MMO, the real deal.

[Mystic]

It would help a lot if people did not always take a post off subject. The post was about MMO. Somehow it becomes a discussion about ZMax and the porosity (or lack of porosity) of metals. Maybe the ZMax posts should be about ZMax and the MMO posts should be about MMO.

This post is getting monotonous. And Trajan seems to be getting confused about MMO and Zmax. They are two different products. I say it is time for a lock.

 

[MolaKule]

As I stated before:

"And this session was going so well." Dr. Phil McGraw

before the two Zmaxers hijacked it.


Education is a terrible thing to waste!

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Ummm, XPS and AES are surface sensitive techniques. AES is good for maybe 30 Angstroms. There was a good paper by the Naval Research Laboratory that depth profiled via XPS in mid-Z eldments that went maybe to 100A or so with the right ion beam.

We all should know that spurious carbon is always present on the surfaces, and in fact, the carbon peak is typically used to measure charging of samples. So... What was the reference used? Since spurious carbon is variable spatially by samples, and no error data was provided that I recall, how are we saying anything is accurate here? As I recall from reading, there were no replicates and no statistical treatment of the samples. Of course AES should be performed in high vacuum, but I don't recall any treatment on the details of if in the reducing conditions of the beam, if the carbon can change phase/form.

Without XAS, I have severe doubts that these results are indicative of anything real.

This is rather a 'cheap shot' without doing or citing any research to support what you are saying. Regardless of what you may think of the FTC, they have or hire competent technical advisers. If the FTC thought, even for a minute, that the results submitted by Zmax could not be repeated or were not fully supportable, they would have savaged Zmax's case and all the parties involved, including Maurice LePera, with whom they were greatly annoyed.

Understand that the FTC had not yet made their case - they did not have to. They probably thought Zmax would totally roll over following the FTC filing their complaint in court. Suddenly the FTC was confronted with a business-like set of tests that tended to prove Zmax's position. But if the FTC could have disproved even a single claim in the Zmax technical portfolio, they would have done so and the whole Zmax case would have collapsed. This was bloodsport - not some friendly discussion over 'best advertising practices'.

You are simply speculating that this might not have been the best approach. Molakule has repeatedly engaged in this same kind of tactic ("The only way to really show that any liquid can penetrate..." blah, blah). I guess you just proved that there is even another way to measure things below the surface. So much for Molakule's "only way".

---

To Molakule's discredit, he spent most of this debate on snarky comments and trashing anyone who thought Zmax's position was not unreasonable, rather than getting even his basic facts correct.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
And so is Rislone Engine Additive, one that never claims to permeate into non-porous metals.

From Rislone's web page "The unique Rislone formula is designed to penetrate into valve seats, bearing surfaces, piston rings and ring grooves, where sludge and varnish is likely to form."

---

The FTC was faced with a very hard real-world decision. Zmax had shown its cards. The FTC decided to fold. Unless you know of some specific research discrediting the Zmax studies or their methodology, the Zmax technical reports stand as valid. Get over it.

Another reader provided a link to a Youtube video which pretty clearly shows Zmax soaking into metal. Imagine that! Of course, this was immediately followed by an attack on the studio setting and an attack on the actors. Molakule dismissed it with a snarky comment, while declining to address two key questions: Was it metal? Did Zmax soak in? This debate is not about AES or XPS or anything remotely like that. It's about what is shown in the video and the two simple questions. Only Molakule can't grasp that.

Everyone should watch this video. Ignore the studio. Ignore the actors. The visual demonstration in this video was what the FTC was facing before a jury of lay persons in North Carolina, had the matter gone to trial. 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. With that single addition, a high school physics or chem teacher could have put on this very effective demonstration... without speaking a single word.

---

As an aside, there seems to be a kind of agreement that "soaks into metal" has little consumer significance. It is not a 'lubrication' issue. It might genuinely help professional racers who tear down their engines overnight, but that's another matter. So why is there such an obsession to attack this particular Zmax claim?

