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

Postby artessa » Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:16 pm

Jet airplanes?

Where have you heard that. :?:

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:54 pm

PonziKiller wrote:
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:


PK, stop this bullshit talking. The product works no matter what you say.
But we don´t use it in airplanes. And no one ever said that, it´s in your imagination.

/The Best

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:38 pm

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.

Well, that was over a week ago. And surprise surprise, nothing has appeared.

"The product works no matter what you say" - well, maybe if you could actually produce some test data to prove it we would take this claim more seriously!

artessa

Postby artessa » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:12 pm

I,m supprised Tony.
You have made it quite clear that the only valid test data that would possibly satisfie you must come from EPA.

Why don´t you do any preliminary tests yourself, just to se if there is an indication that it could have any effect. I think you are quite capable to just get the feeling if it actually could have an effect. Run a smoke test for example.

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:10 pm

fuelsaving wrote:
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.

Well, that was over a week ago. And surprise surprise, nothing has appeared.

"The product works no matter what you say" - well, maybe if you could actually produce some test data to prove it we would take this claim more seriously!


Hi Tony. The test is ready, it is just the writing left.
We all hoped to get it before eastern but I don´t know when it comes.
But take it easy, you´ll get it when it comes.

By the way, why don´t you do a test on your own??

/TheBest

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:16 pm

artessa wrote:I,m supprised Tony.
You have made it quite clear that the only valid test data that would possibly satisfie you must come from EPA.

Why don´t you do any preliminary tests yourself, just to se if there is an indication that it could have any effect. I think you are quite capable to just get the feeling if it actually could have an effect. Run a smoke test for example.


I guess he don´t dear to do the test himself. What should he say when he acctually sees that it works?

About the smog test, I had my car on the yearly controll 13 of march, tested 0,0 for CO and 0,0 for HC. A Volvo 745 GL with a B230F engine.
The controller asked me what I´ve done with my car and I told him as it is.
He bought some pills to test directly to test on his own car.

/TheBest

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:02 pm

You guys really don't listen, do you? :D

As I have said literally hundreds of times before, any kind of test that I personally could do would be meaningless because of the natural variation in economy and emissions measurements. I might just as well toss a coin and say "heads FFI works, tails it doesn't". See http://www.fuelsaving.info/testimonial.htm, if you haven't already.

By the way, I never actually said that I would only accept data from the EPA. I just said that testing according to their guidelines, or something very similar, would be required.

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:34 pm

fuelsaving wrote:You guys really don't listen, do you? :D

As I have said literally hundreds of times before, any kind of test that I personally could do would be meaningless because of the natural variation in economy and emissions measurements. I might just as well toss a coin and say "heads FFI works, tails it doesn't". See http://www.fuelsaving.info/testimonial.htm, if you haven't already.

By the way, I never actually said that I would only accept data from the EPA. I just said that testing according to their guidelines, or something very similar, would be required.


Hmm, OK.

Well, I guess Millbrook and TÜV know what they do, so thats OK.
And with all the rapports about people the have their yearly tests of their cars and comes back with their emmison messure figures almost down to 0, that tells what this product do for it self.

And to test the product on cars are not actually so difficult as you say.

Test for emmissions before you start the test.
Measure an average of 10 full tanks and see how far you get, to establish a baseline, then run 1 tank without measuring it, with 1 pill, then drive 10 tanks, with pills, and see how far you get. Then you get a new average, and also a much lower emmissionresult. Easy??

I guess everyone drives in many different wheaters during a period of 10 tanks, twice. So this result should be as fair as it can get.

I´m sorry if my english isn´t the best, but I guess you understand what I mean.

Have a nice eastern.

/TheBest

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6363
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:46 am

TheBest wrote:I´m sorry if my english isn´t the best, but I guess you understand what I mean.


Quite all right. My Swedish is non-existent, so I can hardly complain.

