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

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:54 am

TheBest wrote:
fuelsaving wrote:
TheBest wrote:I don´t know how the test is done, but I know that the car is from 2004. 1.8 l engine, gasoline.

Ah, I missed that point. I can therefore say right away that the Millbrook tests will not be conclusive, since the EPA standard demands that three cars must be tested...


I don´t know how many cars they are using, and I guess that doesn´t matter. As you know, many 100 000 customers are using the product, with great results, so if Millbrook are using 1, 3 or 10 cars, that doesn´t matter as we know that the product does what it should.

And where does EPA come in here? I thought EPA was for the US market, not Europe.

And now another european company is testing the product, in Germany/Austria.


The Best does not care if FFI have a test that follow common standard that everyone else use. Enough said about the moral standard The Best and MLM stands for... :wink:

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:18 pm

The Best does not care if FFI have a test that follow common standard that everyone else use. Enough said about the moral standard The Best and MLM stands for...


That wasn´t what I wrote. Read again.

/TheBest

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:45 pm

TheBest wrote:
The Best does not care if FFI have a test that follow common standard that everyone else use. Enough said about the moral standard The Best and MLM stands for...


That wasn´t what I wrote. Read again.

/TheBest

Yes, it was. The EPA guidelines are, as PonziKiller said, the standard for testing products that claim to improve economy. Other institutions (eg the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK) use very similar standards, probably based on the EPA's version. But you are apparently saying that
a) it's not relevant because we are talking about a European test (neglectiong the fact the FFI is an American company!), and
b) scientific tests can be ignored anyway, because uncontrolled testimonials are all that matter

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:15 pm

Well, I see that you didn´t understand me.
What I meant was this, if the test is done on 1, 3, 10 or even 100 cars, the result is the same.

Thats what I meant, nothing else.

michaelwebsterlaw

The Best's Understanding of Statistical Relevance

Postby michaelwebsterlaw » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:51 pm

I see, a test on 1, 3, 10, or 100 will all be the same.

Brilliant.

We have done away with regression.

Terrific

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:52 pm

TheBest wrote:...if the test is done on 1, 3, 10 or even 100 cars, the result is the same...

No, not true. The EPA does not specify 3 cars just for the fun of it! There is always some random fluctuation in the results, and some chance that a generally-useless product might give a good result on one very specific vehicle. 3 cars is enough to give a very high degree of certainty that the product really is of general benefit, without the ridiculously high cost of testing dozens of cars.

If you only test one car, even if you get a good result, it will prove nothing because there will always be the suspicion that this is just a "freak".

The EPA are probably the world's experts on fuel economy testing, and have developed their guidelines through literally decades of evaluating fuel "saving" products. If FFI choose to ignore these clear and well-publicised guidelines, they only have themselves to blame if skeptics criticise the test results.

artessa

Postby artessa » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:55 pm

I see that Tony chooses not to comment on my personal test procedures. As I get no negative opinions, witch I most certainly had expected I take for granted that He agrees with me. It is not a perfect test option but it is as far as I can get within my limitations.

I do agree with Tony about his arguments with standardized test procedures. They leave no margin for errors and the outcome is as close you can come to perfection. Let’s say it is 99.9% reliable. It would mean that in tests of this kind 1 out of a thousand would fail and in that case within a smaller margin.

Well, I can settle for less, lets assume that my test procedure is 90% accurate. That would mean that 1 car out of ten would be an error. But would it be an error to the negative side or the positive? The other 9 cars would have a reasonable amount of viability and the results would have a certain error. But once again within reasonable margins to detect if there is a measurable effect then what does it matter to the average user if the result is 7 or 10 %?

Talking about official agency’s test procedure is interesting and they should be more or less equal in their criteria’s. Now the Lithuanian governmental test institute is running an official test to see if they are willing to use the product in there vehicles. Quite interesting is it not? I would like to se how and with witch arguments Tony disqualifies them as (in) competent to run this kind of test.

The number of big ships(+20.000 BHP) that uses MPG is also increasing, They have very good equipment to actually measure what take place inside there engines and they are very please and they doesn’t care about official test procedure. These engineers only believe in what they can see and measure.

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:23 am

artessa wrote:The number of big ships(+20.000 BHP) that uses MPG is also increasing, They have very good equipment to actually measure what take place inside there engines and they are very please and they doesn’t care about official test procedure. These engineers only believe in what they can see and measure.


Wich shipping company and wich wessel use FFI's pills? :roll:

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6311
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:05 pm

artessa wrote:I see that Tony chooses not to comment on my personal test procedures.


Sure he did.

As I get no negative opinions, witch I most certainly had expected I take for granted that He agrees with me.


I somehow don't think your conclusion is warranted.

Well, I can settle for less, lets assume that my test procedure is 90% accurate.


Ninety percent? Why not assume ten percent?

The number of big ships(+20.000 BHP) that uses MPG is also increasing,


I know that my Toyota minivan is powered by 20K BHP marine diesels.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:05 pm

wserra wrote:
I know that my Toyota minivan is powered by 20K BHP marine diesels.

:D I just love your ironic comments Wserra.

I see that Artessa have a problem with my question. And he obvious have no knowledge of how a ships engine work. As a former sailor on “big ships”, iI can assure they all lie. How would they add the pills to the heavy oil, thick as mud? Don't they understand that the big marin engines also are made from factory for the certain fuel? The only possible additive they sometime use, is some stuff that loosen the “coal and tar” inside the cylinders in the old ones. It's a hell of a job to go between the cylinders in a three story high engine and scrape the "tar a like dirt" loose. The best way is still to do what the maintain plan said.

I where in contact with a representative from Rolls Royce Marine Division last evening, wich I visit from time to time. I don't want to translate his view on Artessa or The Best. Their believe in FFI as an additive to "big ships engines" gave him a BIG laugh... :lol:

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:37 pm

artessa wrote:I see that Tony chooses not to comment on my personal test procedures. As I get no negative opinions, witch I most certainly had expected I take for granted that He agrees with me.

Sorry, I do have other things to occupy me at the time - not least a 7 month old daughter! As Wserra commented above, I have stated many times that I just don't believe any kind of on-road test procedure is worthwhile. Unless you are looking for changes of 50%+, there is just too much variability, and this kind of testing is worse than useless because you get fooled into believing false things.

artessa wrote:Talking about official agency’s test procedure is interesting and they should be more or less equal in their criteria’s. Now the Lithuanian governmental test institute is running an official test to see if they are willing to use the product in there vehicles.

Err, no. The US EPA have a long experience with this kind of testing. I see no evidence that the Lithuanians have. Not all governments are equal in this respect.

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:47 pm

PonziKiller wrote:
wserra wrote:
I know that my Toyota minivan is powered by 20K BHP marine diesels.

:D I just love your ironic comments Wserra.

I see that Artessa have a problem with my question. And he obvious have no knowledge of how a ships engine work. As a former sailor on “big ships”, iI can assure they all lie. How would they add the pills to the heavy oil, thick as mud? Don't they understand that the big marin engines also are made from factory for the certain fuel? The only possible additive they sometime use, is some stuff that loosen the “coal and tar” inside the cylinders in the old ones. It's a hell of a job to go between the cylinders in a three story high engine and scrape the "tar a like dirt" loose. The best way is still to do what the maintain plan said.

I where in contact with a representative from Rolls Royce Marine Division last evening, wich I visit from time to time. I don't want to translate his view on Artessa or The Best. Their believe in FFI as an additive to "big ships engines" gave him a BIG laugh... :lol:


For your info, PK, FFIs MPG_Cap is NOT an additive. You better do your homework.

/TheBest

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Sat Mar 31, 2007 12:27 am

TheBest wrote:For your info, PK, FFIs MPG_Cap is NOT an additive. You better do your homework.

/TheBest


So, what is it then? :roll:

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6311
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:08 am

PonziKiller wrote:
TheBest wrote:For your info, PK, FFIs MPG_Cap is NOT an additive. You better do your homework.


So, what is it then? :roll:


Negatively-charged protons.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:20 am

TheBest wrote:For your info, PK, FFIs MPG_Cap is NOT an additive. You better do your homework.

Just because FFI claim it's not an additive, that does not mean it is not an additive!

From the Oxford English Dictionary: "additive: a thing added"

From the EPA: "Aftermarket fuel additive means a product which is added by the end-user directly to fuel in a motor vehicle or engine to modify the performance or other characteristics of the fuel, the engine, or its emissions."
(http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=7f62c5327b3136529e359ff7b2b901af&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:16.0.1.1.8.6.1.1&idno=40)

By both these definitions, clearly the MPG-Cap is an additive. Repeating a lie many times does not make it the truth!

artessa

Postby artessa » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:43 pm

I suppose there must be an legal implement to call it fuel additive but i can’t se the difference between a fuel conditioner and a fuel additive. Does it really makes any difference. We add something to the fuel that has very little impact on the fuel but makes a great job where the fuel takes it to react. I would like to call it engine conditioner but I don’t focus on what the correct title is, it’s better to focus on the outcome.

I shall try to enlighten the ponzi killers effort to inform us how it should be considered impossible to use MPG in marine engines and even more that it would be a lie that someone is doing it.

I do understand that ponzi killer has been working as a motorman or an apprentice aboard a ship long time ago. I say long time ago because it was long time ago that we had the privilege to have Norwegian crew(I suppose he is Norwegian as he made reference to a Norwegian internet forum), most ship has only a handful north European employees these days. This conclusion is made after his proud claim of having cleaned the scavenge air belt witch is really a dirty job. It is like he says involved with a series of problem using the MPG aboard ships. But it has got nothing to do with the high viscosity HFO (380centistoke or more) Of course we are not using the pills even though it would be possible, just drop them down in the sounding pipe into the day or maybe even the settling tank, wich would really not be suitable because of the high water content in its lower region. Of course we are using the boost but that doesn’t mean that it is not problematic. In ships where the main boilers does not use or use very little HFO it is very convenient dosing directly into the day tank.
Even though we have tried that and as a positive side effect we get a significant cleaner boiler on the gas side it does not motivate the cost of adding MPG for boiler use. Fore long see journeys where the M/E exhaust boiler has got sufficient power and the main boiler/s is not needed it is of no problem at all adding the product into the daytank. The temperature here is so high so the product disperses without any problem. But as I said before this is not the ideal solution because boilers in tank vessels can consume up to 50 ton of HFO/24 hours under certain conditions. If they would have had there separate tanks there would not have been any difficulty but that is not normally the case. So the next solution that is adapted witch is still not perfect is a dosage pump injecting the product somewhere after the M/E booster pumps and heaters. The problem here is that some of the fuel is lead in return and therefore the concentration of the active product is hard to control.
Regarding the A/E it is a little bit easier in the case that they operates with marine diesel because they have there separate tanks and on the other hand it is very easy to se the relationship between quantity of generated electric power and fuel consumed. As they also operates on a fixed rpm it is very interesting to observe the exhaust temperature on a given load condition. That is not the case with the M/E as the drag resistance on a ship hull is so widely different due to all circumstances the exact measurement becomes more complicated. Sometimes though you have very similar circumstances and then you can compare indicator diagrams taken before and after the use of MPG and of course also the exhaust temperatures. All these indicators are proof enough to the unscientific people aboard a ship that there is some benefit with the MPG but they sure aren’t of any use to most of the readers in this forum and they would have no value as proof for FFI wanting to proof there products.

Regarding the expert commentator from Rolls Royce Marine Division it would have been more surprising if he would not have laughed. I have not met anyone in this industry that hasn’t, though many has stopped laughing now. Maybe he is more involved in there traditional gas turbines and not so familiar with there latest acquisitions like Pielstick and Bergen. Anyway the Pielstick PC 2.6 witch I believe is there biggest medium speed marine engine is still to be considered as a pretty small one. The Bergen engines though are very good and fabulous as A/E

If you want to know the name of the ships that are testing the MPG now, you just have to be patient as it still is unofficial but you are free to believe that it just BS and just not occurring.

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sat Mar 31, 2007 11:14 pm

That was very good, artessa. I´d liked your explanation very much. It shows that you know what it´s all about. Very good.

I just want to comment on this:

I do understand that ponzi killer has been working as a motorman or an apprentice aboard a ship long time ago. I say long time ago because it was long time ago that we had the privilege to have Norwegian crew(I suppose he is Norwegian as he made reference to a Norwegian internet forum), most ship has only a handful north European employees these days.


The work that ponzikiller does is that he sells ticket to a carferry.
His goal is to show that all kind of MLM is scam. He is right about many of them, but this time he is wrong, VERY wrong. And he (and the rest) will see that in a short time.

/TheBest

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:27 am

artessa wrote:
If you want to know the name of the ships that are testing the MPG now, you just have to be patient as it still is unofficial but you are free to believe that it just BS and just not occurring.

If you are not able to name the ship and company, you still bogus us. I had a barbeque party this evening. The representive from Rolls Royce Marine Division is still laughing of your statement. :lol: :lol: :lol:

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Mon Apr 02, 2007 2:03 pm

I had a barbeque party this evening. The representive from Rolls Royce Marine Division is still laughing of your statement.


Maybe you didn´t tell the throuth about the product? Maybe you told your throuth, which is the wrong throuth.

I guess you didn´t tell about the benefits with this product, instead I guess, you started to tell that this is a scam??

/TheBest

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:00 pm

TheBest wrote:Maybe you didn´t tell the throuth about the product? Maybe you told your throuth, which is the wrong throuth.

I guess you didn´t tell about the benefits with this product, instead I guess, you started to tell that this is a scam??

/TheBest


:lol: :lol: :lol: Wrong truth? :lol: :lol: :lol:

If one pill that no oil company or car producer believe in, claim that it lower the emission and fuel consumption on, moon rockets, jet air planes, naval vessels, both gasoline and diesel engines in cars and big 20 000 horsepower heavy oil engines, it is of course a scam. :roll:


It doesn't help a bit when you try to make sense of this completely rubbish FFI and their pushers claim. :wink:


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