Or, is it just Molakule's personal obsessive dislike of Zmax? Maybe Molakule did secretly consult for the FTC in this case. It certainly appears that the FTC was guided by a technical person with this same gut-level, non-science emotional dislike of Zmax. It wasn't until the bitter end that they realized they had no case.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Ummm, XPS and AES are surface sensitive techniques. AES is good for maybe 30 Angstroms. There was a good paper by the Naval Research Laboratory that depth profiled via XPS in mid-Z eldments that went maybe to 100A or so with the right ion beam.

We all should know that spurious carbon is always present on the surfaces, and in fact, the carbon peak is typically used to measure charging of samples. So... What was the reference used? Since spurious carbon is variable spatially by samples, and no error data was provided that I recall, how are we saying anything is accurate here? As I recall from reading, there were no replicates and no statistical treatment of the samples. Of course AES should be performed in high vacuum, but I don't recall any treatment on the details of if in the reducing conditions of the beam, if the carbon can change phase/form.

Without XAS, I have severe doubts that these results are indicative of anything real.

This is rather a 'cheap shot' without doing or citing any research to support what you are saying. Regardless of what you may think of the FTC, they have or hire competent technical advisers. If the FTC thought, even for a minute, that the results submitted by Zmax could not be repeated or were not fully supportable, they would have savaged Zmax's case and all the parties involved, including Maurice LePera, with whom they were greatly annoyed.

Understand that the FTC had not yet made their case - they did not have to. They probably thought Zmax would totally roll over following the FTC filing their complaint in court. Suddenly the FTC was confronted with a business-like set of tests that tended to prove Zmax's position. But if the FTC could have disproved even a single claim in the Zmax technical portfolio, they would have done so and the whole Zmax case would have collapsed. This was bloodsport - not some friendly discussion over 'best advertising practices'.

You are simply speculating that this might not have been the best approach. Molakule has repeatedly engaged in this same kind of tactic ("The only way to really show that any liquid can penetrate..." blah, blah). I guess you just proved that there is even another way to measure things below the surface. So much for Molakule's "only way".

---

To Molakule's discredit, he spent most of this debate on snarky comments and trashing anyone who thought Zmax's position was not unreasonable, rather than getting even his basic facts correct.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
And so is Rislone Engine Additive, one that never claims to permeate into non-porous metals.

From Rislone's web page "The unique Rislone formula is designed to penetrate into valve seats, bearing surfaces, piston rings and ring grooves, where sludge and varnish is likely to form."

---

The FTC was faced with a very hard real-world decision. Zmax had shown its cards. The FTC decided to fold. Unless you know of some specific research discrediting the Zmax studies or their methodology, the Zmax technical reports stand as valid. Get over it.

Another reader provided a link to a Youtube video which pretty clearly shows Zmax soaking into metal. Imagine that! Of course, this was immediately followed by an attack on the studio setting and an attack on the actors. Molakule dismissed it with a snarky comment, while declining to address two key questions: Was it metal? Did Zmax soak in? This debate is not about AES or XPS or anything remotely like that. It's about what is shown in the video and the two simple questions. Only Molakule can't grasp that.

Everyone should watch this video. Ignore the studio. Ignore the actors. The visual demonstration in this video was what the FTC was facing before a jury of lay persons in North Carolina, had the matter gone to trial. 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. With that single addition, a high school physics or chem teacher could have put on this very effective demonstration... without speaking a single word.

---

As an aside, there seems to be a kind of agreement that "soaks into metal" has little consumer significance. It is not a 'lubrication' issue. It might genuinely help professional racers who tear down their engines overnight, but that's another matter. So why is there such an obsession to attack this particular Zmax claim?

Or, is it just Molakule's personal obsessive dislike of Zmax? Maybe Molakule did secretly consult for the FTC in this case. It certainly appears that the FTC was guided by a technical person with this same gut-level, non-science emotional dislike of Zmax. It wasn't until the bitter end that they realized they had no case.

You really do not understand anything do you? Man I feel for you.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Ummm, XPS and AES are surface sensitive techniques. AES is good for maybe 30 Angstroms. There was a good paper by the Naval Research Laboratory that depth profiled via XPS in mid-Z eldments that went maybe to 100A or so with the right ion beam.

