"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.
The report is written in english ang belgium(flamsk) language. From what I can read, fuel consumption is not an issue in this document even if the pusher claim so. I don't even know if it's fake...
I just wonder, why don't FFI use money in only ONE test wich is according to EPA or equal?
Or do FFI just use many cheap meaningless and missleading "tests" to prove their deceitful business practice to the fullest just to cheat the most gullible prospects?
Basically this test compares the properties of diesel fuel with and without the MPG-Caps added. Most parameters are essentially unchanged, but there appears to be a slight improvement in "lubricity" (protection against wear).
So no reason at all to expect improved economy or emissions, but perhaps a chance of less wear to diesel injection pump. But the improvement is from 317 to 287, against a specified maximum of 460, so it's not exactly huge.
As PK mentions, this test seems essentially irrelevant to FFI's claims.
No matter what tests that comes they are worthless to you, because you want them to be.
No, not at all. Do some testing based on the industry-standard FTP75 and HFET - as is supposedly being done at Milbrook - and we will take them seriously.
TheBest wrote:
But here is another one, just for emmissions.
Have you ever heard of the phrases "placebo controlled", or "statistical significance"? Clearly the people doing this test had not. Without these controls, there's no way of saying if the MPG-Cap is actually doing anything.
In any case, the emissions values for almost all the vehicles are so low - close to the accuracy limits of the equipment - that it tells us essentially nothing about the combustion efficiency or fuel consumption of the vehicles. The HC and CO values measured equate to a tiny fraction of one percent of the fuel going into the engine, so even halving this is hardly significant.
I thought this situation was quite obvious a long time ago.
For some of us that are slightly more open minded for the unlikely to happen we are satisfied with smaller indicators of a certain efficiency of a product like the MPG. It is very true that under our very limited test capabilities we are not capable of determining 100 % accuracy in our tests, but it really doesn’t matter.
Then there exist professional test facilities that has been doing business for a very long time and they charge a certain fee for there service. There are several of them and there costs are also very different. Any customer is free to choose the company that best fits his demands and budget.
Of course you can assume that some of them might have a tendency to be loyal towards there costumers but if this would be common practice I suppose that sooner or later this would become public and the consequence of that would be that they would loose credibility and go out of business.(unless they are governmental of course)
Now, each of us may consider the likeliness of this to happen. There are certainly a couple of members in this forum that assumes that this is very likely to occur, personally I hold this for a very unlikely situation.
But once again, every one is free to believe anything.
As we have been reading before there are some members that will not accept anything else but tests made by the EPA. Therefore arguing with them is useless. Admitting a test result from a different test facility would not be anything else than a lost of prestige and therefore they will always stick to there conviction that the MPG has got to be a scam.
There still are loads of people that do not believe that mankind has walked on the moon.
So we have to be realistic, some people will NEVER be convinced.
artessa wrote:I thought this situation was quite obvious a long time ago.
But once again, every one is free to believe anything.
As we have been reading before there are some members that will not accept anything else but tests made by the EPA. Therefore arguing with them is useless. Admitting a test result from a different test facility would not be anything else than a lost of prestige and therefore they will always stick to there conviction that the MPG has got to be a scam.
There still are loads of people that do not believe that mankind has walked on the moon.
So we have to be realistic, some people will NEVER be convinced.
Please note that FFI have their nuce-vax invented by their "Nobel Price Nominated scientists". Please note that FFI have a deceitful way of making false claims and presenting irrelevant "tests" for the purpose of cheat the most gullible of us...
We will be convinced that day that FFI or other similar scam-companies show us a test that is made according to EPA's guidelines.
artessa wrote:As we have been reading before there are some members that will not accept anything else but tests made by the EPA.
Nobody here has ever said that.
What people here have said is that they won't accept ad hoc "tests" when the EPA has promulgated standards. Just choose a reputable lab, retain it to test by those standards, and publish the results.
Easy, right? Why do all these miracle fuel additive MLMs avoid it like the plague? Or have they actually not avoided it - they just don't like the results?
Therefore arguing with them is useless. Admitting a test result from a different test facility would not be anything else than a lost of prestige and therefore they will always stick to there conviction that the MPG has got to be a scam.
So show us test results from a reputable lab that tested per the EPA specs. Just one for a start. Can't do that, can you?
There still are loads of people that do not believe that mankind has walked on the moon.
And lots more than that who believe that people are regularly abducted by aliens. And even more than that who are willing to say virtually anything for a few bucks.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
TheBest wrote:
(but I guess that´s not good enough for you "experts".?)
/TheBest
Poor little child. Why this spoiled "child-king" attitude?
No one said that we never will believe any test. Just let a reputable test-organisation make a test according to your(FFI) claim and according to EPA's guideline. Until now, we have seen many nosense "tests". But no really rigid test.
TheBest wrote:
(but I guess that´s not good enough for you "experts".?)
/TheBest
Poor little child. Why this spoiled "child-king" attitude?
No one said that we never will believe any test. Just let a reputable test-organisation make a test according to your(FFI) claim and according to EPA's guideline. Until now, we have seen many nosense "tests". But no really rigid test.
TheBest wrote:
TÜV´s test comes first, in approx. 2 weeks.
Promises, promises. We've heard this so often before you're rapidly turning into "the boy who cried wolf".
I would be willing to bet quite a lot of money that one of four things happens:
1) The TUV test mysteriously does not appear around the 15th July. I'm sure TheBest will have some implausible reason why.
2) The test turns out to not follow proper guidelines (eg EPA or European NEDC), but instead is just uncontrolled on-road testing.
3) The vehicles involed are very old, or in some other way unrepresentative.
4) The test shows a very small (<5%) economy benefit.
Here are the organizations supposedly providing the definitive tests showing that this stiuff really works.
(1) The Competition Bureau (Canada):
Posted March 18:
artessa wrote:For those that actually believe that the test has not even been carried out, it could be interesting to inform that The Canadian Competition Bureau is about to carry out official testing before approving this business. And how do I know? Well, that will be my secret, at least for time being.
Four months, and still nothing. A search of their web site for "Fuel Freedom" comes up empty.
And please define "time being". Do we have to wait for an ice age?
(2) Millbrook (UK):
TheBest wrote: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.
If someone tells you otherwise, they don´t tell the thruth.
Another four months of nothing. Gonna blame it on global warming? El Nino is so last-decade.
(3) TUV (Germany).
TheBest wrote:started their test on the 4th of may and it goes on through the summer
And, of course, a search of their web site shows nothing.
This can't be all BS, can it, guys?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume
TheBest wrote:Just count a few more days and I´ll send it to you.
How many? Have you actually got the report, or are you just being promised it by your upline? Do you see any reason to believe them, based on previous experiences?
