Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
September 22, 2014, 03:42:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Best jobs for the future based on current conditions?  (Read 10588 times)
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8999

Getbig!


« Reply #125 on: May 26, 2009, 05:44:01 AM »

Please stop.

Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #126 on: May 26, 2009, 05:46:31 AM »

Yet another worthless product I will definitely NOT be buying.

La mujer intenta su mejor para vender mierda aunque nadie la cree.
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #127 on: May 26, 2009, 05:48:36 AM »

La mujer intenta su mejor para vender mierda aunque nadie la cree.

Well, lets give her a chance to respond to my question:

1.  Has this product ever been tested and verified by an independant lab like Consumer Reports

 
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #128 on: May 26, 2009, 05:53:52 AM »



Even that ham looks better than her stuff. Undecided
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #129 on: May 26, 2009, 05:56:38 AM »

I found this: 

From this site, a review of her produc t: 

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ZyHLbF_fnYcJ:www.carbibles.com/productreviews_ffi.html+FFi+fuel+review&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _


FFI mpg caps magic fuel pill
Tested September 2006   

A work colleague of mine is a believer in the oil industry conspiracy theory, i.e. they keep anything from going to mass market that would dramatically save oil and give us, the consumers, better fuel economy in our vehicles. Since he was going to purchase a package of the magic FFI fuel pills, I volunteered to split the cost with him on the understanding that we could use his car as the guineau pig and that we could document the results for my site. I suspected I'd just wasted some lunch money but for the sake of adding more value to my site, I figured it was worth it.

My colleague's commuting car is a 1995 Volvo 850 Turbo, automatic with 257,000 miles on the clock. It has an on board average fuel consumption display in mpg that can be reset to zero to begin an averaging run. The engine was at operating temperature before each trial.
We first did a base line run between his house and our office - about 16 miles each way - with cruise control set to either 70mph or 75mph. The route has an HOV lane on the freeway so maintaining these speeds is easy for the sake of testing. The results are tabulated below.

mpg Distance in miles Cruise setting in mph
33.6 32 75
29.4 16 75
30.6 16 70
31.4 16 70
30.6 16 70
29.4 16 75
33.6 16 75
30.6 16 70
30.6 64 70
31.4 16 70
Running avg mpg = 31.12

Next we did the same sequence of drives, but with the FFI fuel pill in the tank.

mpg Distance in miles Cruise setting in mph
28.3 32 75
29.0 32 70
30.5 32 70
27.3 32 75
29.0 64 75
29.0 32 70
27.3 16 70
28.0 16 70
29.4 32 75
28.6 32 75
Running avg mpg = 28.64

If we group the results by speed, into 70mph and 75mph groupings, this is what it looks like.

For the pre pill 70mph speed the average is 30.86mpg
For the post pill 70mph speed the average is 28.76mpg
For the pre pill 75mph speed the average is 31.5mpg
For the post pill 75mph speed the average is 28.52mpg

Conclusion. On average, with the pill in the tank, we saw a drop in fuel economy by about 2mpg. There was no perceivable increase in acceleration or the ability to perform at-speed overtaking maneuvers. This pill is another scam. Don't bother with it.

The raging debate.

As well as a response from FFI (see below), my review has garnered comments from other people who've tried this product out. Out of the many emails I've had, this is one of the most interesting:

I just want to comment on the MPG Caps from Fuel Freedom International. I tested the caps for 5 months in 4 vehicles, 2 Camrys a 2002 & 2004, a Toyota Tundra 2005 truck & a 1973 VW Beetle. I saw a decrease in mpg in all vehicles and gave up after testing over 20,000 miles total. Some people claim that it works, but you cannot prove it by me. In addition, I gave out pills to others who found either no improvement or also lost mpg. I was a distributor for them but obviously I am no longer...I do not want to promote something that only works for a few.

Followup - calling their bluff?

A couple of weeks after posting my review, I was contacted by an FFI representative who didn't think I'd been fair by trying their product out in an older car. He suggested I re-performed the test at their expense in a newer vehicle. I offered up my (at the time) 2000 mile Honda Element and gave them an address to send the product to for testing. Thanks to a natty little 'count up' javascript, I can tell you that it's now been 986 days since then and I've yet to see anything. The original order for the product for the original test took only three days to get here. Have I called their bluff?

Back to product reviews

________________________ ________________________ _____________

Jag - your product is a joke. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #130 on: May 26, 2009, 05:58:11 AM »

I found this: 

From this site, a review of her produc t: 

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ZyHLbF_fnYcJ:www.carbibles.com/productreviews_ffi.html+FFi+fuel+review&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _


FFI mpg caps magic fuel pill
Tested September 2006   

A work colleague of mine is a believer in the oil industry conspiracy theory, i.e. they keep anything from going to mass market that would dramatically save oil and give us, the consumers, better fuel economy in our vehicles. Since he was going to purchase a package of the magic FFI fuel pills, I volunteered to split the cost with him on the understanding that we could use his car as the guineau pig and that we could document the results for my site. I suspected I'd just wasted some lunch money but for the sake of adding more value to my site, I figured it was worth it.

My colleague's commuting car is a 1995 Volvo 850 Turbo, automatic with 257,000 miles on the clock. It has an on board average fuel consumption display in mpg that can be reset to zero to begin an averaging run. The engine was at operating temperature before each trial.
We first did a base line run between his house and our office - about 16 miles each way - with cruise control set to either 70mph or 75mph. The route has an HOV lane on the freeway so maintaining these speeds is easy for the sake of testing. The results are tabulated below.

mpg Distance in miles Cruise setting in mph
33.6 32 75
29.4 16 75
30.6 16 70
31.4 16 70
30.6 16 70
29.4 16 75
33.6 16 75
30.6 16 70
30.6 64 70
31.4 16 70
Running avg mpg = 31.12

Next we did the same sequence of drives, but with the FFI fuel pill in the tank.

mpg Distance in miles Cruise setting in mph
28.3 32 75
29.0 32 70
30.5 32 70
27.3 32 75
29.0 64 75
29.0 32 70
27.3 16 70
28.0 16 70
29.4 32 75
28.6 32 75
Running avg mpg = 28.64

If we group the results by speed, into 70mph and 75mph groupings, this is what it looks like.

For the pre pill 70mph speed the average is 30.86mpg
For the post pill 70mph speed the average is 28.76mpg
For the pre pill 75mph speed the average is 31.5mpg
For the post pill 75mph speed the average is 28.52mpg

Conclusion. On average, with the pill in the tank, we saw a drop in fuel economy by about 2mpg. There was no perceivable increase in acceleration or the ability to perform at-speed overtaking maneuvers. This pill is another scam. Don't bother with it.

The raging debate.

As well as a response from FFI (see below), my review has garnered comments from other people who've tried this product out. Out of the many emails I've had, this is one of the most interesting:

I just want to comment on the MPG Caps from Fuel Freedom International. I tested the caps for 5 months in 4 vehicles, 2 Camrys a 2002 & 2004, a Toyota Tundra 2005 truck & a 1973 VW Beetle. I saw a decrease in mpg in all vehicles and gave up after testing over 20,000 miles total. Some people claim that it works, but you cannot prove it by me. In addition, I gave out pills to others who found either no improvement or also lost mpg. I was a distributor for them but obviously I am no longer...I do not want to promote something that only works for a few.

Followup - calling their bluff?

A couple of weeks after posting my review, I was contacted by an FFI representative who didn't think I'd been fair by trying their product out in an older car. He suggested I re-performed the test at their expense in a newer vehicle. I offered up my (at the time) 2000 mile Honda Element and gave them an address to send the product to for testing. Thanks to a natty little 'count up' javascript, I can tell you that it's now been 986 days since then and I've yet to see anything. The original order for the product for the original test took only three days to get here. Have I called their bluff?

Back to product reviews

________________________ ________________________ _____________

Jag - your product is a joke. 


Esta muy loca.
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8999

Getbig!


« Reply #131 on: May 26, 2009, 06:02:00 AM »

La mujer intenta su mejor para vender mierda aunque nadie la cree.

Mierda...ja ja ja.    Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #132 on: May 26, 2009, 06:05:24 AM »

And more:


http://www.fuelsaving.info/ffi.htm


________________________ ________________________ _______

Case Study: Fuel Freedom International's MPG-Caps

The MPG-Cap is another gas-"saving" product intended to be added to a vehicle's fuel tank. While apparently developed many years ago, FFI began selling it earnest around November 2005. As with many such products, it is sold via multi-level marketing, which immediately triggers warning bells among sceptics. Some perfectly good and effective products are sold through MLM, but it is also a common method employed by scammers and snake-oil salesmen to maximise revenue from ineffective products. (Commonly, the "early adopters" make much, if not most, of their money by recruiting lower-level sales people rather than directly through product sales.) An additional effect is that there are thousands of lower-level distributors, all with a financial stake in the product, who will pop up on discussion forums and blogs to praise MPG-Caps and offer glowing "independent" reviews and testimonials.

Dynotab also seems to be similar, or perhaps even identical, to FFI.

Theory

FFI helpfully provide a good explanation of how the MPG-Caps supposedly work. The theory is that the additive does not affect combustion directly, but forms a coating on the inside surface of the combustion chamber that then promotes complete burning of the fuel.

An immediate question is, what is the coating? Precious metals such as platinum, palladium and rhodium are commonly used in car catalytic converters to promote "burning" of the hydrocarbons in the exhaust, yet there does not seem to be any indication that this sort of material is contained in the MPG-Caps.

The second question is: supposing the product does form a catalytically active coating, what effect may be expected? This is discussed in detail here, but in summary, it seems unlikely to provide major benefits - particularly since the burn in any modern engine is already 98 - 99% complete. A specific concern is that the product claims to speed up the burn, which does not generally result in improved fuel consumption.

Especially interesting is to view the report FFI sent to the EPA for their registration application. The report makes it clear that the main purpose of the product is to allow pre-1973 engines to use unleaded petrol. Chief among the effects that allow it to do this are protection from valve seat wear and a slight increase in octane rating (about 0.5 points). What is entirely missing from this report, so far as I can tell, is evidence of significant improvements in fuel consumption.

On the subject of the EPA, many resellers make the comment "EPA registered!" as if this were proof of effectiveness. Yet as the EPA clearly state on Page 2 of the report, registration is absolutely not any kind of "endorsement" or "approval" of the product.

Many FFI supporters have, by the way, claimed that the product was originally developed by (or at least for) NASA as a rocket fuel enhancer. Absolutely zero evidence for this is given (conveniently, it is supposedly a NASA secret) but even if it is true, a solid fuel rocket is not a gasoline or diesel engine! A benefit to a rocket absolutely does not prove benefit to car engines.


Test results

FFI's test results can be found here. While interesting, the lack of any information on the test protocols makes it hard to establish how well controlled the tests were. As with all on-road tests, it is very easy for external effects (weather, traffic, etc) to produce changes in measured economy of similar size to the claimed effect of the gas-saving product.

For example, on Page 12 of the report, the test fleet shows an economy change from 3% below normal to 12% above when the product was used, followed by a drop to normal when the product was removed. But at the same time, the "control" fleet (without FFI) showed an increase from -3 to +6, followed by a drop to -4 at the end of the test period. That is to say, the test fleet improved economy by 15% with MPG-Caps, but the other fleet also gained 9% at the same time without the MPG-Caps. In other words, some other external factor - for example weather, or usage patterns - was responsible for a very large improvement in economy at this time; so much so, that the economy of the "control" fleet actually goes outside the 95% statistical confidence limits that are presumably meant to distinguish between natural variation and a "real" economy benefit. So the "10% improvement" claimed for FFI could be just a statistical fluke; at the very least, a large proportion of this benefit is apparently due to some other factor.

An additional concern with the test data is that much of it seems to be based on very old vehicles. Especially amusing is the reference on Page 6 to "Newer cars", when referring to those from 1973...


Scientific testing

What is required instead, in order to prove the effectiveness of any gas-"saving" product, is "proper" scientific testing. As with all such products, it seems astonishing that FFI are apparently not willing to spend a tiny fraction of the potential profits on establishing incontrovertible proof of effectiveness. If FFI does believe in the product enough to do this, I would be happy to advise on test protocols and companies who might be able to do the work.

Some FFI "experts" have claimed that the standard test cycle is somehow unable to detect the economy gain the MPG-Cap delivers. No technical explanation for this is given, other than the standard "it's on a dynamometer not on the road, so obviously it's not the same" non-explanation - which suggests that the burning fuel and air somehow miraculously "know" whether they are on the road or on a dynamometer.

Perhaps the claim is that the conditions of the drive cycle do not reflect typical real-world driving conditions in terms of load and speed - which, while partially true, does not explain why other, more "appropriate" test cycles could not be used. Nor, as mentioned before, do FFI (who you would think would know) explain the exact technical reason why their product works under certain conditions but not others. In any case, engines are (as a rule) less efficient at the relatively low loads seen on the standard test cycle, becoming more efficient at higher loads - so any fuel saving product is actually more likely to display a benefit on the test cycle than under other conditions. There is simply more "room for improvement" available.

Interestingly, FFI actually did initiate a test at the highly respected test house Millbrook in England, in February 2007 (see bottom of this page). This has been followed by a total silence from FFI, and I understand from a recent Jerry Lang video that this is because the test proved no economy benefit. Jerry has claimed that this is due to the fuel consumption calculation being affected by the combustion changed caused by the MPG-Cap, but to me this makes no sense.

A presumably similar test is apparently being conducted at TÜV in Austria. Again we were promised results in September 2007, yet nothing has appeared.

Also along these lines is a test conducted recently in Australia. This is a test on a 10-ton diesel truck and involves running the vehicle on a dynamometer over a defined test cycle, as demanded by the EPA and other authorities. Test results are here. The change in economy was as follows:

Segment L/100km (without MPG-Cap) L/100km (with MPG-Cap) % change
1 69.8 58.7 15.9
2 40.6 38.6 4.9
3 38.3 37.9 1.0
4 27.4 25.4 7.3

It can be seen that the economy benefit is highly variable, falling to almost nothing under some of the test conditions. But the average benefit is still 7%, which is convincing - isn't it? Well, not entirely, because this test still falls some way short of the requirement for rigorous scientific testing:

- There is no repeat testing, so we don't know if this vehicle has naturally high variability in fuel consumption, and it is just coincidence that the results with the MPG-Cap are better

- There is no A-B-A test, so we don't know if some other unrelated factor is responsible for the economy improvement

- Without a "standard" figure for what fuel economy and emissions a truck of this sort should achieve on this test, we don't know if the vehicle was in good condition beforehand or not (maybe the MPG-Cap is just masking an existing problem)

And, of course, it is highly debatable how relevant the results from a 10-ton diesel truck are to the typical FFI consumer, who drives a petrol (gasoline) car or SUV.

The test also gives information about the toxic pollutants from the test vehicle. This website focusses on fuel economy rather than emissions, and since the FFI product is called the MPG-Cap, this is surely what matters most. But because many correspondents claim the Cap "reduces emissions by 90%", or "reduces emissions to nearly zero", or something along those lines, it is worth also looking at the percentage emissions change:
Segment NOx change CH4 change HC change CO change
1 -33 -63 -3 -47
2 -6 -61 0 -58
3 -13 -64 +10 -31
4 -26 -61 +18 -23
So even if we take these results at face value and assume the change is entirely due to the MPG-Cap (ignoring all the comments above about lack of rigour in the testing), the emissions reduction is far less than the 90%+ frequently claimed.

Interestingly, I have found one reference to a "proper" drive-cycle test on a typical gasoline car with the MPG-Cap, conducted on behalf of the German motoring organisation ADAC. The ADAC found no benefit at all from the MPG-Cap (in fact a worsening in economy from 7.1 to 7.2 litres/100km). The test process was:
- measure economy without the MPG-Cap
- drive for 800 km (500 miles) using the MPG-Cap
- measure economy with the MPG-Cap

While not a totally robust test, it does provide additional eveidence in support of the view that the MPG-Cap is of very limited benefit.

Testimonials

As with most fuel "saving" products, the primary evidence in favour is uncontrolled on-road testing, where people compare their economy with and without MPG-Caps. As explained here, it is very easy to get false results from this sort of testing since fuel economy is very strongly affected by traffic, driving style, weather, etc. Espcially significant is the "placebo effect" - anyone who has invested in FFI, and wants to see it work, will naturally (if unconsciously) adopt a more economical driving style. (Also, do not forget the "MLM effect" mentioned at the top of the page.) Similarly, claims of improved performance are almost entirely restricted to comments along the lines of "my car feels quicker now", which could very easily just be wishful thinking.

There is a long history with fuel "saving" products of glowing testimonial evidence followed by scientific testing proving that the product/device has only a tiny effect (for example, the Ecotek CB-26B. Because of this, governments and other regulatory bodies generally say that testimonial evidence on its own is not sufficient to demonstrate the effectiveness of any fuel "saving" product. (See for example the advice from the Federal Trade Commission.)

Those who market and support MPG-Caps, as with other fuel "saving" products, always condemn those who criticise them without trying for themselves. "If you haven't tried it in your car, you can't comment on it", they say. But the point is this: the sceptics know very well that any testing they could do would prove absolutely nothing, due to the natural fluctuations in fuel consumption. Maybe they would see an improvement, maybe they wouldn't. Either way it would not demonstrate conclusively whether the product works or not. Only rigorous scientific testing can do this (and such testing costs far more than any independent individual such as myself can afford).


Media reports

The various media reports on FFI - for example from WTMJ, WSAZ and WTOV - are often cited as "proof" of its effectiveness. Yet these are just testimonials, with no attempt at scientific testing or controlled conditions. Generally the test length is also far too short to get any kind of meaningful result, given how much economy naturally varies from tank to tank.

More surprisingly, both WSAZ and WTOV apparently got a big economy improvement instantly after adding the MPG-Cap - but FFI themselves say that a conditioning period (typically 50 gallons usage) is needed to build up the coating and cause improvements. So whatever produced the better fuel consumption, it almost certainly wasn't the MPG-Cap!

The Auto Channel also carried a positive article about the MPG-Caps in 2006. But it's not obvious to me whether this is a truly independent review or simply a paid "advertorial"; nor is there any description of what test was done to "prove" that the product works. In other words, it seems to be just another testimonial.


Comments from Jerry Lang

Recently a number of reports from "Jerry Lang", a combustion consultant, have appeared on FFI's website. Jerry seems to be quite genuine, though I see no evidence for extensive experience with car engines or emissions control equipment (whereas, without blowing my own trumpet, I have). Nonetheless, Jerry makes some interesting points, which are worth considering.

First is a comment on test results from Southwest Research Institute, looking at analyses of fuel with and without FFI added. The interesting statement here is that, on all the usual measures of fuel characteristics, "if you were to stop at two separate [gas] stations you could see greater differences in the composition" - in other words, the effect of FFI is negligible on these tests. Only an increase in octane rating can be detected (which fits the idea that it helps very old cars run on unleaded), and this is in any case only about one third of the difference between regular and premium fuel.

Jerry's other report begins with an explanation of how the product works, which basically ties in with that described above, but also adds an additional claim: that the product reduces heat transfer to the combustion chamber walls, so improving efficiency. In principle this makes some sense - heat loss to the walls is a major factor in reducing efficiency - but from my experience, I am highly sceptical that the effect is as large as is claimed. Experiments with so-called "adiabatic engines", with very good thermal insulation, have generally given disappointing results - in general, the reduced heat loss simply results in an increase in exhaust temperature rather than a major improvement in efficiency. Reducing heat loss would also tend to increase NOx emissions (these are strongly dependent on temperature), and could even promote damaging knock. I would like to see some actual measurements of heat transfer and thermal conductivity before accepting this analysis at face value.

The report also goes on to describe some fuel consumption experiments that Jerry has carried out. The problem is that, yet again, this is just an uncontrolled testimonial - all kinds of factors such as weather, traffic or driving style could be responsible for the improvement in economy seen. Certainly it doesn't constitute scientific evidence.

If Jerry is reading this, I would welome some direct correspondence.

Emissions reduction and economy gain

Some commentators have noticed reductions in exhaust emissions when using MPG-Caps, and regard this as proof of economy improvement. There are two problems with this:

First, emissions measurements have their own natural variability. Factors such as engine temperature, atmospheric conditions, and (crucially) catalyst temperature can all strongly influence emissions levels. Simply driving the car hard for a few miles can heat the catalyst enough to give a large drop in emissions as the catalyst is then working better.

The second, and more important, problem is that emissions measurements are a poor guide to economy. It is true that very high levels of emissions (especially unburnt fuel) - caused by a faulty spark plug, for example - do imply bad economy. But on modern cars in good condition the level of unburnt fuel in the exhaust is already so low that further reductions are essentially insignificant in terms of economy. Partly for this reason, the US Environmental Protection Agency's guide to evaluating fuel "saving" devices specifically excludes emissions data such as the Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) test as evidence of effectiveness.


Waterless Car Wash

FFI recently added a new product to their range, the "Eco-Sheen" Waterless Car Wash. What is very interesting is that FFI described the product as being "rich in positively charged electrons". To anyone with even a basic level of scientific knowledge, this is just nonsense - electrons are negatively charged, and no way can a "positively charged electron" exist. There is a positively charged equivalent to the electron, the positron, but these are very rare - and react violently with ordinary matter; washing your car with positrons would cause a large explosion!

Interestingly, another page talks about the product containing "positively charged microns", which also makes no sense as a micron is simply a unit of length, and so cannot have any sort of charge.

Within a couple of months, FFI had updated their pages to talk more sensibly about "positively charged ions", but you can still find references to the original descriptions if you do a little digging on the Net. The point is not that I am sceptical of Eco-Sheen (which may well work very well) but simply this: how can we believe FFI's "scientific" claims about the MPG-Cap, when they have demonstrated such a fundamental lack of scientific knowledge? Isn't FFI supposed to be full of Nobel-prize-winning chemists?


Conclusion

The product was apparently primarily designed as a way to allow older engines to run on unleaded gasoline

The theory does not, to me, seem to support expectations of large economy improvements

Much of the test data relates to older vehicles, and does not seem sufficiently well controlled to constitute proof
Based on this, and the fact that virtually every other "miracle" fuel additive brought to the market has failed to deliver the promised benefits, I am highly sceptical that MPG-Caps really give sufficient economy gain in typical gasoline cars to make it economically worthwhile.
As with all aftermarket fuel "saving" devices, my advice to FFI is simple: if you believe in your product, spend 0.01% of your income on rigorous scientific testing to prove it really works. If you don't, sceptics will draw their own conclusions as to why not.


Please also read the general comments on fuel "saving" devices, if you have not done so already.

If you found this page helpful, you may like to support my work. If you think I have made a mistake, or am talking complete nonsense, please take a moment to read the Response to Critics before saying so in public (on discussion Forums and the like).

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ______

Jag - you have some explaining to do.  
Report to moderator   Logged
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24448


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #133 on: May 26, 2009, 06:19:36 AM »

I have two questions:
1.  has this product ever been tested by Consumer Reports or a similar tesying facility?

Our products have been tested by governments, world class independent labs, universities etc.,
  • Ministry of Defence in Ukraine
  • SouthWest Research Institute (http://www.swri.org/swri.htm)
  • UNAM (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México) (http://www.unam.mx/)
    The Emission Control Laboratory of the Faculty of Engineering
  • Intertek Caleb
  • Bosch
  • etc., etc., etc.,

Copies of many of these test reports are available on my website


Quote
and

2.  Why is this product not available in stores?

The product is sold through word-of-mouth advertising through a network of independent distributors. As a result, you will not see it in stores. It is extremely rare that you will find a network marketed product offered for sale in a retail environment. The exception being Tupperware, ...and even then, they did not sell well when first put in stores. Stanley Tupper had to go back to network marketing and the party plan. Nowadays, little plastic containers that can store left overs, or carry meals on the go etc., are pretty common. We can walk into a store knowing that's what we want, and you'll see not only Tupperware, but many other brands etc., etc., but when they first came out... they were new & revolutionary. No one had ever really thought to do that before. Women would show up at a pot luck party with their best china covered in tin foil, ...and hope they didn't spill the contents on the car seats on the way there, or chip their china. Can you imagine their surprise when they arrived and found those little plastic containers. Wow... that was big stuff indeed!

Most network marketing companies will infact put restrictions in their policies & procedures barring distributors from putting the product in a retail environment. The rare exception are those distributors who also happen to own a retail establishment that is also a service business such as a beauty or hair salon, our service station. The establishment must be one that revolves around a high degree of interaction with the customer, and often the owner may not have more than 3 or 5 locations.

If this product was placed in stores, it wouldn't sell very well because no one would know of it's existance.
A product only sells in a retail environment, when a customer:
  • a) knows of it's existence to begin with
  • b) goes to the store with the specific intent of purchasing it

In order for this to occur, one has to first raise awareness of the very existence of the product to begin with, advertising, commercials, billboards etc., etc., and at the same time, in the traditional retail environment, you often won't have someone knowledgeable enough about the product, to be able to work with the consumer to ensure s/he uses the product properly and gets the best results. You're not going to find that in your typical retail store clerk. They are more accurately described or classified as retail traffic cops qualified to sometimes tell you what aisle a product can be found in, but most often, they have no experience whatsoever with the products sold in those stores, ...nor do they have any incentive to ensure you get the best results and the best value from your purchases. Think about that for a moment. Do you remember the last time you went into a store asking about an item? Did the clerk ask you what it was? ...and then based on what it was, suggest you look in a certain aisle?

By marketing the products through word-of-mouth, you have one satisfied and knowledgeable user sharing the information with another. The massive amounts of money that otherwise would be spent upfront on advertising to acquire a customer, is instead used to compensate individuals, but only after a product is sold, and a new satisfied customer acquired.

Also too, when operating in the network marketing arena, your product (s) should hopefully be one(s) that are unique, exclusively yours, and stand the least likely chances of flying off the shelves in and of themselves. When that happens, you've got everybody knocking off your item and putting it in every retail, and or discount store overnight. I don't know about you, ...but I don't know any individual network marketer with the ability to compete with the huge purchasing and or distribution power of Walmart. We've seen many an MLM company shoot themselves in the foot by having a product that could easily be sold in stores.

Let me give you an example of an effective product easily sold through network mktg, but is a disaster on a store shelf.

Years ago, we marketed a product, a gel that enhanced a woman's orgasmic responsiveness during intimacy.
It sold extremely well through word-of-mouth, because if a woman is not enjoying intimacy, she's not shy about sharing this type of information with their friends. She will freely admit to her girlfriend if she occasionally fakes an orgasm in order to not disappoint her partner. If the product was mass advertised and placed on store shelves, ...she'd be too embarrased to go into the store to get it, ...much less share her concern with the store clerk (a total stranger). It would sit on the shelf gathering dust. Such a product however is perfect for network marketing.

Take the same type of product, ...only a male version. There's no way it would sell through word-of-mouth, because no man is going to publicly admit to his buddy that he is experiencing erectile dysfunction. It will never happen. As far as his friends know... he breaks bricks every night, and sometime 3x's a night. That's his story and he's sticking to it. He won't even admit it to his partner if he can help it. As far as she goes, ...he's tired or has an early meeting in the morning. A product like that needs mass advertising to let you know it's even out there. It needs prominent spokespeople that a man can admire & look up to, like Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole for instance, to help him get over the stigma, and work up enough courage to maybe ask his doctor for a prescription. Such a product is a disaster for network marketing, but may do well in an anonymous retail environment where a guy can buy it online, disappear, and have it shipped to him in a plain brown paper wrapper.

The lack of prominence of a network marketed product, in a traditional retail environment, isn't a red flag indicating a product is worthless. It is often a good indicator that the network marketing company has their hands on a winner. A product with the ability to sustain the network marketing business over time.
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #134 on: May 26, 2009, 06:22:56 AM »

"If this product was placed in stores, it wouldn't sell very well because no one would know of it's existance.
A product only sells in a retail environment, when a customer:

a) knows of it's existence to begin with
b) goes to the store with the specific intent of purchasing it"



You really dont believe that nonsense do you?Huh??

If the product worked as advertised people would go to the store any buy it like they do millions of other PROVEN products by REPUTABLE companies. 

Report to moderator   Logged
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24448


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #135 on: May 26, 2009, 06:54:30 AM »

I found this: 

From this site, a review of her produc t: 

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ZyHLbF_fnYcJ:www.carbibles.com/productreviews_ffi.html+FFi+fuel+review&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _


FFI mpg caps magic fuel pill
Tested September 2006   

..... {snipped for the sake of brevity}....

For the pre pill 70mph speed the average is 30.86mpg
For the post pill 70mph speed the average is 28.76mpg
For the pre pill 75mph speed the average is 31.5mpg
For the post pill 75mph speed the average is 28.52mpg

Conclusion. On average, with the pill in the tank, we saw a drop in fuel economy by about 2mpg.

Based on both the date of his tests, as well as the results he saw... I'm pretty confident in making the assumption he was overdosing. I cannot say for certain, but I'd bet money on it. As I stated in the earlier post, too much product can result in too thick a coating that may in fact absorb the fuel, resulting in lowered mileage. We didn't change the recommended dosage until well into the winter months. Either late 2006 or early 2007. After much urging and grumbling by US the distributors, the company again altered the recommended dosage in August of 2008. These new dosages are no where near where we want to see them based on the feedback we receive back from our customers, but it is what it is, ...and we simply ask our customers to use the dosage that we know is effective.
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #136 on: May 26, 2009, 07:04:05 AM »

Jag, I simply dont see the value in this.

How is someone saving money by putting pills in their tank for such a little average benefit.  The money they have to spend on these pills is money otherwise spent on gas itself. 

 
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8999

Getbig!


« Reply #137 on: May 26, 2009, 07:04:56 AM »

Based on both the date of his tests, as well as the results he saw... I'm pretty confident in making the assumption he was overdosing. I cannot say for certain, but I'd bet money on it. As I stated in the earlier post, too much product can result in too thick a coating that may in fact absorb the fuel, resulting in lowered mileage. We didn't change the recommended dosage until well into the winter months. Either late 2006 or early 2007. After much urging and grumbling by US the distributors, the company again altered the recommended dosage in August of 2008. These new dosages are no where near where we want to see them based on the feedback we receive back from our customers, but it is what it is, ...and we simply ask our customers to use the dosage that we know is effective.

333386,

Haven't you learned anything?  If a person gets ripped off by the Multi Level Marketing Industry and by the worthless products they market and sell, it is that person's fault alone and not the product's fault or the industry's fault.  It's always the victim's fault.   Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #138 on: May 26, 2009, 07:40:26 AM »

These pills are a sad joke.  Any possible savings in fuel is more than eaten up by the cost of the pills themselves.  What a sad joke. 
Report to moderator   Logged
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24448


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #139 on: May 26, 2009, 08:24:12 AM »

And more:


http://www.fuelsaving.info/ffi.htm


________________________ ________________________ _______

Case Study: Fuel Freedom International's MPG-Caps

The MPG-Cap is another gas-"saving" product intended to be added to a vehicle's fuel tank. While apparently developed many years ago, FFI began selling it earnest around November 2005. As with many such products, it is sold via multi-level marketing, which immediately triggers warning bells among sceptics. Some perfectly good and effective products are sold through MLM, but it is also a common method employed by scammers and snake-oil salesmen to maximise revenue from ineffective products.

This link is infact one of the first links I saw when I first began my research on FFi. Alot of his information is somewhat outdated, ...and he has simply added to it, as time went by. That said, I have found his to at least be one of the more fair detractors... despite his inaccuracy in a few areas. I don't believe this guy has a bone to pick, I think he is attempting to be fair, however, he is not quite as up to speed about our products as one would like.

Quote
Theory

FFI helpfully provide a good explanation of how the MPG-Caps supposedly work. The theory is that the additive does not affect combustion directly, but forms a coating on the inside surface of the combustion chamber that then promotes complete burning of the fuel.

An immediate question is, what is the coating? Precious metals such as platinum, palladium and rhodium are commonly used in car catalytic converters to promote "burning" of the hydrocarbons in the exhaust, yet there does not seem to be any indication that this sort of material is contained in the MPG-Caps.

The second question is: supposing the product does form a catalytically active coating, what effect may be expected? This is discussed in detail here, but in summary, it seems unlikely to provide major benefits - particularly since the burn in any modern engine is already 98 - 99% complete. A specific concern is that the product claims to speed up the burn, which does not generally result in improved fuel consumption.

By accelerating the burn during the first 15 - 30 degrees of the power stroke, the increased horsepower results in the vehicle travelling further on less fuel.
 
Quote
Especially interesting is to view the report FFI sent to the EPA for their registration application. The report makes it clear that the main purpose of the product is to allow pre-1973 engines to use unleaded petrol. Chief among the effects that allow it to do this are protection from valve seat wear and a slight increase in octane rating (about 0.5 points). What is entirely missing from this report, so far as I can tell, is evidence of significant improvements in fuel consumption.

This isn't at all unusual. As stated many times, this isn't new. The technology was developed in the 70's. What is is our introducing it to the public in a more consumer friendly format. At the time this product was developed, the primary concern was not fuel economy, or protecting the environment, ...it was how to replace the function of lead in the engine. Quite often, new situations will result in innovative uses of older technologies.

Highspeed dsl internet access is a prime example. For a while telecomm companies were enamored with fibre-optic cables. Then, with the explosion of the internet, they found this new technology didn't do dsl as well as they would have like. They found, it was the old copper wiring that was best for dsl, ...so consumers in newer subdivisions either had to subscribe to cable if they wanted broadband, ...or suffer with dial-up until the phone companies could make the necessary adjustments to bring dsl into their areas. It was older technology adapted to meet modern requirements.

Quote
On the subject of the EPA, many resellers make the comment "EPA registered!" as if this were proof of effectiveness. Yet as the EPA clearly state on Page 2 of the report, registration is absolutely not any kind of "endorsement" or "approval" of the product.

No, FFi distributors inform people that the product is EPA registered, as proof that there is nothing in it that could harm their engines or void their warranties. A warranty cannot be voided by use of a product that is EPA registered. Feel free to look up the Magnusson Moss Act.
 
Quote
Test results

FFI's test results can be found here. While interesting, the lack of any information on the test protocols makes it hard to establish how well controlled the tests were. As with all on-road tests, it is very easy for external effects (weather, traffic, etc) to produce changes in measured economy of similar size to the claimed effect of the gas-saving product.

For example, on Page 12 of the report, the test fleet shows an economy change from 3% below normal to 12% above when the product was used, followed by a drop to normal when the product was removed. But at the same time, the "control" fleet (without FFI) showed an increase from -3 to +6, followed by a drop to -4 at the end of the test period. That is to say, the test fleet improved economy by 15% with MPG-Caps, but the other fleet also gained 9% at the same time without the MPG-Caps. In other words, some other external factor - for example weather, or usage patterns - was responsible for a very large improvement in economy at this time; so much so, that the economy of the "control" fleet actually goes outside the 95% statistical confidence limits that are presumably meant to distinguish between natural variation and a "real" economy benefit. So the "10% improvement" claimed for FFI could be just a statistical fluke; at the very least, a large proportion of this benefit is apparently due to some other factor.

Absolutely mileage changes based on road terrain & weather conditions. It also changes based on the season as well. You're going to get more mileage out of summer grade fuels than winter grade. A vehicle is going to see better mileage in the spring than what it will see in the winter, with or without the product. It is not at all any sort of anomoly or placebo to see control vehicles without the product, seeing an overall increase in mileage along with control vehicles using the product, at the same time. They're running on a different grade of fuel.


darned character count restrictions  Angry
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22935


Reapers...


« Reply #140 on: May 26, 2009, 08:24:51 AM »

These pills are a sad joke.  Any possible savings in fuel is more than eaten up by the cost of the pills themselves.  What a sad joke. 

How do you figure Judy makes her living?
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24448


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #141 on: May 26, 2009, 08:25:38 AM »

...continued from above

Scientific testing

What is required instead, in order to prove the effectiveness of any gas-"saving" product, is "proper" scientific testing. As with all such products, it seems astonishing that FFI are apparently not willing to spend a tiny fraction of the potential profits on establishing incontrovertible proof of effectiveness. If FFI does believe in the product enough to do this, I would be happy to advise on test protocols and companies who might be able to do the work.

Some FFI "experts" have claimed that the standard test cycle is somehow unable to detect the economy gain the MPG-Cap delivers. No technical explanation for this is given, other than the standard "it's on a dynamometer not on the road, so obviously it's not the same" non-explanation - which suggests that the burning fuel and air somehow miraculously "know" whether they are on the road or on a dynamometer.

Perhaps the claim is that the conditions of the drive cycle do not reflect typical real-world driving conditions in terms of load and speed - which, while partially true, does not explain why other, more "appropriate" test cycles could not be used. Nor, as mentioned before, do FFI (who you would think would know) explain the exact technical reason why their product works under certain conditions but not others. In any case, engines are (as a rule) less efficient at the relatively low loads seen on the standard test cycle, becoming more efficient at higher loads - so any fuel saving product is actually more likely to display a benefit on the test cycle than under other conditions. There is simply more "room for improvement" available.

Interestingly, FFI actually did initiate a test at the highly respected test house Millbrook in England, in February 2007 (see bottom of this page). This has been followed by a total silence from FFI, and I understand from a recent Jerry Lang video that this is because the test proved no economy benefit. Jerry has claimed that this is due to the fuel consumption calculation being affected by the combustion changed caused by the MPG-Cap, but to me this makes no sense.

A presumably similar test is apparently being conducted at TÜV in Austria. Again we were promised results in September 2007, yet nothing has appeared.

Also along these lines is a test conducted recently in Australia. This is a test on a 10-ton diesel truck and involves running the vehicle on a dynamometer over a defined test cycle, as demanded by the EPA and other authorities.

It can be seen that the economy benefit is highly variable, falling to almost nothing under some of the test conditions. But the average benefit is still 7%, which is convincing - isn't it? Well, not entirely, because this test still falls some way short of the requirement for rigorous scientific testing:

- There is no repeat testing, so we don't know if this vehicle has naturally high variability in fuel consumption, and it is just coincidence that the results with the MPG-Cap are better

- There is no A-B-A test, so we don't know if some other unrelated factor is responsible for the economy improvement

- Without a "standard" figure for what fuel economy and emissions a truck of this sort should achieve on this test, we don't know if the vehicle was in good condition beforehand or not (maybe the MPG-Cap is just masking an existing problem)

And, of course, it is highly debatable how relevant the results from a 10-ton diesel truck are to the typical FFI consumer, who drives a petrol (gasoline) car or SUV.

The test also gives information about the toxic pollutants from the test vehicle. This website focusses on fuel economy rather than emissions, and since the FFI product is called the MPG-Cap, this is surely what matters most. But because many correspondents claim the Cap "reduces emissions by 90%", or "reduces emissions to nearly zero", or something along those lines, it is worth also looking at the percentage emissions change:
Segment NOx change CH4 change HC change CO change

So even if we take these results at face value and assume the change is entirely due to the MPG-Cap (ignoring all the comments above about lack of rigour in the testing), the emissions reduction is far less than the 90%+ frequently claimed.

We claim 75% or more not 90%

Quote
Interestingly, I have found one reference to a "proper" drive-cycle test on a typical gasoline car with the MPG-Cap, conducted on behalf of the German motoring organisation ADAC. The ADAC found no benefit at all from the MPG-Cap (in fact a worsening in economy from 7.1 to 7.2 litres/100km). The test process was:
- measure economy without the MPG-Cap
- drive for 800 km (500 miles) using the MPG-Cap
- measure economy with the MPG-Cap

While not a totally robust test, it does provide additional eveidence in support of the view that the MPG-Cap is of very limited benefit.

Testimonials

As with most fuel "saving" products, the primary evidence in favour is uncontrolled on-road testing, where people compare their economy with and without MPG-Caps. As explained here, it is very easy to get false results from this sort of testing since fuel economy is very strongly affected by traffic, driving style, weather, etc. Espcially significant is the "placebo effect" - anyone who has invested in FFI, and wants to see it work, will naturally (if unconsciously) adopt a more economical driving style. (Also, do not forget the "MLM effect" mentioned at the top of the page.) Similarly, claims of improved performance are almost entirely restricted to comments along the lines of "my car feels quicker now", which could very easily just be wishful thinking.

There is a long history with fuel "saving" products of glowing testimonial evidence followed by scientific testing proving that the product/device has only a tiny effect (for example, the Ecotek CB-26B. Because of this, governments and other regulatory bodies generally say that testimonial evidence on its own is not sufficient to demonstrate the effectiveness of any fuel "saving" product. (See for example the advice from the Federal Trade Commission.)

Those who market and support MPG-Caps, as with other fuel "saving" products, always condemn those who criticise them without trying for themselves. "If you haven't tried it in your car, you can't comment on it", they say. But the point is this: the sceptics know very well that any testing they could do would prove absolutely nothing, due to the natural fluctuations in fuel consumption. Maybe they would see an improvement, maybe they wouldn't. Either way it would not demonstrate conclusively whether the product works or not. Only rigorous scientific testing can do this (and such testing costs far more than any independent individual such as myself can afford).

The scientific testing has indeed occured, and the results conclusively show the product works!

Quote
Media reports

The various media reports on FFI - for example from WTMJ, WSAZ and WTOV - are often cited as "proof" of its effectiveness. Yet these are just testimonials, with no attempt at scientific testing or controlled conditions. Generally the test length is also far too short to get any kind of meaningful result, given how much economy naturally varies from tank to tank.

More surprisingly, both WSAZ and WTOV apparently got a big economy improvement instantly after adding the MPG-Cap - but FFI themselves say that a conditioning period (typically 50 gallons usage) is needed to build up the coating and cause improvements. So whatever produced the better fuel consumption, it almost certainly wasn't the MPG-Cap!

The author inserts the "typically 50 gallons usage". FFi has always maintained that it can take up to 4 tankfuls. After 3 years of experience working with this product, I'm not surprised that WSAZ, WTOV got such great results so quickly. They probably had cleaner more well maintained engines. We've found this to be a big factor in how quickly customers saw a response.

Interesting question for you all? Why is it that when the media does a negative story blasting a company or product,
...that report is accepted as accurate. But when the media does a positive story, ...it is questioned as inaccurate?
I suppose that's why we often find the media MO is "If it bleeds, ...it leads!"  Undecided
 
Quote
The Auto Channel also carried a positive article about the MPG-Caps in 2006. But it's not obvious to me whether this is a truly independent review or simply a paid "advertorial"; nor is there any description of what test was done to "prove" that the product works. In other words, it seems to be just another testimonial.

Just another testimonial? ...from an automotive engineer with degrees from MIT. Sha right!  Roll Eyes

Quote
Comments from Jerry Lang

Recently a number of reports from "Jerry Lang", a combustion consultant, have appeared on FFI's website. Jerry seems to be quite genuine, though I see no evidence for extensive experience with car engines or emissions control equipment (whereas, without blowing my own trumpet, I have). Nonetheless, Jerry makes some interesting points, which are worth considering.

First is a comment on test results from Southwest Research Institute, looking at analyses of fuel with and without FFI added. The interesting statement here is that, on all the usual measures of fuel characteristics, "if you were to stop at two separate [gas] stations you could see greater differences in the composition" - in other words, the effect of FFI is negligible on these tests. Only an increase in octane rating can be detected (which fits the idea that it helps very old cars run on unleaded), and this is in any case only about one third of the difference between regular and premium fuel.

Jerry's other report begins with an explanation of how the product works, which basically ties in with that described above, but also adds an additional claim: that the product reduces heat transfer to the combustion chamber walls, so improving efficiency. In principle this makes some sense - heat loss to the walls is a major factor in reducing efficiency - but from my experience, I am highly sceptical that the effect is as large as is claimed. Experiments with so-called "adiabatic engines", with very good thermal insulation, have generally given disappointing results - in general, the reduced heat loss simply results in an increase in exhaust temperature rather than a major improvement in efficiency. Reducing heat loss would also tend to increase NOx emissions (these are strongly dependent on temperature), and could even promote damaging knock. I would like to see some actual measurements of heat transfer and thermal conductivity before accepting this analysis at face value.

The report also goes on to describe some fuel consumption experiments that Jerry has carried out. The problem is that, yet again, this is just an uncontrolled testimonial - all kinds of factors such as weather, traffic or driving style could be responsible for the improvement in economy seen. Certainly it doesn't constitute scientific evidence.

Now, for him to say Jerry is just providing an uncontrolled testimonial is just ridiculous!

Mr. Lang has served as a combustion consultant to virtually all of the major oil companies and 95% of the refineries, including ChevronTexaco, Chevron Phillips, ARCO, Shell, Kraft, Exxon, Mobil, and Dow Chemical. At Exxon, Mr. Lang developed ways to improve efficiency by retrofitting the tankers of the company. He also served as the combustion auditor to Chevron on their Richmond Nitrous Oxide (Nox) Reduction Project, worth in excess of $300 million. In addition, Mr. Lang has completed projects in Norway and is currently contributing to an ongoing project in Qatar.

In 1967, Mr. Lang established his own business where he developed and patented several products related to combustion and incineration. He also served as Manager of Combustion Systems for Howe Baker Engineers where he helped develop ways to improve refining operations. Mr. Lang was also recruited by Dr. Edward Teller, the primary developer of the hydrogen bomb, for four years on an alternate fuels project doing combustion tests.

Mr. Lang has extensive experience designing equipment utilized in reducing emissions from stationary sources such as refineries, power plants, and industrial operations. He also contributed to the development of the equipment used during the clean up of the Alaska oil spill. Over the years he has also done work on systems to improve mileage in automobiles, such as installing a vaporizer in the exhaust to vaporize the gasoline prior to intake and working on steam injection in automobiles.

He holds 19 patents to his name - 13 of which specifically combustion related. Over $1 BILLION dollars of his patented technologies have been sold some of which include standard equipment in most automobiles today

This is a man who knows combustion! He's also seen alot of things come & go over the years all claiming to improve mileage or reduce emissions. Infact, no one was more skeptical about the FFi products than Jerry Lang. So you know what he did? He decided to test this product and prove once & for all, that the product didn't work. He spent alot of time and about a quarter of a million dollars of his own money trying to prove the product didn't work.

He found that not only did the product work, ...he discovered it worked even better than we claimed.

Through his knowledge & expertise in the area of combustion he was able to understand our product even better than we did, and as a result, be able to educate us and our consumers about how to get the most out of this product. He went from one of our biggest skeptics to one of our biggest advocates. He went on to travel the world preaching the gospel of FFi, to governments and industry about the efficacy of our products.

If anyone thinks that a man like Jerry Lang would be satisfied with uncontrolled testimonials, and unscientific testing, you're not at all dealing in reality.

The results of using the MPG-Caps!
  • 1) Cleaner Air
  • 2) Cleaner Engine
  • 3) Better Performance from your automobile
  • 4) Increased Gas Mileage

It Saves You Money! and comes with a satisfaction money back guarantee

Quote
Emissions reduction and economy gain

Some commentators have noticed reductions in exhaust emissions when using MPG-Caps, and regard this as proof of economy improvement. There are two problems with this:

First, emissions measurements have their own natural variability. Factors such as engine temperature, atmospheric conditions, and (crucially) catalyst temperature can all strongly influence emissions levels. Simply driving the car hard for a few miles can heat the catalyst enough to give a large drop in emissions as the catalyst is then working better.

The second, and more important, problem is that emissions measurements are a poor guide to economy. It is true that very high levels of emissions (especially unburnt fuel) - caused by a faulty spark plug, for example - do imply bad economy. But on modern cars in good condition the level of unburnt fuel in the exhaust is already so low that further reductions are essentially insignificant in terms of economy. Partly for this reason, the US Environmental Protection Agency's guide to evaluating fuel "saving" devices specifically excludes emissions data such as the Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) test as evidence of effectiveness.

The bottom line is how much fuel are you burning to cover a certain distance. This impacts your fuel costs.
If you burn less fuel getting to where you're going, it's going to cost you less at the pump. PERIOD!

I still have received an answer to the Scenario question I posed earlier. It wasn't a rhetorical one.

Quote
Conclusion

The product was apparently primarily designed as a way to allow older engines to run on unleaded gasoline

The theory does not, to me, seem to support expectations of large economy improvements

Much of the test data relates to older vehicles, and does not seem sufficiently well controlled to constitute proof
Based on this, and the fact that virtually every other "miracle" fuel additive brought to the market has failed to deliver the promised benefits, I am highly sceptical that MPG-Caps really give sufficient economy gain in typical gasoline cars to make it economically worthwhile.

As with all aftermarket fuel "saving" devices, my advice to FFI is simple: if you believe in your product, spend 0.01% of your income on rigorous scientific testing to prove it really works. If you don't, sceptics will draw their own conclusions as to why not.

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ______

Jag - you have some explaining to do.  


There are some key words one should pay very close attention to that I've highlighted above:

His comments are based purely upon his theory, not his actual usage. His theory, coupled with the fact that other products have failed to produce results makes HIM skeptical. That's fine. He's perfectly welcome to his skepticism. However, don't expect me to answer for his skepticism, ...that's for him to do.

That's like demanding a Christian answer for or explain an atheists skepticism.

I know what I have my hands on. My customers know what they've got their hands on, ...and whether some non-user of the product has yet to realize what we've got our hands on, ...that's not going to affect our willingness to continue to save money and improve our mileage, and reduce our emissions.

PS: If and when fuel again rises to unbearable levels, ...I don't want to hear one peep out of you complaining about high fuel prices.  Tongue
Report to moderator   Logged

w
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24448


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #142 on: May 26, 2009, 08:32:03 AM »

Jag, I simply dont see the value in this.

How is someone saving money by putting pills in their tank for such a little average benefit.  The money they have to spend on these pills is money otherwise spent on gas itself. 
 

Please go back and answer the question from the 2 scenarios I posed earlier, ...and you will see how.

If $15 worth of product can result in 50 gallons LESS fuel being consumed,
...that's 50 gallon LESS fuel has to be purchased. What would you rather do?
Spend $15 and improve the environment while you're at it, ...or buy an additional 50 gallons of fuel?
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #143 on: May 26, 2009, 08:38:42 AM »

Please go back and answer the question from the 2 scenarios I posed earlier, ...and you will see how.

If $15 worth of product can result in 50 gallons LESS fuel being consumed,
...that's 50 gallon LESS fuel has to be purchased. What would you rather do?
Spend $15 and improve the environment while you're at it, ...or buy an additional 50 gallons of fuel?

This simply makes no sense.  I will do the math later, but this is impossible based on what is being reported from users. 

My 2007 BMW 328 gets anywhere from 22 to 35 mpg depending on where and how I drive.  Do you realize how long it would take for me to save 50 gallons of gas based on small increase in mpg you claim?Huh

That seems like a terrible business model on your end.
Report to moderator   Logged
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24448


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #144 on: May 26, 2009, 08:52:19 AM »

"If this product was placed in stores, it wouldn't sell very well because no one would know of it's existance.
A product only sells in a retail environment, when a customer:

a) knows of it's existence to begin with
b) goes to the store with the specific intent of purchasing it"



You really dont believe that nonsense do you?Huh??

If the product worked as advertised people would go to the store any buy it like they do millions of other PROVEN products by REPUTABLE companies. 


Well, ...there you have just stated the key phrase now haven't you... "as advertised".
Network Marketing does not utilize traditional advertising, ...and we DON'T want people going to stores to buy it.
If they could get it in stores, ...they wouldn't have to come to us to get it.

The only time it gets into stores is if the owner of the MLM sells out the distributors, as we once saw in the case of the little red bottle. you know the one sold in just about every store out there. That too was originally sold only through independent MLM distributors until it became so established and so well accepted, the company owners sold the product to an automotive company, devasting distributors. One distributor whose income from the sale of that product was ober 6 figures per month. He was so devastated by the loss of his 6 figure monthly income, ...he committed suicide. This was one of the incidents that inspired the birth of the MLM distributor rights association and the MLM Watchdog. To safeguard the industry from sleazy pyramids and scams, ...as well as to protect distributors from sleazy or greedy company owners.
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #145 on: May 26, 2009, 09:00:03 AM »

This fits well into the article I posted earlier in the thread. 

I am not sold on this or anything unless and until it undergoes independent testing with published results of the testing conditions, etc. 
Report to moderator   Logged
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24448


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #146 on: May 26, 2009, 09:08:27 AM »

This simply makes no sense.  I will do the math later, but this is impossible based on what is being reported from users. 

My 2007 BMW 328 gets anywhere from 22 to 35 mpg depending on where and how I drive.  Do you realize how long it would take for me to save 50 gallons of gas based on small increase in mpg you claim?Huh

That seems like a terrible business model on your end.

For YOU, that might not be the case for someone else. A trucker can do that in a matter of days.

Please refer to reply #119 on page 5 of this thread.

Again, here are the scenarios: The same driver makes two separate identical trips with the same vehicle, under identical weather & road conditions, carrying identical loads, travelling the same speed, using the same driving habits. The only difference is that on one trip, he is NOT using our products, and on the other trip he is. Tell me, in which instance do you believe he has effectively lowered his fuel costs to make the same trip, improved his mileage and saved himself money?

Scenario one:  Driver drives 1500 miles from point A - point B, and spends $600.oo on fuel to get there.

Scenario two:  Driver drives 1500 miles from point A - point B, and spends $1,000.oo on fuel to get there.
Report to moderator   Logged

w
24KT
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 24448


Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244


WWW
« Reply #147 on: May 26, 2009, 09:13:45 AM »

This fits well into the article I posted earlier in the thread. 

I am not sold on this or anything unless and until it undergoes independent testing with published results of the testing conditions, etc. 

 Shocked  Shocked  A Nobel prize in chemistry isn't good enough for you?  Roll Eyes  And people tell me I'm a snob! {hrmph}  Grin

I wouldn't expect you "to be sold on it" until you actually used it yourself and saw results.
Whether you are willing to try it is a whole other story. That's completely up to you, and if you do decide to try it, ...you know where you can get it.
Report to moderator   Logged

w
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #148 on: May 26, 2009, 09:15:59 AM »

For YOU, that might not be the case for someone else. A trucker can do that in a matter of days.

Please refer to reply #119 on page 5 of this thread.

Again, here are the scenarios: The same driver makes two separate identical trips with the same vehicle, under identical weather & road conditions, carrying identical loads, travelling the same speed, using the same driving habits. The only difference is that on one trip, he is NOT using our products, and on the other trip he is. Tell me, in which instance do you believe he has effectively lowered his fuel costs to make the same trip, improved his mileage and saved himself money?

Scenario one:  Driver drives 1500 miles from point A - point B, and spends $600.oo on fuel to get there.

Scenario two:  Driver drives 1500 miles from point A - point B, and spends $1,000.oo on fuel to get there.

Thats my point - it simply does not work or is worthwhile for most people. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8628


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #149 on: May 26, 2009, 09:17:00 AM »

Shocked  Shocked  A Nobel prize in chemistry isn't good enough for you?  Roll Eyes  And people tell me I'm a snob! {hrmph}  Grin

I wouldn't expect you "to be sold on it" until you actually used it yourself and saw results.
Whether you are willing to try it is a whole other story. That's completely up to you, and if you do decide to try it, ...you know where you can get it.

Ill tell you what - I have a 2002 explorer as well.  Send me a case for free and I will test it out.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!