We all should know that spurious carbon is always present on the surfaces, and in fact, the carbon peak is typically used to measure charging of samples. So... What was the reference used? Since spurious carbon is variable spatially by samples, and no error data was provided that I recall, how are we saying anything is accurate here? As I recall from reading, there were no replicates and no statistical treatment of the samples. Of course AES should be performed in high vacuum, but I don't recall any treatment on the details of if in the reducing conditions of the beam, if the carbon can change phase/form.

Without XAS, I have severe doubts that these results are indicative of anything real.

This is rather a 'cheap shot' without doing or citing any research to support what you are saying. Regardless of what you may think of the FTC, they have or hire competent technical advisers. If the FTC thought, even for a minute, that the results submitted by Zmax could not be repeated or were not fully supportable, they would have savaged Zmax's case and all the parties involved, including Maurice LePera, with whom they were greatly annoyed.

Understand that the FTC had not yet made their case - they did not have to. They probably thought Zmax would totally roll over following the FTC filing their complaint in court. Suddenly the FTC was confronted with a business-like set of tests that tended to prove Zmax's position. But if the FTC could have disproved even a single claim in the Zmax technical portfolio, they would have done so and the whole Zmax case would have collapsed. This was bloodsport - not some friendly discussion over 'best advertising practices'.

You are simply speculating that this might not have been the best approach. Molakule has repeatedly engaged in this same kind of tactic ("The only way to really show that any liquid can penetrate..." blah, blah). I guess you just proved that there is even another way to measure things below the surface. So much for Molakule's "only way".

---

To Molakule's discredit, he spent most of this debate on snarky comments and trashing anyone who thought Zmax's position was not unreasonable, rather than getting even his basic facts correct.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
And so is Rislone Engine Additive, one that never claims to permeate into non-porous metals.

From Rislone's web page "The unique Rislone formula is designed to penetrate into valve seats, bearing surfaces, piston rings and ring grooves, where sludge and varnish is likely to form."

---

The FTC was faced with a very hard real-world decision. Zmax had shown its cards. The FTC decided to fold. Unless you know of some specific research discrediting the Zmax studies or their methodology, the Zmax technical reports stand as valid. Get over it.

Another reader provided a link to a Youtube video which pretty clearly shows Zmax soaking into metal. Imagine that! Of course, this was immediately followed by an attack on the studio setting and an attack on the actors. Molakule dismissed it with a snarky comment, while declining to address two key questions: Was it metal? Did Zmax soak in? This debate is not about AES or XPS or anything remotely like that. It's about what is shown in the video and the two simple questions. Only Molakule can't grasp that.

Everyone should watch this video. Ignore the studio. Ignore the actors. The visual demonstration in this video was what the FTC was facing before a jury of lay persons in North Carolina, had the matter gone to trial. 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. With that single addition, a high school physics or chem teacher could have put on this very effective demonstration... without speaking a single word.

---

As an aside, there seems to be a kind of agreement that "soaks into metal" has little consumer significance. It is not a 'lubrication' issue. It might genuinely help professional racers who tear down their engines overnight, but that's another matter. So why is there such an obsession to attack this particular Zmax claim?

Or, is it just Molakule's personal obsessive dislike of Zmax? Maybe Molakule did secretly consult for the FTC in this case. It certainly appears that the FTC was guided by a technical person with this same gut-level, non-science emotional dislike of Zmax. It wasn't until the bitter end that they realized they had no case.

You really do not understand anything do you? Man I feel for you.


“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
Søren Kierkegaard

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
...Regardless of what you may think of the FTC, they have or hire competent technical advisers...


Quote:
...Maybe Molakule did secretly consult for the FTC in this case. It certainly appears that the FTC was guided by a technical person with this same gut-level, non-science emotional dislike of Zmax. ...


As my ancestors would say, "Man desperate, man speak with forked tongue."

Quote:
To Molakule's discredit, he spent most of this debate on snarky comments and trashing anyone who thought Zmax's position was not unreasonable, rather than getting even his basic facts correct.


As my ancestors would say, "Man desperate, man not know first thing about nature."

 

[Trajan]

At the risk of annoying some people, not that I care....

