MolaKule
Staff member
MMO, the real deal.
- Thread starter Clubber_Lang
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Here's an interesting video .
Yep, every Halloween I bring out my solid CO2 slabs and Zmax just to scare the neighborhood kids.
It is a sponsor for that TV show. So of course the show has no financial incentive to say it works. (That's sarcasm by the way.)
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Here's an interesting video .
Yep, every Halloween I bring out my solid CO2 slabs and Zmax just to scare the neighborhood kids.
It is a sponsor for that TV show. So of course the show has no financial incentive to say it works. (That's sarcasm by the way.)
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Stelth
Here's an interesting video.
Interesting video. The visual demonstration in this video was what the FTC was facing before a jury in North Carolina, had the matter gone to trial. The FTC bailed. The only addition I would have made was to have a simple horseshoe magnet handy and stick it to the metal sample at the end of the test.
A high school physics or chem teacher could have put on this demo... perhaps without speaking a single word.
Here's an interesting video.
Interesting video. The visual demonstration in this video was what the FTC was facing before a jury in North Carolina, had the matter gone to trial. The FTC bailed. The only addition I would have made was to have a simple horseshoe magnet handy and stick it to the metal sample at the end of the test.
A high school physics or chem teacher could have put on this demo... perhaps without speaking a single word.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
And you and the rest of the MMO Outfit took exception to it. And *still* have nothing to show that it does what y'all claim.
If all you want out of BITOG is an infomercial, or a place where only people who like a product can post, then I submit you're in the wrong place.
As I have said many times, Zmax already proved itself. It's a matter of court record. Now, it is up to you to prove it doesn't. Thing is, you can't and you know you can't so you keep posting your opinion with no facts to back it up. You can try and twist it all you want but you are the one lacking any proof. I don't have to prove a single thing. The court, the FTC and Zmax still have the same agreement and to this day, Zmax still can make its claims, despite your opinion.
The only one here trying to promote anything is you and a couple others. You're trying to promote your opinion when facts say otherwise.
And you and the rest of the MMO Outfit took exception to it. And *still* have nothing to show that it does what y'all claim.
If all you want out of BITOG is an infomercial, or a place where only people who like a product can post, then I submit you're in the wrong place.
As I have said many times, Zmax already proved itself. It's a matter of court record. Now, it is up to you to prove it doesn't. Thing is, you can't and you know you can't so you keep posting your opinion with no facts to back it up. You can try and twist it all you want but you are the one lacking any proof. I don't have to prove a single thing. The court, the FTC and Zmax still have the same agreement and to this day, Zmax still can make its claims, despite your opinion.
The only one here trying to promote anything is you and a couple others. You're trying to promote your opinion when facts say otherwise.
It should be easy to prove if anything 'soaks' into (say) a piston.
I once built an engine and the pistons were balanced against each other to within one 1/10th of a gram (OK, I was obsessing)
If I were to take an accurately weighed piston and soak it, then carefully wipe clean the outside and weigh it again, we could see how much 'stuff' soaked in to the metal.
I once built an engine and the pistons were balanced against each other to within one 1/10th of a gram (OK, I was obsessing)
If I were to take an accurately weighed piston and soak it, then carefully wipe clean the outside and weigh it again, we could see how much 'stuff' soaked in to the metal.
Originally Posted By: rdalek
As I have said many times, Zmax already proved itself. It's a matter of court record.
According to ZMax, the FTC lawsuit was due to their "independent marketing company" making a specific claim about improvements in fuel economy.
They removed the claim about fuel economy, which in their words was the reason for the lawsuit, and got to keep making the other claims (which WEREn't the subject of the lawsuit).
They didn't have to prove anything to any court about soaking into the metal, being part of the Manhatten Project etc. etc...pretty scummy act being given a formula by Enrico Fermi, then writing your own name all over it.
http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/oi...best-practices/
As I have said many times, Zmax already proved itself. It's a matter of court record.
According to ZMax, the FTC lawsuit was due to their "independent marketing company" making a specific claim about improvements in fuel economy.
They removed the claim about fuel economy, which in their words was the reason for the lawsuit, and got to keep making the other claims (which WEREn't the subject of the lawsuit).
