 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Tony's Guide to Fuel saving gadgets |
|||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Case Study: Ethos Fuel Reformulator
This page was written in 2006/7, at the height of the "hype" around Ethos FR, the public flotation of Ethos Environmental Inc, and the launch of the MLM sales scheme 4-E. Much has changed since - for example 4-E no longer appear to be associated with the product - but this page is of sufficient historical interest to be worth keeping. Especially so because the claims from 2007 can still be widely found on the Net, and need to be continually rebutted.
The mere fact of employing MLM techniques does of course immediately trigger warning bells among sceptics. Some perfectly good and effective products are sold through MLM, but it is also a common method employed by scammers and snake-oil salesmen to maximise revenue from ineffective products. (Commonly, the "early adopters" make much, if not most, of their money by recruiting lower-level sales people rather than directly through product sales.) Supporters sometimes claim that Ethos FR "is not a fuel additive" (and thus that it should not be grouped with other additives by critics such as myself), but to me, if something is "added" to "fuel" then it is a "fuel additive". And if you scroll down through the EPA's list of registered fuel additives, you will find Ethos FR. (Though note that registration merely shows that Ethos have informed EPA of the composition of the product, not that EPA certify its ecomomy and emissions benefits.) Finally, the Patent describes the product as "an additive for diesel fuel", which rather proves the point.
The theory of operation of Ethos FR is explained on their web page, and also in the Patent for the "predecessor" product D-1280X. Unlike many fuel "saving" products, the theory does seem to make a certain amount of sense - the claim is that the product improves lubrication (and hence reduces friction losses), and also cleans components in the fuel system. Essentially these are two separate mechanisms, and will be considered individually. Improved lubrication On a typical engine running at typical driving conditions, something like 25% of the input fuel energy goes to overcoming friction; of that, maybe half is related to the piston and rings (the area where a fuel additive like Ethos can potentially make a difference). (There is some discussion on this topic on page 6 of this document.) So if Ethos can totally eliminate friction in this area, then it could potentially save 10% on fuel consumption - though remember that the piston and rings are already lubricated by oil splash from below, and without evidence that Ethos is vastly more "slippy" than normal engine oil, I am highly sceptical that the improvement is really that large. (Ethos themselves state that esthers such as Ethos have been superceeded by polyalphaolefins as the base for synthetic engine oil, which implies that esthers are not significantly better than current synthetic oil in terms of lubricant properties.) It is also perhaps worth asking: if it is such a great lubricant, why is the recommendation not simply to put it into the sump where it can lubricate all moving parts? While the most recent advice is to add it to the oil as well, there does not seem to be any mention of this on the Patent (so it was not the inventor's intention), and in any case this still means the great majority of the product is simply disappearing down the exhaust pipe. Cleaning It is difficult to say for certain whether or not Ethos can clean fuel systems and engines, though as a general principle I am sceptical about the need for this - particularly the need to add cleaning product to each and every tank of fuel, rather than just once per year or so. (It may be that some of the smoke reduction seen on old diesel engines is due to a "one-off" cleaning of the injectors, rather than any continuing effect of permanent dosing with Ethos FR.) Ethos also make the general claim that their product "makes engines combust fuel more completely", which as you can see from this page is worth taking with a pinch of salt. I have even heard claims by Ethos suporters that as much as 30% of the fuel typically escapes unburnt down the exhaust pipe, which is simply nonsense.
There are 13 separate test reports here, but the vast majority of them focus on reductions of Diesel smoke (opacity). This also fits with the Patent, which talks almost exclusively about operation with Diesel, and largely about smoke reduction rather than economy improvement. Reduction of Diesel smoke is of course a worthy goal, but does not seem to give the same kind of incentive to use Ethos FR as would a large improvement in fuel consumption; and given the radically different natures of the combustion processes in gasoline and diesel engines, it is far from clear to me that any economy benefit with diesel can be read across to gasoline (which is of course what most US motorists use). There are a few mentions of fuel consumption within the report:
- Camacho (diesel trucks): 11.3% improvement Again it can be seen that these improvements largely relate to diesel vehicles, with the one gasoline fleet gaining a relatively modest 5.8%. And as with the testimonials (see below), all this data is obtained under uncontrolled on-road conditions (varying weather, types of journeys, driving style, etc), and is not recorded in way that would allow the statistical significance to be assessed (in other words, is the natural day-to-day variation in MPG bigger or smaller than the apparent improvement seen when Ethos is added.) Overall, as a scientist and engineer, this seems to me to be insufficient data on which to base a claim of 7 - 19% economy benefit on modern gasoline cars. (It is also worth noting that the Cloud 9 Shuttle vans were very old, with an average of over 400 000 miles on the clock.) What appears to be totally lacking, so far as I can see, is any "proper" scientific testing. As with all such products, it seems astonishing that the makers are not willing to spend a tiny fraction of the potential profits on establishing incontrovertible proof of effectiveness. Especially after what happened recently to BioPerformance, you would think companies such as Ethos would be desperate to have such robust scientific data to avoid legal challenges.
