FFI III - Jerry Lang's Position

[TheBest]

Sorry, it is impossible to view the mentioned video if you are not loged in to a representative´s web page.
But most sertanly you must know some one that is into FFi ,or?

I´ve sent him the link, artessa.
I´m also PMing you a link to the video without having to log in.



/TheBest

[In fairness, the moderator started (and titled) the new thread, not TheBest. His/her post was just the first one split off from the old thread.]

[artessa]

Well thank you very much.

This was handy to get like this. Now Tony can have a look at it and there are two sectors that I would like to have scrutinized with special attention.

First, let’s think about the carbon balance with normalized fuel. This is something that he starts to talk about some 7 minutes from the end.
Would you say this is B.S?


Then I would like to draw your attention to this:
Thermal NOx will not occur due to short duration of high temperature and reduction of secondary flame. Prompt NOx is greatly reduced due to the catalytic reduction of carbon radicals 0 to 15% of baseline. Overall reduction of 75 to 95%

Just crap, or?

[fuelsaving]

Just give me a few more days - I've been very busy recently...

[artessa]

Fine Tony, take your time and concentrate on your critical analyze of J.L statement.

[fuelsaving]

OK, I've now seen the video. I'd not seen it before, so thanks for the link. The first thing to say is that Jerry Lang clearly does generally know what he is talking about - I don't doubt that he has a lot of knowledge about combustion.

He claims that burning of gasoline in air is relatively slow, and this leads to a big part of the burn occuring (uselessly) after the exhaust valve has opened. Supposedly the MPG-Cap produces free hydrogen in the mixture, which speeds up the burn and so prevents this waste. In principle this could be plausible, because hydrogen really does speed up the burn, but you would need a lot of it to have any significant effect - and it is not at all clear to me how the MPG-Cap can generate this, or how FFi have proven that it happens. The analogy with the 100-foot tube of mixture is fairly misleading, because the burning speed in an engine is very much faster due to the high levels of turbulence.

Critically, car makers already know that burning speed is important for combustion efficiency, and so optimise the level of turbulence (and hence flame speed) appropriately. I, personally, have done many experiments on engines where I have speeded the burn up by 50% or so and seen no measurable improvement in economy. While a faster burn might reduce the (in fact very small) loss due to late burning, it increases losses due to heat transfer to the cylinder head, plus a few other effects, leading to a very small or even zero overall benefit.

(Edit: it's also worth noting that there can be some very significant disadvantages with a burn that is "too fast" - quite apart from the NOx emissions mentioned later, a faster burn would cause higher in-cylinder pressure, which at full load might lead to mechanical damage such as a leaking cylinder head gasket. On at least one project I have worked on, the engine output had to be artificially limited to reduce the in-cylinder pressure - speeding up the burn on this particular engine would almost certainly cause it to break. By the way, I have yet to see a single piece of evidence from FFI, or even a reference to testing, where they have actually measured the burn rate in an engine and showed that it is faster when the MPG-Cap is used - although this is an easy and cheap test to do.)

Talking about race engines with flames coming out of them is a bit irrelevant, since race engines are not that similar to normal road car engines, and also operate at very different conditions (typically very high speed, which naturally reduces the time available for combustion).

Another key point is that, as I mention on my "turbulence" page ( http://www.fuelsaving.info/turbulence.htm ), the optimum ignition timing (or injection timing on a diesel) is very strongly linked to the burn speed. Basically, a faster burn needs later ignition to keep the bulk of the burn at the optimum part of the cycle - otherwise it will occur too early, when the piston is still on its way up. Even if you really could get an economy benefit from a faster burn, without ignition timing changes the result is more likely to be worse efficiency.

The claim about NOx reduction by faster burning might be correct - I'n not an expert on NOx emissions - but does not fit my experience with variable-burn-rate engines. Claims of 75%+ reduction also do not fit the around 20% improvement seen on the Australian test discussed earlier in this thread.

Then Jerry talks about his experiments to test economy benefit "in the real world". This is a perfect example of how not to do testing, since it is not blinded and there is no placebo control. Every one of the test subjects was doing something different to normal, and knew they were testing "something", so it's not suprising there was an effect. It would have been trivially easy to randomly assign the drivers to get either the pill or a placebo and then compare the difference between the two groups, but FFI - yet again - failed to take this basic step.

Interestingly, Jerry then mentions the Millbrook tests and admits that the cap failed the test. He makes some claim about Millbrook using an inappropriate "modifier" to the data, which makes no sense to me based on my knowledge of this type of testing. He also claims the test used less gasoline, but did not show any benefit on the calculated economy number. Since the calculated value is the only measure of how much gasoline was used, this sounds like B.S. to me. Crucially, although Jerry has a lot of experience of industrial burners, I believe he is new to the field of car economy and emissions testing.

I would love to discuss some of these points directly with Jerry, but doubt that will ever happen.

[wserra]

Thanks, as always, Tony. Others of us can point out the nonsense surrounding things like "positively-charged electrons", "tests" that consist of driving around for a while, the perpetual game of "Waiting for [insert test lab here]", and the basic ripoff nature of the MLM "business model". You provide the expertise to dissect the technical claims.

I gotta comment on one of your observations in this video, though.

Interestingly, Jerry then mentions the Millbrook tests and admits that the cap failed the test.

I take it, Tony, that the "interestingly" is the proverbial British reserve in action. Given how many times, both on distributors' web pages and here on this forum, the FFI shills have promised the results "as soon as they come out" - or words to that effect - I would call it more than "interesting". I realize that neither artessa nor TheBest is a native English speaker, but there is an English technical term for their stuff - "lies". There is also a phrase - "damn lies". Just as we have been writing, they had the results, and they were negative. So the shills privately spin the results, and publicly just lie.

Anyone who would give these guys a dime deserves to lose it. And almost certainly would.

[TheBest]

I would love to discuss some of these points directly with Jerry, but doubt that will ever happen.

Just send him an email or call him and I guess he will be happy talking to you.

/TheBest

[fuelsaving]

Just send him an email or call him and I guess he will be happy talking to you.

And his email address is...

[TheBest]

Just send him an email or call him and I guess he will be happy talking to you.

And his email address is...

Try this: jerry@knocksout.com
or ignition@myffi.biz

You can even find a phone no. here:
http://www.knocksout.com/index.htm


/TheBest

[wserra]

OK, I've now seen the video. I'd not seen it before, so thanks for the link. The first thing to say is that Jerry Lang clearly does generally know what he is talking about - I don't doubt that he has a lot of knowledge about combustion.

That does appear to be the case. On his web site, he claims that "Jerry Lang and his associates have developed emissions reduction technology over the past 20 years and hold 12 apparatus patents". A search of the USPTO (click here to see it) shows 7 patents in Lang's name. Two of them are closely related to 2 others, and deal with devices to reduce emissions in furnaces/boilers. Three of them are for mechanical devices having nothing to do with combustion. Nonetheless, a knowledgeable man - whose field is not automotive engines, however.

It will be interesting to see if he engages Tony.

[fuelsaving]

Well, I sent Jerry an email a week ago but have had no response yet. Of course, there could be any number of innocent explanations such as spam filtering (or even him being on holiday). Nonetheless I think it would be good for artessa and TheBest to also apply pressure to FFi, via their uplines. I think FFi would take more notice of a distributor than a random member of the public. Reading my comments in this thread would be a good starting point.

I haven't tried phoning Jerry, partly because transatlantic calls are not cheap, partly because the time isn't really convenient, and partly because I don't want to get into a heated argument.

[wserra]

there could be any number of innocent explanations

Anything's possible, I suppose.

There is one thing much more likely, however - the last thing these guys want is a public exchange with a knowledgeable opponent.

[fuelsaving]

There is one thing much more likely, however - the last thing these guys want is a public exchange with a knowledgeable opponent.

While I am trying to be generous to Jerry Lang, I tend to agree. And the more time that elapses without a response, the more I agree.

[fuelsaving]

Two weeks now, and still nothing...

[wserra]

Well, to fill the embarrassing silence, perhaps theBest or artessa could post those Millbrook results that they've been promising for a year or so "as soon as they come out" and which we now know have existed for a while.

Nah.

[fuelsaving]

Ho hum. Three weeks now...

Maybe artessa and TheBest can update us on their conversations with FFI?

[wserra]

Ho hum. Three weeks now...

I'm shocked. Shocked.

[TheBest]

Ho hum. Three weeks now...

Maybe artessa and TheBest can update us on their conversations with FFI?

Tony, try one of these adresses to get contact with Jerry:

Corporate Contact:
Fuel Freedom International, LLC
650 Douglas Ave Suite 1040
Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
Phone: (407)682-0060
Email: support@myffi.biz

FFi EUROPE LTD:
22 Eaton Avenue,
Matrix Office Park, Euxton,
Chorley, Lancashire, PR7 7NA
United Kingdom
Phone:+44 (0)1772 285 500
FAX:+44 (0) 1772 289 348


Compliance - Compliance@myffi.biz
Marketing - Marketing@myffi.biz
Distributor Development - Distributordev@myffi.biz

/TheBest

[wserra]

And then, there's always black@hole.com .

[TheBest]

And then, there's always black@hole.com .

Wserra, after that comment, please remove me from this forum.
It is not serious enough when you come with such comments.

/TheBest