They didn't have to prove anything to any court about soaking into the metal, being part of the Manhatten Project etc. etc...pretty scummy act being given a formula by Enrico Fermi, then writing your own name all over it.
http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/oi...best-practices/
Originally Posted By: Trajan
I say that, or question it, and demarpaint labels me an "anti"
He he, well, that's the way it goes. Realistically, a lot of additives have a long and storied history. Some may have never been worth a hoot. Some might have been more useful with various older technologies, including older oils, leaded fuel, carbs, and so forth.
rdalek: This has nothing to do with opinion. Science isn't dictated by the FTC or courts. I know what the Planck constant is, I know the value of pi, and the speed of light, and I don't care if the Supreme Court of both our countries disagree - it's not a matter of opinion.
I've had vehicles last hundreds of thousands of miles, with many going to the wrecker with perfectly fine running engines. So, I can't think of any additive that would help on that front. Engines of that vintage in my usage were also clean internally, so I didn't need an additive to help with that (and that's even more obvious with today's oils). The only thing left would be an additive that would save enough fuel to offset its price, and that's essentially impossible to measure outside of a laboratory setting, so once again, I'm not interested. I can't tell the difference between a heavy 40 and a light 30 in fuel consumption, so I can't see an additive making a difference, either.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Yeah, 'soaks into metal' is a street term (or advertising term) to which Molakule is determined to apply a guaranteed-to-fail test.
As opposed to a non-testable hypothesis?
I say that, or question it, and demarpaint labels me an "anti"
He he, well, that's the way it goes. Realistically, a lot of additives have a long and storied history. Some may have never been worth a hoot. Some might have been more useful with various older technologies, including older oils, leaded fuel, carbs, and so forth.
rdalek: This has nothing to do with opinion. Science isn't dictated by the FTC or courts. I know what the Planck constant is, I know the value of pi, and the speed of light, and I don't care if the Supreme Court of both our countries disagree - it's not a matter of opinion.
I've had vehicles last hundreds of thousands of miles, with many going to the wrecker with perfectly fine running engines. So, I can't think of any additive that would help on that front. Engines of that vintage in my usage were also clean internally, so I didn't need an additive to help with that (and that's even more obvious with today's oils). The only thing left would be an additive that would save enough fuel to offset its price, and that's essentially impossible to measure outside of a laboratory setting, so once again, I'm not interested. I can't tell the difference between a heavy 40 and a light 30 in fuel consumption, so I can't see an additive making a difference, either.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Yeah, 'soaks into metal' is a street term (or advertising term) to which Molakule is determined to apply a guaranteed-to-fail test.
As opposed to a non-testable hypothesis?
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: rdalek
As I have said many times, Zmax already proved itself. It's a matter of court record.
According to ZMax, the FTC lawsuit was due to their "independent marketing company" making a specific claim about improvements in fuel economy.
They removed the claim about fuel economy, which in their words was the reason for the lawsuit, and got to keep making the other claims (which WEREn't the subject of the lawsuit).
They didn't have to prove anything to any court about soaking into the metal, being part of the Manhatten Project etc. etc...pretty scummy act being given a formula by Enrico Fermi, then writing your own name all over it.
http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/oi...best-practices/
Actually, that is not correct. In the settlement agreement, all claims had to be proven to the Court and the FTC. That includes the "soaks into metal" claim as well. If you go look at the last few pages of the Zmax thread, I posted pictures of the Court docs that shows the claims that were in the settlement. You can view the pictures here:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...red#Post3440805
Originally Posted By: rdalek
As I have said many times, Zmax already proved itself. It's a matter of court record.
According to ZMax, the FTC lawsuit was due to their "independent marketing company" making a specific claim about improvements in fuel economy.
They removed the claim about fuel economy, which in their words was the reason for the lawsuit, and got to keep making the other claims (which WEREn't the subject of the lawsuit).
They didn't have to prove anything to any court about soaking into the metal, being part of the Manhatten Project etc. etc...pretty scummy act being given a formula by Enrico Fermi, then writing your own name all over it.
http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/oi...best-practices/
Actually, that is not correct. In the settlement agreement, all claims had to be proven to the Court and the FTC. That includes the "soaks into metal" claim as well. If you go look at the last few pages of the Zmax thread, I posted pictures of the Court docs that shows the claims that were in the settlement. You can view the pictures here:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...red#Post3440805
Looking at the moment at them...