As with most fuel "saving" products, the primary evidence in favour is uncontrolled on-road testing, where people compare their economy with and without Ethos FR. As explained here, it is very easy to get false results from this sort of testing since fuel economy is very strongly affected by traffic, driving style, weather, etc. Espcially significant is the "placebo effect" - anyone who has invested in Ethos, and wants to see it work, will naturally (if unconsciously) adopt a more economical driving style. (Also, do not forget the "MLM effect" mentioned at the top of the page.) Similarly, claims of improved performance are almost entirely restricted to comments along the lines of "my car feels quicker now", which could very easily just be wishful thinking. There is a long history with fuel "saving" products of glowing testimonial evidence followed by scientific testing proving that the product/device has only a tiny effect (for example, the Ecotek CB-26B). Because of this, governments and other regulatory bodies generally say that testimonial evidence on its own is not sufficient to demonstrate the effectiveness of any fuel "saving" product. (See for example the advice from the Federal Trade Commission.) It's also worth considering the case of BioPerformance, which has an absolute mountain of positive testimonial evidence yet is currently the subject of legal action by the Texas Attorney General, and indeed is frequently condemned by Ethos supporters as a "worthless scam". Strange that testimonials that support Ethos are reliable, yet those that support BioPerformance are meaningless... It's worth pointing out here that the frequent positive comments from Pacific Waste Services, regularly cited by Ethos as a big industrial user of the product, are also just testimonials. I don't see any evidence of a proper scientific test program (for example use of placebo controls and double-blinding) at Pacific Waste, just a comment that "economy got better since we started using it". Those who market and support Ethos, as with other fuel "saving" devices, always condemn those (such as me) who criticise it without trying for themselves. "If you haven't tried it in your car, you can't comment on it", they say. But the point is this: the sceptics know very well that any testing they could do would prove absolutely nothing, due to the natural fluctuations in fuel consumption. Maybe they would see an improvement, maybe they wouldn't. Either way it would not demonstrate conclusively whether the product works or not. Only rigorous scientific testing can do this (and such testing costs far more than any independent individual such as myself can afford). In June 2006 Ethos suggested that they would be carrying out such testing, but then in October they stated that this testing would not now happen because "when the EPA tests something, the results will only be on one vehicle". This is of course nonsense; two vehicles is the absolute minimum, but 3 or 4 would be more common. (You can see this for yourself by looking at the EPA's test procedure, or the reports on other products they have tested).
Ethos supporters frequently point to many "famous" users of the product. These include:
U.S State Department - Humvees This seems very impressive, yet I am not aware that we have any proof, other than Ethos' own claims, that anybody other than Pacific Waste Services actually is using the product. The Air Force etc may have tried it out, but that doesn't mean they have actually endorsed it and are using it in large quantities. Indeed, given the large list of companies in the test reports apparently seeing great improvements in economy and emissions, it seems odd that only Pacific Waste is willing to openly support the product. Are the other companies not using it any more? Interestingly, I was told quite specifically by a representative from Cloud 9 Shuttle (the only gasoline fleet to show an economy improvement in the Ethos test data mentioned above) that "We are no longer using the product, and have not been for some time". Ethos frequently suggest that their product is being used in various developing countries, and they are seeing big improvements in air quality as a result. But remember that these countries are rapidly adopting US-style pollution controls (catalysts, fuel injection, etc), and these measures are far more likely to be responsible for reductions in emissions. An article in the San Diego Magazine, commenting on use of Ethos FR by China, is frequently cited by supporters of Ethos. There are however some "oddities" about this report, for example:
Ethos supporters claimed in June 2006 that Enrique de Vilmorin (Ethos president) would be attending a major ceremony in China in early July where he would be given an award by the Chinese government for Ethos FR's contribution to reducing pollution. Supposedly this ceremony would be widely reported in the media due to its great importance. One year on, there has been a deafening silence from the world's media, and the report on Ethos's own site just seems to refer to signing up of a local distributor. Not quite so impressive, and no sign of any Chinese government officials. One person wrote to me suggesting that contacting Lt. Col. Bill Lusk, who is listed as Ethos' Military Sales distributor, should confirm the military use of the product. One would assume that Lt. Col. Lusk is a full-time serving military officer, presumably working in a procurement department. Yet oddly, the number given ( (702) 531-5350 ) turns out to belong to Lusk Enterprises Inc, a small Health Services company in Las Vegas. This immediately suggests that Lt. Col. Lusk is in fact retired, rather than being a full-time serving member of the armed forces as one might imagine. It also makes me wonder: if Ethos is really doing tens of millions of dollars a year of business with the military, why does their distributor only do this as a sideline to his main job? Overall, the whole thing seems very suspicious to me. Ethos have also recently started sponsoring an IndyCar team. The car certainly looks impressive in Ethos' livery, and if a racing team is using Ethos FR, then that sure proves its effectiveness - doesn't it? Well, actually, no: sponsoring a team just means that you give them money, and they display your logo on the race car. There's no evidence I can see that Playa Del Racing are actually putting the product in their vehicles. And again the question I have to ask is: why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on flashy marketing, while refusing to spend a few tens of thousands on scientific testing to actually prove the product works? The revelation that Ethos' total sales in the four years 2003 - 2006 was only 7 million dollars (see "Things...that are not true" below) also makes the claims of multi-million-dollar contracts with these companies and organisations seem suspicious.
