on the cylinder walls is a continuous process and is
polished by the rings on the piston becoming a more durable surface than the
original metal. Less wear will occur, and extended engine life should be the result.
In summary, I found many positive effects in using the MPG-CAPS™. I
found no negative effects. Since most automobile engines burn fuel at over 99%
efficiency, it is impossible to improve the combustion alone. However, by using
more heat of combustion, shaping the burn, and using the catalytic process to start
the reaction and disassociation of chemicals usually driven by heat, a more efficient burn is produced
A burn is produced that will provide more expansion in
the cylinder, therefore requiring less fuel.
It is my opinion that the greatest positive effect is the fact that more heat
produced by the combustion is being used. The extra heat causes greater
expansion of gases, increasing power, and overall efficiency of the engine. Most
fuel is burned to use the heat. In an automobile, the heat is basically wasted. In
my past experiments and testing, I have proven heat recovery to be the only
practical way to improve gas mileage on a modern engine. The process produced
by the MPG-CAPS™ does use more of the heat generated, and the catalytic
process produces additional heat. The use of FFI MPG-CAPS™ is a practical way
to improve mileage, increase power, and extend engine life.

Further more Jerry Lang is asked a question and he explains:

Q1: Can you please elaborate on how the MPG-CAPSTM produce free hydrogen as you described in a conference I went to in Bloomington, Minnesota? You said, “the free hydrogen created burns quicker than fuel itself so the burning of the hydrogen will burn the fuel more quickly.”
A1: The flame speed of hydrogen is over three times the speed of carbon fuel such as methane. The catalytic action of the CAPS break out some hydrogen which acts as a fuse to speed the combustion of the carbon.

Would you consider all this as totally nonsense?

You prefer to categorize my BMW from 1993 as an old and “low tech” car .OK that depends on what you compare it with. And if we compare it with mass-produced newer budget cars would you consider the BMW engine as very unsophisticated?

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:43 pm

artessa wrote:Fine, I think we can agree on that we never will agree about whether MPG has any effectiveness.
<snip>
if we look at drivers with older cars that can actually feel a tremendous performance difference and see the smog check improvements why not be glad for them and the environment.

It's called the MPG-Cap. To my mind, if it doesn't deliver a big improvement in fuel economy, then it doesn't work. Period. (Not that I am convinced there is any real performance or emissions benefit on the vast majority of cars.)

artessa wrote:I think you have a small tiny doubt ness that there actually might exist a positive effect after all but your pride actually prohibits you from trying it for yourself. Why don’t you find a car , specially one that does not perform all that well and to start with and don’t care about mileage, just feel the difference.

Performance changes are especially hard to reliably detect unless you use proper equipment. It's very, very easy to convince yourself there has been an improvement when really there hasn't.

artessa wrote:I would also appreciate you commenting on the functional description of the MPG.
<snip>
Would you consider all this as totally nonsense?

Pretty much, yes. See http://www.fuelsaving.info/ffi.htm, and the links therein. For example, Jerry talks about speeding up the burn, but ignores the fact that any theoretical benefit from this would only be realised in practice if the ignition timing were adjusted (retarded) to suit.

artessa wrote:You prefer to categorize my BMW from 1993 as an old and “low tech” car .OK that depends on what you compare it with. And if we compare it with mass-produced newer budget cars would you consider the BMW engine as very unsophisticated?

In terms of the engine control (fuel and ignition) - yes, definitely, even compared to the cheapest European or US car on the market today. 15 years is a lifetime in terms of computer control technology.

artessa

Postby artessa » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:50 pm

This was an answer that was just in line with what I had expected.
The engine control unit does regarding to the service manual (Haynes) automatically adjust the timing
moment for optimal performance regarding the fuel properties.

But I must admit I did not expect you to discredit completely the explanations
done by Jerry Lang. I must admit that there have been several parts of this explanation that has produced some headache to me and I have consulted people of recognized prestige in the chemical field and I have received answers to my satisfaction of the doubts I have had.

