Another worthless test from FFI?

[wserra]

This thread has lately been improving a lot, maybe because wserra has been keeping out omitting his unintelligent commentaries. Nothing constructive what so ever, just kicking down on the people of different opinion.

And there's a reason why you're down and unable to rise. All I do is point it out. Tony is (of course) far more knowledgeable in the field than I am. But certain BS tests apply regardless of specific field, and thus require no expertise in the field to use.

For example: I don't know if Spain has a standardized college admissions test, but the US does - the Scholastic Aptitude Test, or SAT. You are a college admissions officer who is about to interview an applicant whose application doesn't contain an SAT score - probably the only such application you see that year. He confirms that he didn't take it. You ask why. Instead of answering directly, the applicant points out the large number of favorable recommendations attached to his application. Unsatisfied, you ask again. He launches into a convoluted story of broken-down cars, missing scores, and how all of those recommendations are more meanngful anyway. His application is also missing high school grades, for which he has another convoluted explanation centering around his home-schooling. Eventually you draw the obvious conclusion - either this guy did take the SAT and didn't do well, or he is unwilling to take it for fear that he won't do well. Does he get in? Why not? Don't all those people saying nice things about him mean anything?

There is a fuel-economy equivalent to the SAT - the EPA's standardized testing protocols. Why hasn't FFI used it and publicized the results? Don't tell me that it's money - while it's true that the test would be quite expensive for an individual, isn't it true that

Thus began Fuel Freedom International, started in November 2005. Since then, it has grown to a successful business, generating more than $1 million and thousands of satisfied motorists each week in business.

FFi is currently shipping to over 181 countries around the world, and maintains offices in the United States, Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and The United Kingdom. Operations are run by independent distributors located throughout the world, some 30,000 of which are based in the U.S.

At least that's what they say.

So why don't they take a small piece of the $1M per week and retain a reputable lab to perform what the entire engineering world (at least those who don't work for FFI) views as the definitive test? Or have they already and not done real well?

Now, artessa, I'm sorry if this is an "unintelligent commentary" which "adds nothing constructive whatsoever". It's just that it is also (as Tony might say) bleedin' obvious.

[artessa]

OK, let assume for a moment that there is absolutely no effect with the pill.
If I have this car in wich I want to eliminate all HC and CO. What methods exist then to be used?

I’m quite aware that there exist a whole lot of things that you can do to increase these values and of course the consumption as well. Then I take the car to a test and after that I readjust it and make a new test witch would supposedly be an effect of the pill. That would look fine on the paper and as Tony say there is absolutely no way of making any kinds of guaranties that it has not been the case. I accept that. But then when you present a car that from the beginning actually had good smog values and then reduce these good values to a Zero mustn’t you then ask yourself what the heck they have done to the car. If you claim that this is perfectly possible then I’m very interested in knowing what procedure could achieve this?

[Nikki]

What do pollution components have to do with a product that is being sold to improve gas mileage?

[artessa]

optimizing engine performance.

[Nikki]

optimizing engine performance.

And that is based on exactly what engineering premises?

An internal compustion engine's performance can not necessarily be measured by the composition of its exhaust. In fact, producing exhaust lower in pollutant compounds decreases the performance of the engine.

Don't you realize the engine manufacturers would love to be able to get more horsepower and better fuel economy out of their products and that, if they could do so by reducing pollutants, they would have done so long ago?

Got any more Dixie you want to whistle?

[fuelsaving]

An internal combustion engine's performance can not necessarily be measured by the composition of its exhaust. In fact, producing exhaust lower in pollutant compounds decreases the performance of the engine.

That's a bit simplistic, but basically correct. Unless the levels of CO, HC, etc are very high, reducing them means little or nothing in terms of fuel consumption and performance. And as Nikki quite rightly says, we are talking about the MPG-Cap, so fuel economy is the key parameter.

[fuelsaving]

This thread has lately been improving a lot, maybe because wserra has been keeping out omitting his unintelligent commentaries. Nothing constructive what so ever, just kicking down on the people of different opinion.

Not so - for a non-technical guy, wserra is (IMHO) doing a very good job of summarising my sometimes very technical comments.

Knowing his background and reputation it is also understandable that he has to adapt an extremely sceptic attitude towards everything involved with FFi.

That's neither understandable nor true. I'm sceptical about FFI because
a) my engineering knowledge says it's very unlikely to work
b) their test data is unconvincing

(a) is unlikely to change, but if (b) does then I would change my opinion. Right now I can't see how the MPG-Cap can work, but that doesn't mean it's totally impossible, and if the evidence is strong enough then (as any responsible scientist would) I would have to look at the theory again.

It would be interesting to know if Tony sometimes has been wrong in anything he has written. Probably not, and I suppose only he would know.

Not often, and not by very much. But I'm not infallible

It was quite interesting to know that a proper test regarding to the guidelines of EPA costs several 10´s of thousands of dollars. Therefore I doubt that any test will ever be performed by them, why should they? I mean would any approval by them regarding the efficiency help me in increasing sales volume? Probably not because my customers would not be able to understand anything of such a documentation and I believe a big part of the words customers are in the same situation.

As wserra points out, even 100 000 dollars would be a tiny fraction of what FFI claim as their income. So even if the potential increase in sales is small, it should still be worthwhile. But in reality the increase could be huge, because you would then have people like the EPA supporting you instead of warning customers off as they do now.

We have in this thread been advised that it is unlikely that any information regarding a supposed test at the TUV will ever become published because of supposed unexpected (bad) results. Well I think that in the case of such an outcome it would eventually leak anyway so you can certainly rest assure that eventually anything will become public.

I doubt it. People like Millbrook, and I presume TUV, take their obligation of confidentiality very seriously. If TUV found the MPG-Cap didn't work, I expect only FFI's top management would ever know about it.

[fuelsaving]

If I have this car in wich I want to eliminate all HC and CO. What methods exist then to be used?

Nothing. You can't eliminate HC and CO, short of removing the gasoline engine and replacing it with an electric motor.

But the point is that the test equipment used for the Smog Check (and similar emissions tests in other countries) is relatively crude and will show a zero reading when the amount of pollution is, in fact, non-zero. The check is only trying to detect gross pollutors so that is plenty good enough. This is yet another reason why only a "proper" test, using "proper" equipment, is suitable for evaluating this kind of product.

[TheBest]

It would be interesting to know if Tony sometimes has been wrong in anything he has written. Probably not, and I suppose only he would know.

Not often, and not by very much. But I'm not infallible

Well, we soon know about that, and I´ll hope you can take it!

/TheBest

[TheBest]

I doubt it. People like Millbrook, and I presume TUV, take their obligation of confidentiality very seriously. If TUV found the MPG-Cap didn't work, I expect only FFI's top management would ever know about it.

If this should happen (which I doubt), you will be the first to know. In fact, so far, the TÜV testing looks very good.
(but of course, they are bought, when it shows that the test turns out to be as good as it looks.)

/TheBest

[fuelsaving]

If [TUV finds the MPG-Cap doesn't work] (which I doubt), you will be the first to know. In fact, so far, the TÜV testing looks very good.

Again, this is exactly what you said about the Millbrook tests - six months ago. Since then, we've heard precisely nothing. So I'm not exactly optimistic that anything amazing will appear from TUV, either.

[artessa]

There is no question about the fact that the pollutant from this particular car has drastically been reduced.
This has been concluded in ABA test and in 2 different location. First the workshop specialized in injection and the governmental test facilities with very similar results so I take them as valid.
So my question is very simple.
Would you actually consider the economy of this particularly engine as poorer and what could happen to an engine to suddenly start to burn 100% of the fuel ?

[ArthurRubin]

There is no question about the fact that the pollutant from this particular car has drastically been reduced.

If accurate, there's a market for that product, even if fuel economy is not helped by it.

[fuelsaving]

If accurate [pollutant from this particular car has drastically been reduced], there's a market for that product, even if fuel economy is not helped by it.

Quite so - but it should not be marketed as the MPG-Cap.

Though there is no way that this car, even if its pollutants have been reduced, is really now "burning 100% of the fuel". Zero readings on emissions test equipment just indicate that the equipment is not sensitive enough.

[artessa]

Question remains to be answered.


Would you actually consider the economy of this particularly engine as poorer and what could happen to an engine to suddenly start to burn 100% of the fuel ?

[fuelsaving]

Question remains to be answered.

Would you (a) actually consider the economy of this particularly engine as poorer and (b) what could happen to an engine to suddenly start to burn 100% of the fuel ?

Oops, sorry.
a) No, I wouldn't assume that the reduced emissions mean worse economy - that is possible, but unlikely. Equally, I don't see any reason to expect economy to be better

b) See previous answer

[TheBest]

Zero readings on emissions test equipment just indicate that the equipment is not sensitive enough.

The only name for such comments are "excuses".

/TheBest

[wserra]

Although this thread is approaching the limit, it is in the middle of a productive discussion - thanks as always, Tony, and thanks to artessa as well. So as not to interrupt the discussion, I've split off artessa's last post into a new thread, and am locking this one.