The FTC *assumed* (to take for granted; accept without proof; suppose) that Oil-Chem tested it. And acceptd it *without* verification. ie: they accepted a claim supported by nothing other than someone's say so.. (Typical in this subforum.)

Basic scientific fact states that the product is *not* the subject of this thread can *not* "soak" into metal.

The same applies to the subject of the thread. It can't either.

Twist the facts to try and fit whatever you think is true. But claims that either does are the only thing either will soak through. Or not.

 

[Shannow]

Even this stuff, which is designed to get into metal doesn't "soak in" to metal.

Only place it goes in is porosity and cracks, via capillary action...if anything could soak into unblemished metal, this is it...and it can't, and it's as about as on topic as ZMax is anyway.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

As my ancestors would say, "Man desperate, man speak with forked tongue."

As my ancestors would say, "Man desperate, man not know first thing about nature."

LOL My ancestors would say, "Mama Mia."

 

[05LGTLtd]

Originally Posted By: dave5358


(skipped arguments ad hominem)


---

The FTC was faced with a very hard real-world decision. Zmax had shown its cards. The FTC decided to fold. Unless you know of some specific research discrediting the Zmax studies or their methodology, the Zmax technical reports stand as valid. Get over it.

Another reader provided a link to a Youtube video which pretty clearly shows Zmax soaking into metal. Imagine that! Of course, this was immediately followed by an attack on the studio setting and an attack on the actors. Molakule dismissed it with a snarky comment, while declining to address two key questions: Was it metal? Did Zmax soak in? This debate is not about AES or XPS or anything remotely like that. It's about what is shown in the video and the two simple questions. Only Molakule can't grasp that.

Everyone should watch this video. Ignore the studio. Ignore the actors. The visual demonstration in this video was what the FTC was facing before a jury of lay persons in North Carolina, had the matter gone to trial. 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. With that single addition, a high school physics or chem teacher could have put on this very effective demonstration... without speaking a single word.

---

As an aside, there seems to be a kind of agreement that "soaks into metal" has little consumer significance. It is not a 'lubrication' issue. It might genuinely help professional racers who tear down their engines overnight, but that's another matter. So why is there such an obsession to attack this particular Zmax claim?

(more ad hominim)



We'll, looks like you have finally found some reality. In a court of law you can convince a jury of about anything with a quick deceptive demonstration. The FTC would have to counter with several expert witnesses who's testimony would like likely be beyond the comprehension of the average lay person juror. At least beyond their attention span. In counter argument the defense could undo that with ease : "You Remeber what you saw, decide for yourself". Reminds me of a case where there were some bloody gloves that we're a bit tight.

"As an aside, there seems to be a kind of agreement that "soaks into metal" has little consumer significance."

Ah, now your coming around. Please reread my post a few pages back.

Now just step back and put some of these things together. Please.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: 05LGTLtd
Originally Posted By: Dave5358

Everyone should watch this video. Ignore the studio. Ignore the actors. The visual demonstration in this video was what the FTC was facing before a jury of lay persons in North Carolina, had the matter gone to trial. 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. With that single addition, a high school physics or chem teacher could have put on this very effective demonstration... without speaking a single word.

---

As an aside, there seems to be a kind of agreement that "soaks into metal" has little consumer significance. It is not a 'lubrication' issue. It might genuinely help professional racers who tear down their engines overnight, but that's another matter. So why is there such an obsession to attack this particular Zmax claim?

We'll, looks like you have finally found some reality. In a court of law you can convince a jury of about anything with a quick deceptive demonstration. The FTC would have to counter with several expert witnesses who's testimony would like likely be beyond the comprehension of the average lay person juror. At least beyond their attention span. In counter argument the defense could undo that with ease : "You Remeber what you saw, decide for yourself". Reminds me of a case where there were some bloody gloves that we're a bit tight.

I'm not completely sure this is 'convincing a jury of almost anything' or a 'quick deceptive demonstration'. Remember, Zmax's claim was 'soaks into metal'. Not diffuse. Not permeate. This was a non-technical advertising claim. Who knows what 'soaks into metal' really means? I challenged Molakule to provide a definition for 'soaks into metal' but he punted. If you watch the Youtube demo, it is not a reach to say Zmax 'soaks into metal'.