In 1990 an ester-based product known as "D-1280X" was patented by Morton Fainman. In 2000 the rights to the patent passed to "D-1280X, Inc", a Californian company with an address of 126 Marine Avenue, and by 2001 D-1280X was listed by the EPA as a registered additive, supplied by Omstar Products of 126 Marine Avenue, Wilmington, California. In 2005 the product was still being sold, by OmstarE.com, although their address has since changed. By January 2004 "Ethos FR" was registered with the EPA, sold by Ethos Environmental (though note that neither Ethos FR nor Ethos Environmental were mentioned in 2001, so immediately the company's 2005 claim to have been selling the product for seven years looks a little odd). According to Ethos supporters, the formulation passed from Omstar to Ethos due to the "defection" of one of the original inventors, and was subsequently further improved by Ethos, making Ethos FR the "definitive" ester-based additive. However, D-1280X is still for sale, and Omstar's supporters vigorously deny that Ethos FR is an updated development of Omstar, or indeed has any real similarity to it. Allegedly Ethos simply gave samples of D-1280X to companies to try, claiming it to be their own product, and then (once a sales contract was signed) supplied the (inferior) Ethos Fr instead. I have absolutely no knowledge as to which of these versions of history is true - though it is interesting to note that the last recorded "owner" of the Patent, in 2000, was the company that became OmstarE.com - not Ethos Environmental. It is also worth noting that many claims by Ethos supporters have turned out to be untrue (see below). In the interests of fairness, each product is best judged on its own merits, assuming information about one is irrelevant to the other. (A representative from a company that sells D-1280 wrote to me recently to protest that their product was being damaged by association with Ethos, and specifically complaining that my page was reinforcing this association. Because of the untruths about Ethos that have become apparent in the two years since I first wrote this page, I have updated the section above to make it more clear that the Ethos' "inheritance" of the Omstar product is a claim by Ethos rather than a proven fact.)
In the early days of the 4-E pre-launch (early 2006), a number of comments were made by supporters and distributors of Ethos FR, which gave added credibility to the product and its staff. Many of these things are now known to be not true, though they are still frequently repeated. Enrique de Vilmorin (Ethos CEO) has a PhD from Harvard. False - he did briefly attend Harvard, but his PhD (which, by the way, is in Economics not a technical subject) is not from there. Enrique de Vilmorin has 15 patents. False - he holds only one Patent, and that is only distantly related to the ideas behind Ethos FR. Ethos FR is protected by patents. False - D-1280X (see above) was patented, but this patent expired in 2002 because the patent owner did not pay the maintenance fee. This patent does not in any case seem to have ever been controlled by Ethos Environmental. Enrique de Vilmorin has been nominated for a Nobel Prize. False - the latest suggestion is that the Patent Office suggested to the Nobel Comittee that he be nominated, on the basis of the Patent mentioned above. Even this seems highly unlikely to me - Nobel prizes are usually awarded for work on fundamental science rather than engineering, and in any case in my professional opinion this invention does not seem particularly radical (or even practical). Various Ethos supporters have claimed that the Patent was "rushed through" in 6 months (or 8, depending on which story you read) because it was so important, but comparing the filing date (Mar 9th 2005) and date of publication (June 6th 2006) clearly shows this to be also untrue.
Ethos Environmental Inc is selling tens/hundreds of millions of dollars of product a year (claim made early in
2006). False - the submission to the US
Securities and Exchange Comission by Victor Industries in support of their planned merger with Ethos Environmental
Inc, and the 2006 Annual Report, give the following sales
figures for Ethos: It was also claimed that the "real" results, and explanation for the discrepency, would be revealed as soon as the merger with Victor Industries and stock market floatation was completed. Well, that was back in early November 2006, and still there is nothing. (The 2007 figures reveal sales of $10,377,000, still well short of the hundreds of millions claimed - and, interestingly, a loss of 18 million dollars...) Those at the top of Ethos have suggested that these false claims were due to misunderstandings, but sceptics believe it more likely that they were made deliberately, in order to increase credibility. The sceptics also say: if these easily-testable claims were false, why should we believe other claims?
Many people have commented on the histories of those leading 4-E Corporation, and noted that several key players seem to have been involved in a number of failed MLM programs in the past. That is not really the subject of this page, which is more concerned with technical aspects of the product, but is slightly concerning nonetheless. Phil Piccolo, a former Ethos distributor, had been conducting a campaign against 4-E, making a number of serious (though generally unproveable) allegations. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not associated with Phil - and I certainly would not advise anyone reading this to leave 4-E and join with his businesses instead, since these seem no more credible than Ethos. A critical point is that most of the sceptics' concerns about Ethos FR arose long before Phil Piccolo appeared on the scene, and doubting Phil's allegations is not a reason to automatically believe the claims of 4-E Corporation. For most "Ethos sceptics", Phil Piccolo and his claims are simply an irrelevance - and indeed the site making those claims has now apparently been shut down.
On 20.12.06 Ethos announced an exclusive deal to supply Ethos FR to PetroEcuador (the Ecuador state oil company), on the basis of test results "proving" improvements in emissions and fuel consumption. This sounds impressive, but reading the report there is no evidence of any proper scientific testing; it's all uncontrolled on-road results with varying traffic, driving style, etc as confounding factors. And even if Ethos FR really does improve the economy and emissions of buses in Ecuador, the technology in these vehicles is rather different to modern US or European passenger cars, and so does not show general proof of effectiveness.
Frequently cited by supporters of Ethos is a report by Fox News (though note that the website on which this video is found is not itself associated with Fox). In this report, Fox News apparently endorse Ethos FR and conclude that it definitely does improve economy. The first thing to beware of is that media reports on fuel "saving" devices are generally little better than uncontrolled testimonials, with little attempt at scientific testing. Partly this is because journalists are not normally experts in automotive technology (whereas, without boasting, I am), and partly because they are limited in time and money. For example, the Ecotek CB-26 was reviewed by the motoring correspondent of the respected Sunday Times in 2003 and highly recommended - so much so that the Times offered the device for sale to its readers. The Advertising Standards Authority was highly sceptical of the claims, and indeed Ecotek's later scientific testing proved that the true economy benefit was less than 2%, rather than the "up to 15%" promised by the Times report. (I'm sure it is just a coincidence, but the Times and Fox News are both owned by Rupert Murdoch...) With this in mind, the Fox News report does seem heavily flawed to me. There is no attempt at all to carry out any scientific fuel consumption testing (ie under controlled conditions); instead they rely soley on emissions measurements to conclude that the product does actually save fuel. There are two problems with this: First, emissions measurements have their own natural variability. Factors such as engine temperature, atmospheric conditions, and (crucially) catalyst temperature can all strongly influence emissions levels. In the case of the Fox test, they measured emissions on the test car then added Ethos FR and drove it for 20 miles before re-testing - so of course the catalyst was probably hotter, and so doing a better job of removing the harmful emissions. (To give the test any credibility, the test car should had been driven for 20 miles without Ethos before doing the baseline measurement.) The second, and more important, problem is that emissions measurements are a poor guide to economy. As the test operator in the report correctly noted, very high levels of emissions (especially unburnt fuel) - caused by a faulty spark plug, for example - do imply bad economy. But on modern cars in good condition the level of unburnt fuel in the exhaust is already so low that further reductions are essentially insignificant in terms of economy. Partly for this reason, the US Environmental Protection Agency's guide to evaluating fuel "saving" devices specifically excludes emissions data such as the Inspection & Maintenance (I/M) test as evidence of effectiveness. Given these two flaws, to me the Fox News report does not seem to consitute any proof that Ethos FR really does give fuel economy benefits. This video, from KVBC (NBC), is merely a description of the product without any testing at all, while this one, the Fox Fame or Shame test, actually included a "testimonial" from one user reporting no benefit at all. Perhaps especially interesting is the report by KCRA 3, which tested three vehicles. Some improvements in emissions were noted, but no gain in MPG - in fact, one of the three vehicles got significantly worse. This report from KETV in Omaha also indicated worse economy when using Ethos FR.
One of the most active discussion forums about Ethos is the extremely long thread on the MoneyMakerGroup Forum - there is a lot of good information there, but also a certain amount of mud-slinging and speculation. I have by the way invited Ethos' UK distributor to look over this Web page and correct any errors or misunderstandings. He has shown a reasonably positive attitude, but even though several months have elapsed, not one correction has been suggested or requested.
As with all aftermarket fuel "saving" devices, my advice to Ethos is simple: if you believe in your product, spend 0.01% of your income on rigorous scientific testing to prove it really works. If you don't, sceptics - and quite possibly legal authorities - will draw their own conclusions as to why not.
| ||||||||||||||||