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2003/03/030321stip0023256.pdf
Last page, the FTC concluded that on the assumption that the information was accurate and complete...they didn't test the science in any way.
The link I provided has direct commentary from a ZMax representative (Rachanski) who made the claim regarding an advertising group and the fuel consumption claim.
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2003/03/030321stip0023256.pdf
Last page, the FTC concluded that on the assumption that the information was accurate and complete...they didn't test the science in any way.
The link I provided has direct commentary from a ZMax representative (Rachanski) who made the claim regarding an advertising group and the fuel consumption claim.
Originally Posted By: Garak
rdalek: This has nothing to do with opinion. Science isn't dictated by the FTC or courts. I know what the Planck constant is, I know the value of pi, and the speed of light, and I don't care if the Supreme Court of both our countries disagree - it's not a matter of opinion.
What you seem to want to ignore tho, Zmax had to provide proof of its claims as shown in the court docs. It has to be something that science supports otherwise it would have been challenged by the FTC. It wasn't challenged because the FTC couldn't prove otherwise, same as people here can't either.
Than again, since some folks here claim they have all the facts, maybe someone will share that info with the FTC and get this sorted out. Then again, I bet not.
rdalek: This has nothing to do with opinion. Science isn't dictated by the FTC or courts. I know what the Planck constant is, I know the value of pi, and the speed of light, and I don't care if the Supreme Court of both our countries disagree - it's not a matter of opinion.
What you seem to want to ignore tho, Zmax had to provide proof of its claims as shown in the court docs. It has to be something that science supports otherwise it would have been challenged by the FTC. It wasn't challenged because the FTC couldn't prove otherwise, same as people here can't either.
Than again, since some folks here claim they have all the facts, maybe someone will share that info with the FTC and get this sorted out. Then again, I bet not.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Looking at the moment at them...
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2003/03/030321stip0023256.pdf
Last page, the FTC concluded that on the assumption that the information was accurate and complete...they didn't test the science in any way.
The link I provided has direct commentary from a ZMax representative (Rachanski) who made the claim regarding an advertising group and the fuel consumption claim.
The debate here is about the "soaks into metal" claim. According to the court docs, Zmax was able to prove it can make that claim.
Question. How does the FTC check and see if the documents it gave to the court and the FTC were accurate and complete? Simple. It either has someone that works for the FTC or someone outside the FTC that was advising them on this case. The FTC I would expect had someone that did the same before they sued Zmax. If they didn't, then how did they know the other claims were not accurate either? It would stand to reason that this person/group/team knows the science as well.
So, in order to sue Zmax, someone had to advise the FTC on the science of this. It would seem that someone also would be involved in confirming the accuracy and completeness of the information Zmax provided then would it not? I would expect that to be the same person/group/team and that he/she/they couldn't dispute the claims either. That is the reason Zmax can still make those claims. No one could dispute the claims. Most likely the same reason no one here wants to file a complaint and share the info they claim they have.
Looking at the moment at them...
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2003/03/030321stip0023256.pdf
Last page, the FTC concluded that on the assumption that the information was accurate and complete...they didn't test the science in any way.
The link I provided has direct commentary from a ZMax representative (Rachanski) who made the claim regarding an advertising group and the fuel consumption claim.
The debate here is about the "soaks into metal" claim. According to the court docs, Zmax was able to prove it can make that claim.
Question. How does the FTC check and see if the documents it gave to the court and the FTC were accurate and complete? Simple. It either has someone that works for the FTC or someone outside the FTC that was advising them on this case. The FTC I would expect had someone that did the same before they sued Zmax. If they didn't, then how did they know the other claims were not accurate either? It would stand to reason that this person/group/team knows the science as well.
So, in order to sue Zmax, someone had to advise the FTC on the science of this. It would seem that someone also would be involved in confirming the accuracy and completeness of the information Zmax provided then would it not? I would expect that to be the same person/group/team and that he/she/they couldn't dispute the claims either. That is the reason Zmax can still make those claims. No one could dispute the claims. Most likely the same reason no one here wants to file a complaint and share the info they claim they have.