In an earlier message, I challenged Molakule to watch the video and then answer two questions: Was it metal? Did it soak in? He refused to answer but came back with some malarky about 3-dimensional geometry. If that same situation occurred during the trial (and it would - Zmax's attorneys would make sure it happened) the case would be over. The FTC definitely failed to look before they leaped.

Originally Posted By: 05LGTLtd
Originally Posted By: dave5358
"As an aside, there seems to be a kind of agreement that "soaks into metal" has little consumer significance."

Ah, now your coming around. Please reread my post a few pages back.
Now just step back and put some of these things together.

I don't use Zmax. I had to make a special trip down an aisle at Walmart just to see what a bottle of this stuff looks like. What is so amazing to me is the disconnect from reality that exists in the additives forum. Regardless of its utility (or lack thereof), Zmax has been examined from top to bottom and inside out. There is more technical information publicly available on Zmax than on just about any additive product you can name. Yet, those opposed to any and all additives just dig themselves in deeper and deeper.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2, with slight editing
- Ummm, XPS and AES are surface sensitive techniques. AES is good for maybe 30 Angstroms.

- We all should know that spurious carbon is always present on the surfaces, and in fact, the carbon peak is typically used to measure charging of samples. So... What was the reference used?

- Since spurious carbon is variable spatially by samples, and no error data was provided that I recall, how are we saying anything is accurate here?

- As I recall from reading, there were no replicates and no statistical treatment of the samples.

- Of course AES should be performed in high vacuum, but I don't recall any treatment on the details of if in the reducing conditions of the beam, if the carbon can change phase/form.

- Without XAS, I have severe doubts that these results are indicative of anything real.

Every point you have raised are potential technical issues with what was done. I don't know the answers but you can be sure the FTC did know them.

If you were going to attack Zmax's claims, the most likely way to do this would be to show they used the AES apparatus incorrectly (an earlier claim by Molakule), or that the vacuum was wrong, or there was spurious carbon, or that one of the points you raised above was a valid issue, etc. etc. That's how you attack a technical report.

When you challenge a speeding ticket, you might win because the cop did not 'zero' his radar gun or did not follow the manufacturer's instructions or did not keep a usage log or failed to perform some technical step. If you just tell the judge 'I wasn't speedling', he'd laugh in your face.

You can be certain the FTC went over the procedures followed by Zmax's experts with a fine-tooth comb. They were looking for errors or omissions or mis-steps. If the FTC just walked into court and said Zmax doesn't work, the Federal judge would probably laugh in their face. With equal certainty, the Zmax folks were very careful about what they did in the tests - following the instructions to the letter, documenting things, being sure the vacuum was correct, whatever. Zmax was preparing their technical portfolio knowing it would be scrutinized. This was bloodsport.

In a message long, long ago, Dave1251 claimed Zmax spent $4.5 million on legal fees. That was not correct (no surprise there, considering the source) but they did spend this much on technical research. And, their legal fees were surely significant - in the millions of dollars. For that kind of money, you should expect the work will be done correctly - the i's dotted and the t's crossed. And, if a Zmax expert got sloppy, you can bet that a Zmax attorney would be looking over his shoulder to make sure it got corrected. Zmax made a decision to fight this case... and they won. It is silly-talk to suggest that Zmax's team cut corners, or did not follow established protocols or use the AES apparatus correctly or anything remotely like that. It did not happen. And... Zmax won.

 

[Mystic]

dave5358 said this:

"I don't use Zmax. I had to make a special trip down an aisle at Walmart just to see what a bottle of this stuff looks like. What is so amazing to me is the disconnect from reality that exists in the additives forum. Regardless of its utility (or lack thereof), Zmax has been examined from top to bottom and inside out. There is more technical information publicly available on Zmax than on just about any additive product you can name. Yet, those opposed to any and all additives just dig themselves in deeper and deeper."

Now this brings up an interesting question. If somebody does not use a product, why are they so interested in it? There is another guy at this website who promotes Auto-RX all the time, but he says he does not use it. If I was not using a product, I would not be so interested in that product and defend that product so much.

