"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: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.
Must say this is fun. Why should we test anymore when we know the product works? (and the reports we have provided says the same, no matter what "experts" say).
How come Tony doesn't test it out for himself (I'll provide him with free products). I guess I know the answer to that.
What should he tell you when he see for him self that it do work? ('cause I know it will, even in his car).
Why does all of my customers come back, week after week to buy more products?
Truckowners up here in the cold north are very pleased.
For every 1 000 000 SEK they uses on diesel the save approx. 100 000 after starting using the product. Don´t you think these guys knows how to use a calculator?
So, wserra, the problem for you isn't if or not the product works, it's the way we sell it.
How many times do we need to repeat ourselves? Uncontrolled, non-blind measurements are not proper testing! This kind of measurement technique has in the past, over and over again, given apparently positive results for useless products.
The only way to be really sure if a product like the MPG-Cap works is to test it under properly controlled conditions, where all other variables are eliminated. This is what Millbrook apparently did (results expected Easter 2007) and also TUV (results expected end of Summer 2007).
Hmm, is it just me or are we several months beyond those dates already? Like Wes says, it's very hard to see an explanation for this except: the tests were done, but the results were negative. Just like the ADAC test.
fuelsaving wrote:How many times do we need to repeat ourselves? Uncontrolled, non-blind measurements are not proper testing! This kind of measurement technique has in the past, over and over again, given apparently positive results for useless products.
The only way to be really sure if a product like the MPG-Cap works is to test it under properly controlled conditions, where all other variables are eliminated. This is what Millbrook apparently did (results expected Easter 2007) and also TUV (results expected end of Summer 2007).
Hmm, is it just me or are we several months beyond those dates already? Like Wes says, it's very hard to see an explanation for this except: the tests were done, but the results were negative. Just like the ADAC test.
So when you see for your self that you save 10 - 15 %, that isn't good enough?
TheBest wrote:So when you see for your self that you save 10 - 15 %, that isn't good enough?
No, because I often see changes of this size in my fuel economy due to other factors. So how would I know if such a change was due to the MPG-Cap, or something else?
Let’s assume that the following test would have been performed by a reputable testing facility, would it then be of any importance?
SUMMARY OF MPG-CAPS™ TEST
CONDUCTED 10-29-2007 THRU 10-31-2007
The test engine used wasGM with a bore of 4.07 inches and stroke of 3.66 inches and displacement of 380 inches . This engine is normally used in the larger SUV vehicles and many other applications. The tests were conducted with the engine running at 2000 rpm with a resistance of 125 ft/lbs torque . This steady load simulates a large SUV traveling at 80 mph .
A baseline test was conducted using 20 gallons of fuel . We used a cylindrical tank with a sight glass on the side . Strapping of the tank calculatedto contain.47 gallons per inch. We were able to make very precise measurements of fuel at 20 minute intervals . We ran the baseline test for 5 hours and burned 42 inches of fuel which calculated to be 19.74 gallons .
We conducted a conditioning run of 20 gallons and ran exactly 42 inches in 5 hours which also calculated to be 19.74 gallons . We used ¾ grams of product during this run.
We then conducted a treated run using ¾ grams in 20 gallons . During the first 4 hours we did not see any reduction in fuel consumption . During the last hour we saw a reduction of 9/16 of an inch in reduced fuel consumption.
Due to the reduction we saw in the last hour we decided we had not completed the conditioning run in the original 5 hours. We had reserved enough time to run an additional 2.5 hours or a 10 gallon run. 10 gallons is a total of 21.27 inches in the tank.
During the final 2.5 hour run we saw little change in the fuel consumption during the first hour but during the last one and one half hours we saw fuel consumption decrease as much as 19% ( see the calculations on the data sheets )
The overall average of the product runs was over 6% lower in fuel consumption; however the 19% decrease in consumption during the last one and one half hours of the run indicated that a continued run would have shown 15% or more savings.
The operator on this test was Terry Gray acting as an independent consultant. He is retired from Southwest Labs and ran this test within the EPA guidelines but not to a specific test requirement. The purpose of the test was to show fuel economy with the use of the FFI product.
Well, this is better than testing on the road, but still falls way short of the EPA requirements. Just a few criticisms:
1) Measuring fuel use by volume, not mass, is prone to errors due to varying temperature and hence density
2) Where is the A-B-A test?
3) I don't know the test facility involved, but if the test bed needs to measure fuel consumption by something as crude as a sight glass rather than normally recognised equipment such as weighers or Coriolis meters then it makes me skeptical about the accuracy of everything else.
For goodness sake, guys, this is a product worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year if proven effective. Why won't you spend a few tens of thousands of dollars on testing it properly?
Tony has got a couple of points in his answer and I agree with most of it.
First of all we have reacted to same rudimental way of measuring fuel consumption although I do not consider it very necessary for compensating for a couple of degrees difference that might be the case in this trial.
But the lack of a coriolis meter indicates that the test facility is of a more primitive nature.
As we can understand they had only a limited amount of time to do the test and it is very time consuming to get back to the old baseline for the A-B-A
Test. Therefore that is omitted.
The way the performed this measure reminds me of a “brainiac test”
I saw on Discovery some time ago.
Finally something that is a big mystery to Tony is not such a big mystery to me, not any longer anyway. First let me say that you tend to think that
others think the same way as you do yourself and you take for granted that the way you understand a certain situation is the most logical and common way. That is far from the truth.
I was at the beginning as keen on seeing “proof” as most readers to this thread are but now I know that fore the waste majority of people a “paper copy of a proper done test” is not worth anything.
First of all 99 percent of the people will not be able to understand it and of the few ones that could would still be uncertain if the authentically is trustworthy.
Still I would personally appreciate such a test a lot and I do understand that for some people such a test is of a vital importance to dare put the pill in the tank. But would it help me to sell it to the average car owner?
Definitely No….
artessa wrote:Finally something that is a big mystery to Tony is not such a big mystery to me, not any longer anyway. First let me say that you tend to think that
others think the same way as you do yourself and you take for granted that the way you understand a certain situation is the most logical and common way. That is far from the truth.
I was at the beginning as keen on seeing “proof” as most readers to this thread are but now I know that fore the waste majority of people a “paper copy of a proper done test” is not worth anything.
First of all 99 percent of the people will not be able to understand it and of the few ones that could would still be uncertain if the authentically is trustworthy.
Still I would personally appreciate such a test a lot and I do understand that for some people such a test is of a vital importance to dare put the pill in the tank. But would it help me to sell it to the average car owner?
Definitely No….
Well, yes and no. Artessa is quite right that the average person is not able to tell the difference between a proper scientific test (eg EPA-type) and an uncontrolled testimonial. But consumer groups, and motoring organisations, do understand the difference - and it would be very profitable for FFI if the EPA, or Consumer Reports, or the ADAC, came out strongly in support of the product. This will not happen without proper scientific testing.
fuelsaving wrote:To be fair, artessa isn't from the USA. (But then neither am I, and I know what Consumer Reports is, or at least can Google them).
The ADAC is a German motoring club and breakdown organisation; the largest in Europe, apparently, and affiliated to the AAA in the USA.
No one cares about the ADAC test, I guess Tony knows why.
To get a fair result the product should be used as the manufactorer says, 3 - 6 full tanks (1800 - 3600 kms).
The ADAC test was done over just 800 kms. Ie. the ADAC test is just b.s.
artessa wrote:you tend to think that others think the same way as you do yourself and you take for granted that the way you understand a certain situation is the most logical and common way. That is far from the truth.
I guess that I agree with you. People who are interested in proof by the scientific method will understand certain things. First of all, they will understand generally that, in any experiment, it is vital to control as many variables as possible. This excludes all of the "I'm driving around measuring my mileage and it got better" stuff. Second, they understand the placebo effect, and how it creates false positives even in those who honestly consider themselves unbiased. Third, they understand the importance of reproducible results, how this leads to the promulgation of recognized protocols and standards for testing in a myriad of contexts, and therefore how testing which does not follow those protocols should be at least discounted and perhaps outright ignored. Finally, they understand how people who avoid such controls, standards and protocols in all likelihood have an axe to grind, and are afraid of the results that such real testing would yield.
Let's see where on the spectrum artessa lies.
But would it help me to sell it to the average car owner?
Definitely No….
So selling stuff is the most important goal, even if it is expensive, useless crap.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
TheBest wrote:No one cares about the ADAC test, I guess Tony knows why.
To get a fair result the product should be used as the manufactorer says, 3 - 6 full tanks (1800 - 3600 kms).
The ADAC test was done over just 800 kms. Ie. the ADAC test is just b.s.
Strange, then, that FFI are happy to report positive results from TV stations where their tests didn't use even one tank. Is a test only "fair" when it gives you the answer you want?
In any case, the next question is obvious: why don't FFI themselves pay for a test that is done properly?
fuelsaving wrote:
In any case, the next question is obvious: why don't FFI themselves pay for a test that is done properly?
They are doing this. But I can´t say when its done, due to the fact that no one of the previous tests has come on the date they told it would be ready. But when it comes, I´ll let you know.