You really need to learn the meaning of a particular word, though. In English, the word is "uncontrolled". An online English-Swedish dictionary translates it as "obehärskad", but since the word has more than one meaning in English I don't know if this translation is accurate for my meaning. In this context, it means that you cannot simply go out and drive around, even in all kinds of weather, and believe that such driving will yield results meaningful for measuring fuel efficiency, even if you do it for years. There are just too many variables. Why do you think that the EPA has such exact requirements for efficiency/emissions testing if just driving around will yield accurate results?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:30 pm

wserra wrote:
TheBest wrote:I´m sorry if my english isn´t the best, but I guess you understand what I mean.


Quite all right. My Swedish is non-existent, so I can hardly complain.

You really need to learn the meaning of a particular word, though. In English, the word is "uncontrolled". An online English-Swedish dictionary translates it as "obehärskad", but since the word has more than one meaning in English I don't know if this translation is accurate for my meaning. In this context, it means that you cannot simply go out and drive around, even in all kinds of weather, and believe that such driving will yield results meaningful for measuring fuel efficiency, even if you do it for years. There are just too many variables. Why do you think that the EPA has such exact requirements for efficiency/emissions testing if just driving around will yield accurate results?


The word "uncontrolled" that in swedish means "obehärskad" is when you can´t controll your self, i.e you get angry and so on.
Uncontrolled also can be translated into "okontrollerad" and "okontrollerbar", i.e "not controlled" and "not possible to control".

Back to the issue.
If you drive 100 km every day, from home to work and back, u use 10 liters of fuel, and you do this for a year. That equals 1 liter per 10 km. This goes on for 1 year.
Then you start using the pills, you drive the same distanse, the same way, and you use 8.5 liters on these 100 km. That equals .85 liters per 10 km. And you get this result meassured over 1 year.
Lets say you work 5 days a week, and you have 5 weeks off per year. Thats 47 weeks times 5 days=235 days times 10 liters=2350 liters the first year.
The next year you do the same, but with pills in the tank.
Then you get 235 days times 8.5 liters = 1997.5 liters.
You have saved 352.5 liters.
In Sweden the price per liter is 11.55 SEK = 1.65 US$
That gets a saving of 4071 SEK = 598 US$
Cost for pills:33 X 1.7$=56.1 $
Then you also have saved some money. And you have saved the environment for harmful emmissions, from year 1 to year 2 with up to 95 %.

For normal people this speaks for it self.
Thats why MANY truckdrivers have started using these pills, mostly for the saved money, but also for the reduction in emmisions.

In Sweden a truckdriver saves approx. 150 000 SEK = 21489 US$.per year per truck.
And he don´t give a dam about tests, he sees it in his wallet.

Have a nice day.

/TheBest

artessa

Postby artessa » Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:52 pm

wserra wrote: Why do you think that the EPA has such exact requirements for efficiency/emissions testing if just driving around will yield accurate results?


Because they have such high demands on the accuracy of the outcome.


I can accept a 5% error margin, as long as it indicates whether it is effective or not.
Then if I can pass the smog test after having been rejected it also serves the purpose.

It is of vital importance to understand that we live in different worlds and some of us MUST have a 100% verifiable accuracy on test data and some of us can settle with less. Some of us uses always the best money can buy and some of us can settle with less.
Some of us dare to try new things and others must have 100% waterproof back up guarantee to try something new, hence they will newer try something new because when all there criteria’s are fulfilled it won’t be new anymore

artessa

Postby artessa » Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:59 pm

I better correct myself before wserra does it.

When I say 5% error margin I mean that I can tolerate if my total fuelsaving would be 10% I can accept 5% and 15% as acceptable figures. I realise that the way I wrote it is highly likable to be misunderstood.
I´m sorry.

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Mon Apr 09, 2007 11:33 am

Wes has basically summed up my concerns about this type of testing. I keep accurate logs of my fuel economy and I get big changes on both a short-term and long-term basis. Even averaging over 10 tanks there are times when my economy changes by 10% or more. If you average over a whole year then all kinds of other factors such as the weather (especially hot/cold winters, etc) and your car running-in become important. And with any kind of on-road testing there is always the placebo effect problem - you know you're testing with the MPG-Cap, so you unconsciously alter your driving style because you want it to work.

artessa wrote:When I say 5% error margin I mean that I can tolerate if my total fuelsaving would be 10% I can accept 5% and 15% as acceptable figures.

The trouble is, how do you know your error margin is only 5%? What if it is really 10%, or even 15%? Then the test is worse than useless, because the error is bigger than the thing you are measuring.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6363
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Mon Apr 09, 2007 1:13 pm

artessa wrote:
wserra wrote: Why do you think that the EPA has such exact requirements for efficiency/emissions testing if just driving around will yield accurate results?


Because they have such high demands on the accuracy of the outcome.


I realize that you're not from the U.S. However, for those of us that are, the idea that the Shrub Administration's EPA has "such high demands on accuracy" borders on the comical.

Massachusetts v. EPA, decided just a few days ago, is only the most recent of a long string of examples of how the Bush EPA must be prodded to do its job. In essence, the EPA had contended that it could not regulate CO2 emissions because they were not covered by the Clean Air Act, and that essentially nobody except Congress (by changing the law) had standing to challenge that decision. The Supreme Court shot them down on both.

Bush's regulatory agencies amount to the foxes guarding the henhouses. The political appointees regularly reverse the recommendations of their own staffs and scientists. I know several lawyers in both the EPA and in the Environmental and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) of the Department of Justice. They are thoroughly demoralized. Those who have tried to leave report that jobs in environmental law in the private sector are extremely hard to come by, mainly since there is little need to litigate against the EPA since it so frequently rolls over to industries.

Too late not to get me started. But the idea that the EPA of the last seven years holds industries' feet to the fire by strict standards is a joke. Today's EPA standards are the minimum the politicians can get away with.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

artessa

Postby artessa » Mon Apr 09, 2007 9:32 pm

Well, how do I know that my error margin is 5%?
Summing up fluctuation margins plus a little more!
Of course I don’t know, but this serves as an indicator. I can just assume with a statistical error margin of a certain degree, and I think 5% I still high.
If I first establish different baseline fore different driving conditions these independent baseline consists of a certain number of measurements. The more readings the more precise and lower statistical error margin. Then I do new readings with the product. Once again the same procedure. Same driving conditions same everything but different readings(climat here is quite the same). Of course they are not all the same. There is a slight variation. Not very big but actually rather small. The highway driving is of such tolerance that I can se a variation regarding the wind condition. The highway driving has been made the same route all the time and those days were I have had head wind I can see that in my readings. Ok , so let´s take the worth case scenario as correct figures. The correct figures should have been a mean value of all this reading, right?
If I do that I get nice figures but as they could be claimed to be favoured by something I choose to use the second worth reading in each case. That is that I chose the second lowest consumption reading before using the pill and then I use the second highest reading after having used the pill. It is not just by incidence that those readings both occurred with head and tail wind, but never mind.
In this case I have a certain fuel saving witch in no case could be considered as placebo.
The degree of fuel saving is maybe not that interesting to specify, because it is not that scientific. But if I assume that there is an error in the magnitude of 5 percent units (to low reading in the before situation and to high in the after situation, summing them up plus a little more) it will at least give me a positive effect, it won’t in any case be negative and if I use the error margin on the positive side, like I would have measured a consumption to high in the before situation and to low in the after situation I would get terrific figures. It would be interesting to have a statistical analysis of the probability of complete error in this case. I would like to add that the driving habits have always been of eco-driving characteristic, in both cases. It has actually been impossible to drive any more economical in both cases. I assume that there is a possibility but on the other hand there is also a possibility that a asteroid will hit me tomorrow.

I would also like to quote Jerry Lang talking about this issue.

(Quote)

Additionally, we are in the process of getting a proper test protocol approved by some regulatory agencies to get regulatory approval. This is difficult and time consuming because it does not fit the normal known methods. (end Quote)

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:23 am

artessa wrote:I would also like to quote Jerry Lang talking about this issue.

(Quote)

Additionally, we are in the process of getting a proper test protocol approved by some regulatory agencies to get regulatory approval. This is difficult and time consuming because it does not fit the normal known methods. (end Quote)


Jerry Lang is pushing FFI scam-pills. Of that simple reason, he is not trustworthy in this issue.

