What´s up with 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

What´s up with FFI

Postby artessa » Wed Mar 14, 2007 10:46 pm

Well, for the one with technical interest there is an extensive dynamo test available.

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

Of course you can allways claime that it is a fake.

Check them out anyway.

http://www.dvengines.com/facilities.html

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6356
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:58 pm

Several points:

(1) These supposed tests were conducted by "Veseleniuck Engine Development" of Denver, NC. Their website gives their version of their expertise:
You are not in the race just for the fun of it; you are there to win. Vaseleniuck Engine Development has a proven record in this field. With over 40 years experience in the racing industry and a successful history of winning championships, we are ready to assist your team's engine needs.
So they build and modify engines for racing. Cool. But NASCAR vehicles average about 5 MPG - on 110 octane, leaded gas. While I am sure it is a consideration - fewer pit stops, if nothing else - fuel efficiency doesn't seem to be the overriding concern in building racing engines. What is it that gives a shop which does that any expertise in testing fuel efficiency? What protocols did they use? Did they comply with the EPA standards?

BTW, FFI might inform its favorite "testing facility" that its credibility is not enhanced by the misspelling "Developement" on its letterhead.

(2) Apparently they tested only two engines, and even those two were hardly representative samples of modern engines. The Ford 302 Windsor is a V8 design first introduced in 1962. The majority of 302 engines were carburated, although the last several years of production (which ended in 2000) contained modern (electronic sequential) fuel injection. So was the Windsor 302 FFI tested carburated or injected? How old was it? How many miles did it have on it? If they say, it's buried somewhere. Maybe you could point it out. In any event, however, the test (if performed at all) was performed on an engine whose basic design is 45 years old. Is that what you drive?

The other engine they used was a Kubota V-2203 diesel. Is your car a diesel? In any event, this engine appears to be a generator/light industrial engine, not a car engine. What happened, you guys had one lying around?

So - even if the data are real - the tests were done on only two engines, an antiquated (and perhaps carburated) car engine and a diesel generator. Meaningful, right?

(3) Whatever happened to FFI's antimatter car cleaner? Did everybody using it blow themselves up?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:09 pm

wserra wrote:

So - even if the data are real - the tests were done on only two engines, an antiquated (and perhaps carburated) car engine and a diesel generator. Meaningful, right?

(3) Whatever happened to FFI's antimatter car cleaner? Did everybody using it blow themselves up?


I think it's just another "test" to convince the naive pyramidiots that sell the shit. This two engines are not actual modern car engines. The Kubota isn't a car engine at all. And I didn't see any reference to any test procedure like EPA or other. I won't get surprised if Tony turns the thumb down on this “test” also.

And what concerns the antimatter car cleaner, it got positively longer... :lol:

artessa

Postby artessa » Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:49 pm

It pleases me very much that there are people that actually take themselves the time to read the above mentioned documents. It is not done in a few seconds. The conclusion about the test carried out with old engines is quite right. It would have been better with newer engines, especially the gasoline one. The difference in effectiveness in newer and older gasoline engines is important. But on the other hand few people are qualified to absorb this information and as a manufacture I would myself also chose to use data that gives the best credit to my product. This aspect is worthy of critics but the issue must be focused on the fact that the method gives a certain amount of result. Then it is up to each user to judge if the cost of obtaining this certain effect is worth the money he has to spend to obtain it.
Of course you can always claim that these tests actually never have been carried out but then, would it not have better to show fake test data from newer engines? I mean if your intentions are to provide false information why not doing so as good as possible. Most people that take the time to scrutinize these data will come to same conclusion and those that really believe that the test has been carried out will eventually have a proof that it works in certain cases.

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

I suppose that data coming from such a testing must, at least, been taken seriously.

Ottawa Testing � Opinion Letter
The Competition Bureau will not provide an opinion letter unless they formally review the performance and efficiency claim of Fuel Freedom International's product. Our product is to be tested in Ottawa in regards to emission reduction and mileage claims.


Though it would not surprise me if there are negative opinions over this as well as everything else said about this.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6356
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:28 pm

artessa wrote:as a manufacture I would myself also chose to use data that gives the best credit to my product.


As opposed to using data from engines people actually drive, you would use data from an engine first produced in 1962 and another one used to power a diesel generator, then hope nobody would notice the sleight of hand.

You're a perfect fit for an MLM.

The Canadian Competition Bureau is about to carry out official testing before approving this business


If that's true, a search of their web site for "Fuel Freedom" doesn't show it. How do you know?

Here's what they do say about alleged fuel saving nostrums: "The Competition Bureau is currently unaware of any credible scientific evidence that could demonstrate that such products can significantly improve fuel efficiency." But what do they know, right?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:48 pm

PonziKiller wrote:I won't get surprised if Tony turns the thumb down on this “test” also.

Consider my thumb turned down :)

The petrol test is done at a single load and speed condition, and without any A-B-A testing to show if it's an effect of FFI not anything else. The engine is most definitely not equipped with modern fuel injection equipment; the giveaway is the air/fuel ratio (AFR), which should be exactly 14.5:1 (stoichiometric) but instead is around 16:1

Even more interesting is what happens when the MPG-Caps are added (Page 29); as the fuel flow drops, so the AFR goes zooming off to 25:1. That's astonishingly lean and very, very few engines will run at all under this condition - from which I conclude that the data is probably rubbish. If it is real, then maybe the test guys adjusted the carburettor (in which case it's cheating) or this is the natural consequence of adding the MPG-Cap (in which case most cars would show severe misfiring). Running cars lean is in any case strictly banned because you get very high NOx emissions (the cat can't clean them up) so if the MPG-Cap does work this way then it is illegal.

Yeah, great test report guys 8)

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6356
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:34 pm

I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

Thanks, Tony.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

michaelwebsterlaw

Canadian Competition Bureau

Postby michaelwebsterlaw » Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:00 pm

What would shock me is if the Competition Bureau treated FFI any differently than these two bogus claims.

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/inte ... =2025&lg=e
or

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/inte ... =2016&lg=e

TheBest

Re: Canadian Competition Bureau

Postby TheBest » Fri Mar 23, 2007 9:05 pm

michaelwebsterlaw wrote:What would shock me is if the Competition Bureau treated FFI any differently than these two bogus claims.

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/inte ... =2025&lg=e
or

http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/inte ... =2016&lg=e


Get used to it, FFI are here to stay, for a VERY long time.
By the way, what´s the criteria to get a 10 min. show on "World Business Review"?

/I´m The Best

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6356
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Canadian Competition Bureau

Postby wserra » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:45 pm

TheBest wrote:By the way, what´s the criteria to get a 10 min. show on "World Business Review"?


Pay them. The featured companies pay for the "privilege". See http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/1997/05/jeffery.html.

On their own web site, they admit they're just a glorified infomercial:
World Business Review is independently produced by Multi-Media Productions USA, Inc. and is distributed worldwide on CNBC as paid programming and on Bravo as paid programming.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:57 pm

Q:
This question is regarding the dynamometer test available for download. It seems to me that the petrol test is done at a single load and speed condition and without any A-B-A testing to show if it's an effect of MPG-CAPSTM, not anything else. The engine is most definitely not equipped with modern fuel injection equipment; the giveaway is the air/fuel ratio (AFR), which should be exactly 14.5:1 (stoichiometric) but instead is around 16:1. Even more interesting is what happens when the MPG-CAPSTM are added (Page 29); as the fuel flow drops, so the AFR goes zooming off to 25:1. That's astonishingly lean and very few engines will run at all under this condition. From this I conclude that there is a risk of having concluded a bad test. Then the test guys might have adjusted the carburetor (in which case it's cheating), or is this a natural consequence of adding the MPG-CAPS? Running cars too lean is, in any case, strictly banned because you get very high NOx emissions. Would you please comment on my thoughts?

A: I believe you are talking about a fully computer controlled system with oxygen sensors at each cylinder. I agree that stoichiometric combustion requires a 14.5 to 1 ratio on the standard mean fuel, however, that ratio is hardly ever maintained consistently with varying fuels and other circumstances. Before 1990 engines ran with ratios of greater than 35 to 1 or over 200 percent excess air. Excess air cools the combustion and will in most cases reduce NOx. When the CAP is first inserted it begins to dissolve and burn the existing carbon off. The carbon burn from this process will tend to attenuate the oxygen reading and cause the air fuel mixture to increase. It is really evidence that the product is working.

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:35 pm

TheBest wrote: Excess air cools the combustion and will in most cases reduce NOx. When the CAP is first inserted it begins to dissolve and burn the existing carbon off. The carbon burn from this process will tend to attenuate the oxygen reading and cause the air fuel mixture to increase. It is really evidence that the product is working.


I hope you can give us a link to a third party that confirm your fantasy. :lol: :lol: :lol:

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:49 pm

Oh yeah, be sure. You will get the link when the test in England is ready.
And I would like to see what you say about the testlab. in England.

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:03 pm

TheBest wrote:Oh yeah, be sure. You will get the link when the test in England is ready.
And I would like to see what you say about the testlab. in England.


The European "test" came out early february, the FFI-pushers said...in january... :roll: How long time do they need to manipulate this "test"? :?

And some of the FFI-pushers even stated today, that Tony had to go back to school again, to learn his proffession.. LMAO! :lol: :lol: :lol:


What whooping revolusionary technical patent are they refering to this time? :shock:

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:13 pm

TheBest wrote:I believe you are talking about a fully computer controlled system with oxygen sensors.

Yes - ie, what 99% of all cars on the road have, and what you must demonstrate an improvement on if the MPG-Cap is to be of general use.

TheBest wrote:I agree that stoichiometric combustion requires a 14.5 to 1 ratio on the standard mean fuel, however, that ratio is hardly ever maintained consistently with varying fuels and other circumstances.