I have said it before but I think it could be repeated. I like Tony’s web site a lot and I find it very instructive. He tells about his back ground as a way of giving credit to the information presented there.
I would actually like to know if there is something else in your background that can even reinforce the amount of credit we should have with you. I ask that because Jerry Lang has a certain amount of achievements in his career that with out any doubts give him a lot of credibility. So when you completely discredit him you must have a defendable standpoint for doing so. Personally I have to recollect as much information as possible to be able to make my own judgements in this case. Even though my personal experiments are far from scientific they weigh very heavy in this matter. I was trying to convince Tony that he just for curiosity has a try on the pill and I said preferably in an older car that does not perform that well. I said that because I have seen and tried so many older cars that barely did function at all and then with the pill they have actually become usable. Those changes just are impossible to mix up with sub tile feelings.

Today there is another test report that has been made public.
I’m quite confident it will be discarded as useless but I would actually like to know why it is not possible to perform a test like this one. I have not seen this kind of test procedure before. Anyway they are performed on a dynamometer.


http://tools.myffi.biz/users/russ/e-zin ... rs_1st.pdf

http://tools.myffi.biz/users/russ/e-zin ... rs_2nd.pdf

http://tools.myffi.biz/users/russ/e-zin ... ummary.pdf

artessa

Postby artessa » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:54 pm

By the way,
The mpg "stuff" is available in 3 different shapes.
Caps= small pill
Crumbs= 6gram vial containing, just wat it says.
Boost= liquid

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:35 pm

artessa wrote:The engine control unit does regarding to the service manual (Haynes) automatically adjust the timing moment for optimal performance regarding the fuel properties.

Well, yes and no. The ECU does sense the octane rating of the fuel (via the knock sensors) and so can optimise the ignition timing at full load - but that doesn't help at part load, which is what counts for economy. See my pages on fuel and knock for more information.

artessa wrote:But I must admit I did not expect you to discredit completely the explanations
done by Jerry Lang. I must admit that there have been several parts of this explanation that has produced some headache to me and I have consulted people of recognized prestige in the chemical field and I have received answers to my satisfaction of the doubts I have had.

To be fair, I was probably over-critical. Jerry is quite right that heat transfer to the cylinder walls is a major factor in engine efficiency, but he seems to have no experimental evidence whatsoever to back up the idea that the MPG-Caps reduce this. Where engines have been made with low thermal conductivity cylinder liners, the economy benefits have generally been disappointingly small - and accompanied by greatly increased exhaust temperature. And Jerry's comments about fuel "beading" make little sense because once the engine is warm, the amount of liquid fuel collecting on the cylinder walls and piston is very small.

artessa wrote:I have said it before but I think it could be repeated. I like Tony’s web site a lot and I find it very instructive. He tells about his back ground as a way of giving credit to the information presented there.
I would actually like to know if there is something else in your background that can even reinforce the amount of credit we should have with you. I ask that because Jerry Lang has a certain amount of achievements in his career that with out any doubts give him a lot of credibility. So when you completely discredit him you must have a defendable standpoint for doing so.

I understand your point, but would comment that Jerry Lang does not seem to have any specific experience with combustion in reciprocating engines - and especially not with cars. I'm not sure what else I can offer to reinforce my credibility - I do have some technical publications to my name, but as you probably know I try to keep my "real world" identity relatively secret (mostly to avoid legal action by aggrieved makers of fuel "saving" products).

artessa wrote:Today there is another test report that has been made public.
I’m quite confident it will be discarded as useless but I would actually like to know why it is not possible to perform a test like this one. I have not seen this kind of test procedure before. Anyway they are performed on a dynamometer.

In principle this test is fine, assuming the test organisation is reputable. But it falls down because there is no A-B-A or repeat testing to prove that the benefits seen are not just random "noise". Also it is not clear if the vehicles were in the control of the test house between the "before" and "after" tests, or whether FFI had the chance to "fiddle" with them in some way.

artessa

Postby artessa » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:45 pm

I think we are getting towards a situation where this thread actually is becoming constructive. Personally I am beginning to understand Tony and his way of dealing with this matter. By now I am convinced that Tony is as sure anyone can be that there is no possible way that there could be any effect worth considering with the MPG. Well that is fine. I have realized that to protect his status as a respected writer/web page administrator he can not permit himself of being wrong. So what are the odds for the eventuality that the pill actually really does have any considerable effect? Pretty low I suppose. Then I have understood that the ONLY true way for him to be convinced is to conduct a standardized dynamometer test of the kind we just have seen evidence of. He is absolutely right when arguing against that test that there is no way that we can rest asure that there has not existed any moments where FFi could have tampered with that truck. Of course the same argument must be applied to all testing facilities because there is none that can actually provide proof of this eventuality. Hence leaving the only possible way of a possible approval/fail is Mr Tony himself.

Actually I believe that this will occur in the future. I am sure he must have access to these kinds of testing facilities so a trial from his privileged situation would not be so strange.
I think he can take advantage of this situation and actually add prestige to his reputation as to the person that finely provided proof of the lack of effect from the pill. But then how would we know that he has not tampered with the engines in between test occasions? Catch 22?
I do agree happily with Tony in his conclusion that Jerry Lang is far from a car engine expert. I have made him tricky questions that he has chosen not to answer but I am quite convinced that Tony could provide me with the answers, if he would have been involved with FFi witch obviously is very unlikely although not impossible I think that the combined knowledge of the two of you would be great. I do have made the conclusion that there is no doubt about it that he knows a lot of the chemical reaction we prefer to call combustion.
Tony rejects totally the part of the functional description where Jerry talks about the fuel that has a tendency to bead on the polished surfaces. At the beginning I omitted that part of the Spanish translation of that document that I have made. As I could not understand it nor accept it I preferred to omit it. Then later I have made some test that might give credit to that. I have used a diesel car with defective injector nozzles that are about to be overhauled as a test object. On this kind of object it is very easy to see the smoke and you could choose to video record it as well. You do all the treatment stuff and when you feel the car is not improving any more and certain that the (supposed) effect is obtained to your satisfaction you finish the entire diesel left in the tank and then fill up with new untreated diesel. By now you know that there is nothing in the diesel that might affect the combustion properties so if the amount of smoke is still reduced that must come from something else apart from what was previously contained in the diesel. This actually happens and I must admit that I think it could be a result of this effect. With this kind of testing it is very easy to do a A-B-A test and it will be easy to se the result. Talking about the A-B-A test procedure I would like to add an observation to that and it has showed to me that the Catalyzed cars usually does not go back to a all that bad situation after the supposed needed 3 tanks to loose the effect. My conclusion is that something must have occurred to the Cat. Maybe it is necessary to run the car for much more than 3 tank full of fuel to also “restore” the cat.

Further more it has been interesting to learn that the knock sensor only is used with full throttle that explains the acceleration benefits obtained. I raced with a similar car with bigger engine and it was a draw!

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:36 pm

artessa wrote:By now I am convinced that Tony is as sure anyone can be that there is no possible way that there could be any effect worth considering with the MPG. Well that is fine. I have realized that to protect his status as a respected writer/web page administrator he can not permit himself of being wrong

No, not at all. If any one of the thousands of "fuel saving" products on the market really does prove to be effective, I will be quite happy about that, and promote it on my site. It wouldn't, in any case, alter the accuracy of my comments about other products. :)

artessa wrote:He is absolutely right when arguing against that test that there is no way that we can rest asure that there has not existed any moments where FFi could have tampered with that truck. Of course the same argument must be applied to all testing facilities because there is none that can actually provide proof of this eventuality. Hence leaving the only possible way of a possible approval/fail is Mr Tony himself.

Again, no. There are plenty of test houses I would trust to do the work - it is just a matter of ensuring that FFI don't have the chance to do any "fiddling". Also the EPA's guidelines add an extra safety precaution, in that the "baseline" economy and emissions for the vehicle must be close to the "official standard" for that vehicle - thus proving it has not been tampered with in order to give an especially bad baseline (and hence an especially good improvement).

artessa wrote:I am sure he must have access to these kinds of testing facilities so a trial from his privileged situation would not be so strange. I think he can take advantage of this situation and actually add prestige to his reputation as to the person that finely provided proof of the lack of effect from the pill.

Sure I have access. But it's not like using the office photocopier to make a few personal copies - these facilities cost hundreds of Euro an hour, and there is no way my boss would allow me tens of hours of free time on the test facility just for my personal satisfaction. Which brings me back to the question I always ask - why don't FFI pay for some proper testing?

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:16 am

Fuelsaving: - why don't FFI pay for some proper testing?


They have paid several of tousands of dollars for testing.
Intertek Caleb Brett is not for free, and TÜV certainly isn´t
either. And TÜV wanted to test a bit more due to the findings they did. Hopefully we get that report shortly. But I can´t say when, as I don´t know that.

And I guess the test in Australia costed a lot of dollars too.

In the meantime we just use and sell the product, as we know it works, even better than FFI have stated.

/TheBest

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:25 pm

TheBest wrote:They have paid several of tousands of dollars for testing. Intertek Caleb Brett is not for free

You need to spend tens of thousands for proper robust testing. Everything we've seen so far has fallen well short of the EPA's guidelines.

TheBest wrote:And TÜV wanted to test a bit more due to the findings they did. Hopefully we get that report shortly. But I can´t say when, as I don´t know that.

Funny, that's exactly what you said about the Millbrook test - six months ago. And since then, we've heard absolutely nothing. So why should we expect anything different with TÜV?

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:11 pm

Well, I reckon TÜV is going to be OK. But I don´t know why it takes so long.

I also have an other test, but it´s not on a Internetlink. But I´ll paste a short bit of it here, if you want the whole test I´ll need an e-mail adress to send it to.

Here are the short bit from the test:
October 2007
This test shows very good data and it is an EPA DT-80 test. I believe the test operator listened to our comments and actually calculated a fuel factor and proper fuel air ratio. The following is my analysis of the results shown.
1. The fuel savings averaged slightly over 17%
2. The emissions were reduced by about 50% . I believe the reduced amount of reduction in emissions is due to the nature of the test cycle where you are constantly accelerating or de-accelerating . During these times the transition emissions are naturally higher.
3. The PM-10 emissions which are very important were reduced by 80%.
4. Overall the results are very good and coming from a government facility that follows EPA procedures is excellent. I believe the facility is also ISO rated so the results should be accepted in the US and other countries.


Have a nice day

/TheBest

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6367
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:22 pm

TheBest wrote:Well, I reckon TÜV is going to be OK.


Ya don't say.

Perhaps we should review a little.

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.


Seven months now. Would that "someone" be you?

TheBest wrote: TUV started their test on the 4th of may and it goes on through the summer


And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

[Drumming fingers on desk.]

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

[Going for a snack.]

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

[Taking a nap.]

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

[Going on vacation.]

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

[Leaving the thread to my kids in my will.]

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

artessa

Postby artessa » Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:26 pm

This thread has lately been improving a lot, maybe because wserra has been keeping out omitting his unintelligent commentaries. Nothing constructive what so ever, just kicking down on the people of different opinion. Tony is more or less of the same opinion but at least he has the decency to argue for his opinion with logical arguments. Knowing his background and reputation it is also understandable that he has to adapt an extremely sceptic attitude towards everything involved with FFi. It would be interesting to know if Tony sometimes has been wrong in anything he has written. Probably not, and I suppose only he would know.
I know that there are lots of people that don’t want to believe in the efficiency of the pill and it does not matter what kind of documental proof you provide for them.
I believe that Tony is one f them because he has just made us believe so. It was quite interesting to know that a proper test regarding to the guidelines of EPA costs several 10´s of thousands of dollars. Therefore I doubt that any test will ever be performed by them, why should they? I mean would any approval by them regarding the efficiency help me in increasing sales volume? Probably not because my customers would not be able to understand anything of such a documentation and I believe a big part of the words customers are in the same situation. Sales are doing fine anyway. The only possible effect might be that a couple of “hard to convince- won’t try it myself anyway people “could actually dear to try it themselves, but to be convinced, not a chance because it could implicate a loss of face.

By now I have also understood that the method used in dynamometer testing widely differs from what I thought was practice. I understand that these test are absolutely impossible to simulate in real life driving, therefore Tony was so surprised when I argued that a particular car consumed less then the amount states in the manual and he had the explanation to this by the manufacturing year of this car.
It has also been extremely enlightening to learn that cars actually do present different saving at different traffic conditions. That is something that I have experienced since the first car I tried the pill on. I have always tried to get a proper explanation to this because
It has somehow puzzled me. We have in this thread been advised that it is unlikely that any information regarding a supposed test at the TUV will ever become published because of supposed unexpected (bad) results. Well I think that in the case of such an outcome it would eventually leak anyway so you can certainly rest assure that eventually anything will become public. In the event that results would be positive we must remember that it only will serve those that are convinced of the efficiency as we do not have any motive to suspect tampering. Those that are certain any positive results are extremely unlikely will of course need additional reassurance of legitimacy of the process and accreditation of the people involved. For a moment I assumed that a person
Like Tony would have some kind of a privileged access to any testing facility and that it might not be such a big cost for him to do a test. Well I think I was wrong in such an assumption and I must admit that this assumption comes from the fact that here in spain it is always possible for people of certain prestige to get favours done, even though it involves governmental facilities.

Nikki

Postby Nikki » Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:07 pm

The United States is experiencing ever-increasing costs for gasoline and ever-increasing demand for gasoline.

It is in the best interest of the country to improve the mileage of the vehicles on the road if for no other reason than to reduce reliance on imports from the Middle East.

The government is subsidizing bio-deisel and bio-ethanol.

The government is funding a great deal of research into means of producing more fuel-efficient automobiles, even to the point of giving tax credits for hybrid vehicles.

If your product were capable of producing a guaranteed 1% improvement in gas mileage, it would represent a nation-wide savings of hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline per year.

Given all of the above, why hasn't the government issued a strong statement of support for this product?

The answer is simple: It doesn't work.

The stupid mothballs have not been shown to produce a measurable improvement in fuel consumption in a single, controlled, repeatable test.

They are bogus, useless, and a waste of consumers' money. All the "evidence" you have provide to the contrary has been apocryphal, testimonial, or irrelevant.

There has not been one, single, controlled, independent, repeatable test that showed any measurable improvement in fuel consumption.

The mothballs have proven to be just as effective, with respect to gas mileage, as a Papal blessing of the engine.

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:20 pm

Nikki wrote:The United States is experiencing ever-increasing costs for gasoline and ever-increasing demand for gasoline.

It is in the best interest of the country to improve the mileage of the vehicles on the road if for no other reason than to reduce reliance on imports from the Middle East.

The government is subsidizing bio-deisel and bio-ethanol.

The government is funding a great deal of research into means of producing more fuel-efficient automobiles, even to the point of giving tax credits for hybrid vehicles.

If your product were capable of producing a guaranteed 1% improvement in gas mileage, it would represent a nation-wide savings of hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline per year.

Given all of the above, why hasn't the government issued a strong statement of support for this product?

The answer is simple: It doesn't work.

The stupid mothballs have not been shown to produce a measurable improvement in fuel consumption in a single, controlled, repeatable test.

They are bogus, useless, and a waste of consumers' money. All the "evidence" you have provide to the contrary has been apocryphal, testimonial, or irrelevant.

There has not been one, single, controlled, independent, repeatable test that showed any measurable improvement in fuel consumption.

The mothballs have proven to be just as effective, with respect to gas mileage, as a Papal blessing of the engine.


Well Nikki. I have never seen a liquid mothball. But I agree with you, mothballs does nothing to improve gas mileage.

But for your information, thats not the issue here.

/TheBest

Nikki

Postby Nikki » Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:54 pm

Mothballs, pills, powder, liquid --- it doesn't matter.

If the product you're hawking had any merit at all, even a proven 1% improvement in fuel economy, the United States Department of Energy would be 100% behind it.

The fact that DoE isn't even recognizing the existence of your amazing mileage booster means that it has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

It's just another MLM, sell by baseless testimonial product which has the sole value of enriching the manufacturer.

To date, you haven't proven anything otherwise.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests