What´s up with FFI

[wserra]

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

I realize that English is not your first language, but I express myself pretty clearly. I never: (1) said that I was "100% sure that it was impossible" or (2) "admitted that the pill just might" work. Please feel free to quote me verbatim.

I am still waiting for proof that it works by documented tests conducted (1) by a lab with experience in testing fuel efficiency, (2) on a representative sample of modern gasoline engines, (3) in accordance with EPA testing procedures.

I won't hold my breath.

[PonziKiller]

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

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

http://www.hegnar.no/forum/internal.asp?room=25

It's a Norwegian finance newspaper. And the forum is " Annen Virksomhet ", wich means "other business". This is a forum where "The Best" and other pyramidiots have destroyed by pushing pyramid scam like FFI, WGI, PIPS, Aspiritus, Bank mlm, Dubli and a few hundred more pyramid scam.

[fuelsaving]

It's a Norwegian finance newspaper...

Ah, since my Norwegian knowledge is non-existent I'll have to leave that discussion to you...

[fuelsaving]

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, I was told on March 1st, regarding the test at Milbrook, that "testing is complete and due for release now". I think the FFI supporters really ought to get their stories straight!

[fuelsaving]

A Q. for you, Tony?

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

*Sigh* Have you read http://www.fuelsaving.info/testimonial.htm and http://www.fuelsaving.info/critics.htm ? Any kind of economy testing that I (or any other private individual) could do is entirely meaningless, since so many other factors (weather, traffic, driving style, etc) can affect economy. I might see an improvement in economy even if the pills have no effect; equally, I might see no improvement even if the pills are actually fantastic. Time and again in the past people have reported good results from products that have then been comprehensively proven to be useless, for exactly this reason.

There is a way to properly evaluate this kind of product, which totally eliminates other variables and so gives conclusive proof. It's the EPA "Mileage and economy test", which we skeptics always demand - see http://www.fuelsaving.info/drive_cycle.htm. I can't afford to do this, since it costs tens of thousands of dollars, but it would be a drop in the ocean for FFI - so why haven't they done it in over 30 years of selling the product?

So no, I haven't tested the pills. But I have done an absolute mountain of engine testing during my career involving the kind of change that FFI claim the Gas Pill causes - and I don't see any worthwhile economy gain.

[fuelsaving]

There is no doubt about the fact that Tonys knowledge is of great value to this debate. It seems that he has actually become interested in the debate as well. Unfortunately he is far too self- confident to actually believe in something he hasn’t tried out himself or that he can fully understand easily. The very best that could happen is that he dared to try it out himself but that on other hand would be a loss of prestige having taken such a fail proof position from the beginning of this debate. I bet you he is just about to feel a little bit uncomfortable about this situation.

Everything I know about engines, and have read about FFI, says to me the MPG-Caps don't work. Unless and until FFI get some proper scientific test data to prove me wrong, I will continue to feel quite comfortable.

I might add that supporters of many other products have said the same about me in the past and then been forced to eat their words.

On the other hand there is information in this thread that backs him up. Claiming that engines before the 90th could have operated with such a lean fuel mix as suggested is not helping our issue because the mixture would not have been within explosive limits in a petrol engine. Some misunderstanding or bad writing must be the origin of such a claim.

Well, indeed. A great many things that FFI (or their supporters) have said in the past are obviously false (anti-matter car wash, anybody? ) So why should we believe anything they say?

Taking advantage of the fact that Tony has become a participant of this debate we could ask him how, just in the case he would do it, would perform an engine performance test regarding the use of the pill. No one could be more useful then him having made a test according to his criteria. It would be extremely interesting. But then, once again could it be considered as a loss of face to actually accept to try it out?

As I have stated many, many times, you need an EPA-type mileage and economy test ( http://www.fuelsaving.info/drive_cycle.htm ). I'd be more than happy to advise FFI on exactly how to do this. But it costs a few tens of thousands of dollars so no way can I do it myself.

As Tony never have taken part of the recommended procedure fore the use of the pill he doesn’t know that fore the initiating procedure it is not enough with 10 or 20 kilograms of fuel so his argument for that fact is not valid.

The change in AFR on FFI's dyno test happens almost immediately after the MPG-Caps are added. It was TheBest who claimed this effect was due to the pills.

It also struggle me where you have read that the test procedure with changing load conditions as impropriate?

It was on a video on YouTube, I believe. FFI must have some reason not to do the one test that would silence the critics.

[TheBest]

I can't afford to do this, since it costs tens of thousands of dollars, but it would be a drop in the ocean for FFI - so why haven't they done it in over 30 years of selling the product?

FFI haven´t sold this product for 30 years. They got the exclusive rights for the product and started selling it in november 2005.

Everything I know about engines, and have read about FFI, says to me the MPG-Caps don't work. Unless and until FFI get some proper scientific test data to prove me wrong, I will continue to feel quite comfortable.

About the test, I guess that Millbrook is capable to do a proper test on these pills. Or aren´t they?

Well, indeed. A great many things that FFI (or their supporters) have said in the past are obviously false (anti-matter car wash, anybody? ) So why should we believe anything they say?

This comment about anti-matter is something PonziKiller have produced.
http://www.myffi.biz/hiw/ecoclip.wmv
http://www.myffi.biz/en/index.php?optio ... 2&Itemid=9

Have a nice day.

/TheBest

[wserra]

This comment about anti-matter is something PonziKiller have produced.

Wrong. It was on FFI's web site until they changed it amidst the general derision.

And one Hungarian distributor hasn't gotten with the program yet.

[fuelsaving]

FFI haven´t sold this product for 30 years. They got the exclusive rights for the product and started selling it in november 2005.

Well, it was developed 30 years ago and nobody has done the test in that time. Isn't the original inventor still supposed to be part of FFI?

About the test, I guess that Millbrook is capable to do a proper test on these pills. Or aren´t they?

Yes, they are - though if FFI pay them to do a useless test, that is what they will do. So just because Milbrook have done the test (assuming this data ever appears) does not prove it is a good test.

This comment about anti-matter is something PonziKiller have produced.
http://www.myffi.biz/hiw/ecoclip.wmv
http://www.myffi.biz/en/index.php?optio ... 2&Itemid=9

No, absolutely not. FFI have finally changed their pages, but Goggle's cache shows clearly what nonsense FFI have been talking:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:QM ... cd=8&gl=uk
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:KB ... cd=2&gl=uk

Maybe you'd like to post those Google pages here, and elsewhere, before they disappear as Google re-caches the pages?

[TheBest]

Yes, they are - though if FFI pay them to do a useless test, that is what they will do. So just because Milbrook have done the test (assuming this data ever appears) does not prove it is a good test.

So this is what you mean, if the test is no good, then Millbrook is OK, and if the test is good, then FFI have paid them to do it good???

Do you really think that Millbrook will do so??

/TheBest

[PonziKiller]

This comment about anti-matter is something PonziKiller have produced.
http://www.myffi.biz/hiw/ecoclip.wmv
http://www.myffi.biz/en/index.php?optio ... 2&Itemid=9

Have a nice day.

/TheBest

Lucky me, that many people have read that nonsense from FFI. I have never produced any argument. You and FFI has made them for me...

And this time they have "positivly charged ions" in their wax. Where have the positive charged microns, or the antimatter gone? Don't the fools that push this shit understand why everybody are laughing at them...

[fuelsaving]

Yes, they are - though if FFI pay them to do a useless test, that is what they will do. So just because Milbrook have done the test (assuming this data ever appears) does not prove it is a good test.

So this is what you mean, if the test is no good, then Millbrook is OK, and if the test is good, then FFI have paid them to do it good???
/TheBest

No, I don't mean Millbrook will falsify the tests if FFI tell them to. I mean, that, for example:
Millbrook will only test one car if that is what FFI decides, even though 2 or 3 are needed for a good result;
Millbrook will test very old cars if FFI decides it, even though newer cars should be tested to give a meaningful answer;
Milbrook will measure economy by driving cars on the road if that is what FFI tell them to, even though a rolling-road test is needed to prove anything;
etc

[fuelsaving]

This comment about anti-matter is something PonziKiller have produced.
http://www.myffi.biz/hiw/ecoclip.wmv
http://www.myffi.biz/en/index.php?optio ... 2&Itemid=9

No, absolutely not. FFI have finally changed their pages, but Goggle's cache shows clearly what nonsense FFI have been talking:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:QM ... cd=8&gl=uk
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:KB ... cd=2&gl=uk

TheBest, will you now publically acknowledge that you (and FFI) were wrong, and I was right?

[TheBest]

Yes, they are - though if FFI pay them to do a useless test, that is what they will do. So just because Milbrook have done the test (assuming this data ever appears) does not prove it is a good test.

So this is what you mean, if the test is no good, then Millbrook is OK, and if the test is good, then FFI have paid them to do it good???
/TheBest

No, I don't mean Millbrook will falsify the tests if FFI tell them to. I mean, that, for example:
Millbrook will only test one car if that is what FFI decides, even though 2 or 3 are needed for a good result;
Millbrook will test very old cars if FFI decides it, even though newer cars should be tested to give a meaningful answer;
Milbrook will measure economy by driving cars on the road if that is what FFI tell them to, even though a rolling-road test is needed to prove anything;
etc

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

[TheBest]

This comment about anti-matter is something PonziKiller have produced.
http://www.myffi.biz/hiw/ecoclip.wmv
http://www.myffi.biz/en/index.php?optio ... 2&Itemid=9

No, absolutely not. FFI have finally changed their pages, but Goggle's cache shows clearly what nonsense FFI have been talking:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:QM ... cd=8&gl=uk
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:KB ... cd=2&gl=uk

TheBest, will you now publically acknowledge that you (and FFI) were wrong, and I was right?

To be frank, I don´t understand the question about right and wrong. I haven´t tested the Eco-Sheen yet, so I don´t know if it works or not. But I reckon it works as it said to do.
As the pills works, more than OK.

/TheBest

[fuelsaving]

To be frank, I don´t understand the question about right and wrong.

I mean, do you accept that FFI really did talk about "positively charged electrons" and "positively charged microns" on their website, and this was not just a story invented by PonziKiller?

[TheBest]

To be frank, I don´t understand the question about right and wrong.

I mean, do you accept that FFI really did talk about "positively charged electrons" and "positively charged microns" on their website, and this was not just a story invented by PonziKiller?

Oh, yes they did. And I know that it was wrong.

What I meant was that PonziKiller was the one that talked about anti-matter.

[artessa]

This is what happens when people that hasn’t got a clue of what they are writing is put to redact a web page, or any written material in what ever shape it could be.
Have you ever heard an interpreter simultaneity translating between to languages and not having an idea of what they are talking about? Could produce very amusing (embarrassing) situations. This is what to me seams to be the explanation to this embarrassing incident.

As we have Tony´s full attention in this thread I would like to get his opinion on the following.

First let me say that many things can be done perfect, less perfect, satisfactory to personal needs or just outright bad. The perfect level is normally specified in some standards and could in reality be hard to do or very costly. Something that is less perfect might be something that has got the perfect procedure as a goal but has not reached those standards. Personally satisfactory is much harder to specify, it must be extremely vary. I will try to explain to you how I apply this fore myself.
I have this car which I have tested regarding my personal criteria and of course they are by far perfect but I think they are as good as they can become regarding my circumstances. I would like you to comment on how they could have been better.

The car is equipped with a modern 6 cylinder, 24 valve fully computerized gasoline engine. The car runs under two normal conditions. Highway, the same 230 kilometres roundtrip drive or urban traffic.

The baseline for consumption before any adding has been done under 4 month. The car runs normally in urban traffic during weekdays and then sometimes during week ends on the highway. Before any change in driving condition has occurred the tank has been filled up and the trip counter been set to zero.

This has created 2 separate baselines witch in the case of urban traffic has a baseline with a fluctuation of 1.2% and the highway is without any significant change. As I said before this has been done during a 4 month period and as the temperature, traffic condition and wind has wary very little it sure helps to create good baseline. Tyre pressure and load condition of the car has also always been the same. Before the car was subject to MPG dosage it was taken to a smoke check and the car was driven there exactly the same route at the same speeds before the MPG and then later once again after the MPG procedure was supposed to be finished. This to secure that the CAT was as close as possible at the same temperature.

I keep a constant track over the fuel consumption and last week we had speed bumps installed all over town because we were subject for a massive invasion of about 100.000 motorbikes that came to se the GP event and the only way to prevent them from speeding is to install these speed bumps. I have had a very stable baseline, (within two percent) but suddenly I had a +10% deviation. Of course that was the negative effect of the speed bumps. Now is this procedure good enough to tell if there is any effect of the pill? As I am since long ago convinced that there is an effect I am more interested to se how much each car changes its baseline. I will not bother to specify figures as I consider it meaningless to do so here but these figures give me sufficient information regarding my criteria to judge the degree of exit using the pill. As further information I would like to tell you that the dosage has been done with the liquid form of MPG because I wanted to be able to keep the dosage concentration exactly the same all the time. As I explained earlier I filled up the tank before any change in driving conditions was to be done. With a syringe it is easy to make the exact dosage.
Do you think I should quit using MPG to check that I get back to the same baseline as before to further more make the test as good as possible regarding my circumstances?

Thank you Tony.

[fuelsaving]

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

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

[TheBest]

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

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

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

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

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