Bye the way, I don't think FFI's way of "testing" follow any "known methodes". :wink:

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:02 am

PonziKiller wrote:
artessa wrote:I would also like to quote Jerry Lang talking about this issue.

(Quote)

Additionally, we are in the process of getting a proper test protocol approved by some regulatory agencies to get regulatory approval. This is difficult and time consuming because it does not fit the normal known methods. (end Quote)


Jerry Lang is pushing FFI scam-pills. Of that simple reason, he is not trustworthy in this issue.

Bye the way, I don't think FFI's way of "testing" follow any "known methodes". :wink:


Firstly, Jerry Lang is not selling these pills.

Secondly, I don´t think you have the knowledge to talk about testmethodes, so please s.u.

/TheBest

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:51 am

TheBest wrote:
PonziKiller wrote:
artessa wrote:
Firstly, Jerry Lang is not selling these pills.

Secondly, I don´t think you have the knowledge to talk about testmethodes, so please s.u.

/TheBest

O yes he does push this scam pills. And second, I do know enough to know that no "test" that FFI have done until this day, apply to any known standard that EPA support. :lol:

What about the anti matter vax? What about the positive charged micron vax? What about the claims for the nomination for a Nobel price? Is it the anti matter( positive charged electrons) that leads FFI's "sientistic" staff to a such nomination? :shock:

Btw- thank you for your politeness. :lol:

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:00 pm

artessa wrote:Well, how do I know that my error margin is 5%?
Summing up fluctuation margins plus a little more!

You seem sincere, but I suspect you don't have a baseline established over a long enough period to really know the level of variation. With my car I sometimes see 10 tank fills at amost identical economy, then a sudden 5 - 10% change for no obvious reason. And I definitely see a difference between summer and winter.

artessa wrote:Quote from Jerry Lang:

Additionally, we are in the process of getting a proper test protocol approved by some regulatory agencies to get regulatory approval. This is difficult and time consuming because it does not fit the normal known methods.

Well, that's just nonsense. The EPA's Aftermarket Device Evaluation program is perfectly suited to testing the MPG-Cap.

artessa

Postby artessa » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:42 pm

It is hard to define what suitable length of time creating a baseline is. In my case the before baseline was created under 5 month or a total of 8000 kilometres.
The biggest variable under this time was actually wind related circumstances and as I have all readings specified regarding temperature and wind direction for the high way driving I can actually make 2 different baselines for the highway driving. One with headwind and another with tailwind. It actually happens to be that almost all the highway driving I do is on the same route and the elevation is almost non existing or in any case less then 50 meters. This route on the other hand is one that suffers 2 different wind conditions. Either from east to west or reverse and the trajectory is also the same so actually the wind is one of three possible factors. None, head or tail. Now the none condition is rather unusual but it is also represented. So what can I see from this? Well that wind factor is of vital importance even to a small car. My baseline fluctuates exactly with the wind but the 10 degree temperature variation is not possible to detect in the baseline. That can’t either be detected in urban traffic even though it sure exist but in urban traffic that factor becomes of secondary importance. As you see I have only choose to use one baseline And as I said before temperature variations of 10 degrees don’t make any variation, not measurable within my conditions anyway. So I make the conclusion that this time frame for the baseline establishment has been of a sufficient time. What I actually do regret is that I just made one smoke test before using the pill, I do understand now that I should have done that at least 3 or 4 times. I have still lot of more driving to do to full fill the same amount of driving done to create the first baseline but the new lines have not shoved any bigger fluctuation then before witch would indicate that my driving habits at least are very much the same. As Tony mention his consumption could rise 10% without any OBVIOUS REASON. I think there is no such case and that there is an explanation to everything. I do not know if you remember that I told you that I had a 10 % increase during 1 weak and I was quite upset over that but I analyzed the situation to se if I had done something that I usually do not do. I had not been doing anything but the local authorities had done a lot. They allocated speed bumps all over the neighbourhood to prevent bikers from speeding during the festival week and that was the REASON for that sudden fluctuation.


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