No, the FTC said that they "assumed" that the material provided was complete and accurate, and reserved the right to go further if it later came to light that it wasn't.
They never tested or explored the science...well at least in their (the FTC) documents they stated that they didn't...they assumed that the documents were correct and complete.
They didn't state that they had tested the claims, confirmed the accuracy of the claims, they had relied on someone giving them pages of stuff (see Archoil for pages of meaningless ramblings) as being complete and accurate.
What about the ZMax agent in my first link that said that it was all about fuel economy claims. (Rachanski) ?...he's their agent, not you or me.
They never tested or explored the science...well at least in their (the FTC) documents they stated that they didn't...they assumed that the documents were correct and complete.
They didn't state that they had tested the claims, confirmed the accuracy of the claims, they had relied on someone giving them pages of stuff (see Archoil for pages of meaningless ramblings) as being complete and accurate.
What about the ZMax agent in my first link that said that it was all about fuel economy claims. (Rachanski) ?...he's their agent, not you or me.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
No, the FTC said that they "assumed" that the material provided was complete and accurate, and reserved the right to go further if it later came to light that it wasn't.
They never tested or explored the science...well at least in their (the FTC) documents they stated that they didn't...they assumed that the documents were correct and complete.
They didn't state that they had tested the claims, confirmed the accuracy of the claims, they had relied on someone giving them pages of stuff (see Archoil for pages of meaningless ramblings) as being complete and accurate.
What about the ZMax agent in my first link that said that it was all about fuel economy claims. (Rachanski) ?...he's their agent, not you or me.
You do know what rules of evidence is right? As I said, if the FTC had any problem with the evidence that was provided by Zmax, they could have challenged it. They didn't. To this day, they still haven't and even you said they could if they could prove otherwise. So, you make my point for me. If the FTC could prove anything, they would and still could. Maybe one of the really sharp people here will go inform the FTC where they are wrong.
No, the FTC said that they "assumed" that the material provided was complete and accurate, and reserved the right to go further if it later came to light that it wasn't.
They never tested or explored the science...well at least in their (the FTC) documents they stated that they didn't...they assumed that the documents were correct and complete.
They didn't state that they had tested the claims, confirmed the accuracy of the claims, they had relied on someone giving them pages of stuff (see Archoil for pages of meaningless ramblings) as being complete and accurate.
What about the ZMax agent in my first link that said that it was all about fuel economy claims. (Rachanski) ?...he's their agent, not you or me.
You do know what rules of evidence is right? As I said, if the FTC had any problem with the evidence that was provided by Zmax, they could have challenged it. They didn't. To this day, they still haven't and even you said they could if they could prove otherwise. So, you make my point for me. If the FTC could prove anything, they would and still could. Maybe one of the really sharp people here will go inform the FTC where they are wrong.
Originally Posted By: rdalek
What you seem to want to ignore tho, Zmax had to provide proof of its claims as shown in the court docs.
As I've already stated, I never learned any science from the FTC or courts, and I never will. I know only one member of the bar who has a PhD in physics, and he had nothing to do with this case.
What you seem to want to ignore tho, Zmax had to provide proof of its claims as shown in the court docs.
As I've already stated, I never learned any science from the FTC or courts, and I never will. I know only one member of the bar who has a PhD in physics, and he had nothing to do with this case.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: rdalek
What you seem to want to ignore tho, Zmax had to provide proof of its claims as shown in the court docs.
As I've already stated, I never learned any science from the FTC or courts, and I never will. I know only one member of the bar who has a PhD in physics, and he had nothing to do with this case.
I never said to learn science from a court. No idea where you get that idea from. What I said was, Zmax proved their claims in court to the satisfaction of the FTC. The proof was quite a few documents since they are all listed in the court docs.
Originally Posted By: rdalek
What you seem to want to ignore tho, Zmax had to provide proof of its claims as shown in the court docs.
As I've already stated, I never learned any science from the FTC or courts, and I never will. I know only one member of the bar who has a PhD in physics, and he had nothing to do with this case.
I never said to learn science from a court. No idea where you get that idea from. What I said was, Zmax proved their claims in court to the satisfaction of the FTC. The proof was quite a few documents since they are all listed in the court docs.
It wasn't proven IN court, the FTA ASSUMED that the data was complete and accurate, with no scientific testing.
Looking at the sort of evidence that they (ZMax) like to use
http://www.zmax.com/documents/zmax-the_facts.pdf
82% more than zero is still zero, I guess if it is really indeterminable as they state.
The same suite of tests is used by Archoil, PS23, and a whole bunch of snake oil salesmen.
I could present to the FTA that Lucas increases the gear climbing ability of ambient temperature lubricants by in excess of 100%, and be 100% right in my claim that it "protects" gears by providing greater oil cling.
Looking at the sort of evidence that they (ZMax) like to use
http://www.zmax.com/documents/zmax-the_facts.pdf
82% more than zero is still zero, I guess if it is really indeterminable as they state.
The same suite of tests is used by Archoil, PS23, and a whole bunch of snake oil salesmen.
I could present to the FTA that Lucas increases the gear climbing ability of ambient temperature lubricants by in excess of 100%, and be 100% right in my claim that it "protects" gears by providing greater oil cling.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
It wasn't proven IN court, the FTA ASSUMED that the data was complete and accurate, with no scientific testing.
Looking at the sort of evidence that they (ZMax) like to use
http://www.zmax.com/documents/zmax-the_facts.pdf
82% more than zero is still zero, I guess if it is really indeterminable as they state.
The same suite of tests is used by Archoil, PS23, and a whole bunch of snake oil salesmen.
I could present to the FTA that Lucas increases the gear climbing ability of ambient temperature lubricants by in excess of 100%, and be 100% right in my claim that it "protects" gears by providing greater oil cling.
And that changes what? Zmax still makes those claims and the FTC hasn't challenged it. So, what did you prove? Nothing.
It wasn't proven IN court, the FTA ASSUMED that the data was complete and accurate, with no scientific testing.
Looking at the sort of evidence that they (ZMax) like to use
http://www.zmax.com/documents/zmax-the_facts.pdf
82% more than zero is still zero, I guess if it is really indeterminable as they state.
The same suite of tests is used by Archoil, PS23, and a whole bunch of snake oil salesmen.
I could present to the FTA that Lucas increases the gear climbing ability of ambient temperature lubricants by in excess of 100%, and be 100% right in my claim that it "protects" gears by providing greater oil cling.
And that changes what? Zmax still makes those claims and the FTC hasn't challenged it. So, what did you prove? Nothing.
Apparently, the FTC could care less wether Zmax diffuses, permeates, or has wild monkey sex with the metals of your engine. They do have an obligation to protect consumers, and if the felt that the mileage claim was unfair to consumers, they were obliged to challenge it. They did and Zmax had to drop it.
Choosing not to challenge other claims does not validate them. They are a government agency, with limited resources, they pick their battles to provide the best consumer protection for the resources they have.
Choosing not to challenge other claims does not validate them. They are a government agency, with limited resources, they pick their battles to provide the best consumer protection for the resources they have.
Originally Posted By: rdalek
And that changes what? Zmax still makes those claims and the FTC hasn't challenged it. So, what did you prove? Nothing.
And what does an unchallenged claim prove? Also nothing. In any event, it's a product I don't need, even if it did what it claims.
And that changes what? Zmax still makes those claims and the FTC hasn't challenged it. So, what did you prove? Nothing.
And what does an unchallenged claim prove? Also nothing. In any event, it's a product I don't need, even if it did what it claims.
No, sorry this is where you are 100% wrong. You're fixed on the "if the FTC doesn't challenge it then it must be true" idea, and that is just not correct.
The FTC chose to block certain claims. That just does not make the unchallenged claims true necessarily.
Originally Posted By: rdalek
And that changes what? Zmax still makes those claims and the FTC hasn't challenged it. So, what did you prove? Nothing.
The FTC chose to block certain claims. That just does not make the unchallenged claims true necessarily.
Originally Posted By: rdalek
And that changes what? Zmax still makes those claims and the FTC hasn't challenged it. So, what did you prove? Nothing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked