"Buy 1 for yourself and get the chance to sell your friends and family 5 and get your downline started!" We examine the multi-level marketing industry, where only the people who come up with the ideas make any money, and everybody else is left unhappy, broke, and tired of reading scripts and selling overpriced vitamins and similarly worthless products. Includes Global Prosperity, Pinnacle Quest International, IRS Codebusters, Stratia, and other new Global Prosperity scams.
TheBest wrote:Sorry, webhick. Just got upset by the way wserra writes, without acctually knowing what he is talking about.
And no matter what wserra says, the products do work.(he would have seen that for him self if he had cared to try the product, it be the pills or the boost .
No matter what proof we present they will not be good enough for you.
Just like this matter:
(we saw one complaint where the door handle had quit working after the use of the product, so it is sometimes blamed for anything that was not seen before its use).
TheBest wrote:No matter what proof we present they will not be good enough for you.
How many times do we have to repeat ourselves? All you need do is get a reputable testing facility to test according to the EPA guidelines, and that would be enough. It's not rocket science, or even very expensive, so why won't FFI do it?
Or have they in fact already done it at least twice - at Millbrook and TUV - and in each case got negative results? The Millbrook results are now 10 months overdue, the TUV results 2 months overdue...
I was trying to collect any information from the “approved testing facilities” about SCR and especially the one technique using urea injection into the exhaust (Adblue)
The manufacture of Adblue claims that it would contribute to a 3% reduction in consumption this is first of all difficult to understand how it would be obtained. Secondly I can not find any figures of how much of the NOx that is reduced.
Should we assume that this is unlikely to be true until some of the approved testing facilities has gotten any records of the results?
AdBlue is quite legitimate, and has the backing of several major vehicle manufacturers.
The way it improves economy is quite subtle: conventionally, diesel NOx emissions are reduced by either retarding the injection timing or using large amount of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), or both. Unfortunately these have a side-effect of worsening fuel consumption, since the combustion is not as efficient as it could be. Because AdBlue gets rid of a large proportion of engine-out NOx, you can optimise for economy rather than emissions.
Just bolting on an AdBlue system to an existing engine, without making any other changes, would not improve economy at all.
That explanation makes lots of sense to me. Unfortunately the system manufacture makes you believe that you could improve fuel economy just by installing the kit.
There is probably no method that is 100% effective and I would like to know more or less the effectiveness of this method. Surely there must exist some test data to study but maybe I am looking in wrong places.
I think most readers do agree that it has been proven that MPG at least has some positive effect on the emissions. To disagree with that you have to discredit some “reputable test facilities” and of course that is an option but I believe few readers are likely to do so.
The European emission classification euro 1 ….. to euro 5 specifies the amount of emission permitted in each class and I have tried to find these values without any luck , maybe Tony knows.
The MPG does not lower the NOx content more than maybe 33% but that might be enough for a truck to be upgraded. If then the owner would have a smaller fuel saving it would just be grate.
I know you have read the reports from the Australian government emission test facility and there is one thing that puzzles me. Either I am wrong or the test is done wrong.
To my understanding the analyzed component called CH4 (methane Hydrocarbons) would not be expected to be present in exhaust from diesel and would rather be expected to be found in engines burning gas.
How is this really?
artessa wrote:Unfortunately the system manufacture makes you believe that you could improve fuel economy just by installing the kit.
That's not a claim I ever recall seeing for AdBlue
artessa wrote:I would like to know more or less the effectiveness of this method. Surely there must exist some test data to study but maybe I am looking in wrong places.
I have seen 70-80% NOx reduction quoted, which sounds plausible.
artessa wrote:I think most readers do agree that it has been proven that MPG at least has some positive effect on the emissions.
On some vehicles, some of the time, maybe. That's not the same as proof of general effectiveness.
artessa wrote:The MPG does not lower the NOx content more than maybe 33% but that might be enough for a truck to be upgraded.
Maybe, just maybe - for example, there is an "emissions charging zone" in London, and a product that reduced emissions might allow a truck to come below the emissions threshold and so avoid paying the charge. But it would need extra safeguards, for example a warning light / power reduction if insufficient product had been added to the tank (and so the emissions were higher). And, of course, you would need to demonstrate that your product actually reduces emissions on that specific type of vehicle rather than relying on test data for a totally different vehicle.
artessa wrote:To my understanding the analyzed component called CH4 (methane Hydrocarbons) would not be expected to be present in exhaust from diesel and would rather be expected to be found in engines burning gas.
How is this really?
Methane is formed during the combustion process as the larger molecules get broken down.
I intend to express myself with some caution and of course what seams to be obvious regarding emission reduction to me might not be regarded as a proof of general effectiveness as if these tests would have been performed by a reputable testing facility.
All cars that I have conducted a monitored test of improvement have all (about 30 cars) showed improvement regarding emissions but 2. These 2 cars showed no improvement and were giving readings way of limit to start with and no improvement was either to be detected. There was a mechanical explanation to this behaviour in both cases so really they should not be taken into account.
So an interesting question occurs to me. How many cars and under how many different conditions would a reputable testing facility perform there test to monitor emissions in a B-A-B pattern? I must say I am getting the picture for the explanation to why these test are so extremely expensive.
So if we focus on NOx the spread is really big on different kinds of cars and engines and when I say maybe it refers to a quick estimate of a possible mean value. But once again, the difference is really big from engine to engine regarding NOx reduction. Why that, I don’t know.
Another interesting question to be analyzed would be that if a certain engine on a test rig would
demonstrate a certain decrease in emissions, what could possible make that engine perform differently
outside the test rig?
The test I perform might have some deviation because they are not done like the Australian test And I would probably get a wider spectrum of deviations. That I can not know, the only thing I can take for certain is that a certain improvement takes place on all cars except those that are faulty from the beginning.
So if we try to analyze the fact that TH4 is to considered as an emission due to incomplete combustion,
Why is it that this parameter drastically reduces and not the THC in the same manner for this particular engine?
Remember that there is a world of difference between the annual inspection-type emissions test (typically just CO, CO2 and HC measured at idle) and the EPA-type emissions test (which measures NOx as well, and over a realistic drive cycle rather than just at idle). Just because you have seen reductions at idle, this does not prove a "real" benefit.
The EPA guidelines recommend 3 vehicles, with 3 tests each in "A", "B" and "A" condition.
TheBest wrote:Yes, I'm very confident, more than ever.
Well, fools rush in.
FFI's distributors continue to make the outlandish claims, proof be damned. From yesterday, in St. Louis:
"Its increasing gas milage," says Jud Davis with Fuel Freedom International. "So this little pill I put in my gas tank, it cost $2, and it saves me about $20 to get that many more miles out of my tank."
All it will take is one state AG in a slow period and who needs headlines for FFI to go the way of BioPerformance.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
I just came across an interesting report from the German motoring club, the ADAC. They have tested several claimed economy-improving products, using proper drive-cycle rolling-road tests (in this case the European NEDC cycle) rather than uncontrolled on-road tests. One of the products tested was the MPG-Cap, on a 2004 Opel Astra (1.8 litre, 4 cylinder, gasoline).
They tested the economy with the car as standard, dosed it up with the MPG-Cap "strictly following the recommendations" and drove for 800 km (500 miles). Then they retested the economy. OK, not a perfect test as there's no A-B-A or repeat tests, but still interesting.
Denied the opportunity to use their talents in the service of their country, they began to operate what they called 'The Operation'. They would manufacture a gasoline additive which, if you used it, would give you worse mileage. Four months later they started another operation which the called 'The Other Operation'. In this racket they would manufacture a gasoline additive which, if you didn't use it, would give you better mileage. One month later they hit upon 'The Other Other Operation'. In this they would manufacture a gasoline additive which, if you used it, would give you better mileage. This for the FFI Brothers was the turning point.
I wouldn't count on it. And, if they did ever blunder onto such a thing, it sure wouldn't be marketed by MLM.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
fuelsaving wrote:I just came across an interesting report from the German motoring club, the ADAC. They have tested several claimed economy-improving products, using proper drive-cycle rolling-road tests (in this case the European NEDC cycle) rather than uncontrolled on-road tests. One of the products tested was the MPG-Cap, on a 2004 Opel Astra (1.8 litre, 4 cylinder, gasoline).
They tested the economy with the car as standard, dosed it up with the MPG-Cap "strictly following the recommendations" and drove for 800 km (500 miles). Then they retested the economy. OK, not a perfect test as there's no A-B-A or repeat tests, but still interesting.
Well, if they "strictly following the recommendations" , what engine was it in the car? The recommendations are to drive at least 6 full tanks to get a fair result, so for using 6 tanks on 800 kms, then it had to be a BIG engine.
(you get the fairest result if you drive 10 tanks without MPG, gets an average consumption (baseline), then drive 10 tanks with MPG and get a new average, then 10 tanks without MPG (10 so you get the product out of the system again) and then get a new average (baseline). If you do like this I can guarantee you a reduction of at least 10 % (in most cases much more) in fuel consumption and a reduction in emmissions by at least 75 % (when I say emmissions it's all the emmissions combined)
But someone thinks it's better to listen to the "experts".
TheBest wrote:Well, if they "strictly following the recommendations" , what engine was it in the car? The recommendations are to drive at least 6 full tanks to get a fair result, so for using 6 tanks on 800 kms, then it had to be a BIG engine.
Most of the information I have seen from FFI talks about 2 - 3 tanks, so 800 km is sufficient. In any case, even if 10 tanks are needed for the absolutely complete effect, you would expect to see something after 2 - 3 tanks.
Interestingly, FFI are quite happy to show positive testimonials from TV shows on their website, where there is no conditioning period at all before taking the measurement (ie, pop the pill in, then go for a drive and check the MPG).
TheBest wrote:Well, if they "strictly following the recommendations" , what engine was it in the car? The recommendations are to drive at least 6 full tanks to get a fair result, so for using 6 tanks on 800 kms, then it had to be a BIG engine.
Most of the information I have seen from FFI talks about 2 - 3 tanks, so 800 km is sufficient. In any case, even if 10 tanks are needed for the absolutely complete effect, you would expect to see something after 2 - 3 tanks.
Interestingly, FFI are quite happy to show positive testimonials from TV shows on their website, where there is no conditioning period at all before taking the measurement (ie, pop the pill in, then go for a drive and check the MPG).
Ok. But 800 kms in this Opel isn't more than 1 tank, so with 2 more tanks they would have got a positive result, but I reckon the test was done this way to prove that it doesn't work (like everything written in here proves, everyone here doesn't want it to work).
So you are right, you normally gets an effect after 2 - 3 tanks, but almost never after 1 tank. (I guess you agree with me that this Opel goes 800 kms on 1 tank).
TheBest wrote:I guess you agree with me that this Opel goes 800 kms on 1 tank)
Actually no, I don't. At a steady 100 km/h cruise, maybe, but in normal driving I would expect a 1.8 petrol car to use considerably more than 1 tank in 800 km.
TheBest wrote:I reckon the test was done this way to prove that it doesn't work (like everything written in here proves, everyone here doesn't want it to work).
Why would ADAC want to prove it doesn't work, if it really does? What is their "hidden agenda"?
TheBest wrote:you are right, you normally gets an effect after 2 - 3 tanks, but almost never after 1 tank.
Yet FFI are quite happy to use, in their marketing, "tests" where not even 1 tank is used before measuring the MPG?
When you produce the positive results from Millbrook or TUV, let's talk again...
TheBest wrote:everyone here doesn't want it to work
I don't "want it to work"? With crude at $100 US a barrel? I'd love it to work. The US is a little larger than Sweden, and imports far more oil. Anything that reduces fuel consumption in IC engines will benefit me far more than you.
What I really don't want is for you guys to rip people off. Despite the endless promises - a true hallmark of a scam - there is no proof that your brand of snake oil works. Everybody in the industry knows what the proof would consist of - testing by EPA standards - so why don't you do it? Actually, as we have said before, you probably have, and didn't like the results.
But, since you sell the stuff and thus benefit from the scam, anyone who points out the scam just "doesn't want it to work".
The world revolves around you. Just ask you.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
(you get the fairest result if you drive 10 tanks without MPG, gets an average consumption (baseline), then drive 10 tanks with MPG and get a new average, then 10 tanks without MPG (10 so you get the product out of the system again) and then get a new average (baseline). If you do like this I can guarantee you a reduction of at least 10 % (in most cases much more) in fuel consumption and a reduction in emmissions by at least 75 % (when I say emmissions it's all the emmissions combined) 