Even between regular and premium fuel the difference is only about 0.5 AFRs (so 16:1 is well outside the possible range, proving that the test engine is not a computer-controlled system with oxygen sensors.)

TheBest wrote:Before 1990 engines ran with ratios of greater than 35 to 1 or over 200 percent excess air.

Total nonsense, for any gasoline engine. Most engines in the days before emission controls might run at 18:1 for good economy. Super-sophisticated engines like Honda's VTEC-e could manage 25:1. But 35:1 for a conventional gasoline engine? Not a chance; you just wouldn't be able to light the mixture.

TheBest wrote:Excess air cools the combustion and will in most cases reduce NOx.

Yes, which is one of the reasons lean-burn engines were devised. But the amount of reduction is nothing like enough to meet modern emissions standards, which is why we use a 3-way catalytic converter running at 14.5:1 instead.

TheBest wrote:When the CAP is first inserted it begins to dissolve and burn the existing carbon off. The carbon burn from this process will tend to attenuate the oxygen reading and cause the air fuel mixture to increase.

Oh, come off it! The test engine appears to run for several hours at this condition, getting through many tens of kilograms of gasoline (which is mostly carbon). Are you really suggesting that the few grams of carbon burned off the combustion chamber can make a factor-of-two difference to AFR reading?

TheBest wrote:It is really evidence that the product is working.

Is there anything you would not class as evidence the product is working? :)


It's a strange thing: FFI have said several times that the EPA-type mileage and economy test, which involves driving a car at varying loads and speeds on a dynamometer, is inappropriate for testing the MPG-Cap as it "does not represent real driving". Yet apparently running an engine at a constant speed and load is appropriate! Go figure...

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:14 pm

PonziKiller wrote:And some of the FFI-pushers even stated today, that Tony had to go back to school again, to learn his proffession..

Can you give me a link? Sounds like I need to go and argue with them... :)

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:46 pm

The European "test" came out early february, the FFI-pushers said...in january... :roll: How long time do they need to manipulate this "test"? :?


Then someone have lied to you. 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.[/quote]

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sun Mar 25, 2007 8:55 pm

A Q. for you, Tony?

When and for how long have you tested these pills?
Or are you just saying that they don´t work?

artessa

Postby artessa » Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:07 pm

It seems that I finally have successes in creating an interesting situation.

Well, Tony is just saying it does not work.

Wserra has actually admitted that the pill just might do what it does, though only on older machines, but still, it is a victory for me. From having been 100% sure that it is impossible to admitting some effect on some machines.

That the Canadian Competition bureau is about to test the pill is also a victory as they have said that to there knowledge it does not exist anything that reduces mileage or emissions. Something must have made them interested in performing a test. And how do I know? Well, that will be my secret, at least for time being.

There is no doubt about the fact that Tonys knowledge is of great value to this debate. It seems that he has actually become interested in the debate as well. Unfortunately he is far too self- confident to actually believe in something he hasn’t tried out himself or that he can fully understand easily. The very best that could happen is that he dared to try it out himself but that on other hand would be a loss of prestige having taken such a fail proof position from the beginning of this debate. I bet you he is just about to feel a little bit uncomfortable about this situation. On the other hand there is information in this thread that backs him up. Claiming that engines before the 90th could have operated with such a lean fuel mix as suggested is not helping our issue because the mixture would not have been within explosive limits in a petrol engine. Some misunderstanding or bad writing must be the origin of such a claim. Taking advantage of the fact that Tony has become a participant of this debate we could ask him how, just in the case he would do it, would perform an engine performance test regarding the use of the pill. No one could be more useful then him having made a test according to his criteria. It would be extremely interesting. But then, once again could it be considered as a loss of face to actually accept to try it out?

As Tony never have taken part of the recommended procedure fore the use of the pill he doesn’t know that fore the initiating procedure it is not enough with 10 or 20 kilograms of fuel so his argument for that fact is not valid. If I would have had the possibility to post a photo of a sparkplug that has become incredibly clean after the use I would be glad to do so but surely it would be accused to be a fake.

It also struggle me where you have read that the test procedure with changing load conditions as impropriate? Comparing reading from cars that drive urban or highway driving give both positive results although not in the same way. Some cars respond better to one or the other condition, Why I don’t understand.

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sun Mar 25, 2007 10:54 pm

I don´t actually care what Tony says, at least not untill I know if he has tested the pill or not.

And it doesn´t matter what year the car are from. I have customers with cars from the 80´s, 90´s and 2000. And it´s no difference, they all save on their fuel consumption, but the best is the reduction of emmissions, they are huge.
The same goes for (snow)scooters, MC, ATV, tractors, trucks, busses, just as long as it is a combustion engine who runs on fuel(gasoline), diesel, bi-fuel or ethanol.
And it also works on boats that uses gasoline or diesel.

And I also knows that does who says it don´t work are going to eat their words, within a short time.

/TheBest


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