Now I really am not that much of an oil supplement guy. I think most oil supplements are junk. But I have used a few and some products seem to work. The products that worked for me I am interested in. For example, I do use MMO some. I think MMO is somewhat useful in lawnmowers and wheeled weed trimmers. I think there is some use for fuel system cleaners, and I like Techron. I have used some Lubegard products.

But if I was totally not using a product, I would have little interest in it. And I certainly would not be defending that product again and again in posts here at bobistheoilguy.com.

Now if I was interested in using ZMax, or some other product, I would try to find out everything I could about that product. But if I am not interested in a product, I am not going to spend a lot of my time finding out about that product. Is that not human nature?

I have not used Rislone products for a long time, but I became interested again in those products when Molakule said that Rislone Engine Treatment cured a product in a vehicle he owned.

If it appears that a product works and has some value, I will be interested in it. If I think a product is a scam, I will not be interested in it.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
Now I really am not that much of an oil supplement guy. I think most oil supplements are junk. But I have used a few and some products seem to work. The products that worked for me I am interested in. For example, I do use MMO some. I think MMO is somewhat useful in lawnmowers and wheeled weed trimmers. I think there is some use for fuel system cleaners, and I like Techron. I have used some Lubegard products.

But if I was totally not using a product, I would have little interest in it. And I certainly would not be defending that product again and again in posts here at bobistheoilguy.com.


Mystic: I like and use MMO as a fuel additive. I would try Zmax as a fuel additive if it was not so expensive. As best I can tell, after wading through the endless BITOG ground clutter, MMO is the same product but with a few extra solvents added. It also smells better.

The one person on BITOG who is/was a big user and supporter of Zmax and who spent a lot of money on the product has been absolutely unwilling to share any information about his experience with this product, results or lack thereof, or anything else. I've asked him to do so on numerous occasions, but to no avail. Go figure.

BTW, I'm not defending Zmax. I could care less about the product, except as I noted above. I am certainly defending the efforts Zmax made to defend their product against what IMHO was an overreaching and mean-spirited FTC attack. And, what IMHO is a stupid and mean-spirited BITOG attack. It is amusing to me how few BITOG users can grasp the difference between the two.

Hey BITOG folks, Zmax made their case. Live with it.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Even this stuff, which is designed to get into metal doesn't "soak in" to metal.

Only place it goes in is porosity and cracks, via capillary action...if anything could soak into unblemished metal, this is it...and it can't, and it's as about as on topic as ZMax is anyway.


On topic or not, if it doesn't "soak" into metal, clearly neither Zmax/MMO can't.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Mystic

Now this brings up an interesting question. If somebody does not use a product, why are they so interested in it? There is another guy at this website who promotes Auto-RX all the time, but he says he does not use it.



Yeah. And who would that be. You? Multiple posts say so. Trav? Multiple posts said so. SteveSRT8? No one else has called it miraculous

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
. And... Zmax won.


Being compelled to make a million dollar restitution is not a victory for Oil-Chem.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave5358
. And... Zmax won.


Being compelled to make a million dollar restitution is not a victory for Oil-Chem.


You forgot to add. Losing the privilege of making about a dozen claims.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave5358
. And... Zmax won.


Being compelled to make a million dollar restitution is not a victory for Oil-Chem.


You forgot to add. Losing the privilege of making about a dozen claims.


Dang. Nice catch!!

 

[Mystic]

Now I realize that a good product can be mistakenly attacked and obviously federal agencies may not be the best for testing the quality of products. Federal agencies themselves tend to be somewhat lacking in quality.

But I could not tell you what a bottle of ZMax looks like. I would have to look it up on the internet to find out what it looks like. I can't tell you what the vast majority of oil supplement bottles in an auto parts store look like. I avoid the overwhelming majority of trashy oil supplement products in auto parts stores.

But I can tell you what a bottle of MMO looks like, because I use MMO. Although most recently I had a few spare drops of Techron left in a bottle and I used that in that lawnmower gasoline rather than the MMO. Maybe the Techron is better and maybe I could just use a few drops left in the bottles of Techron after I use the Techron in my car. I use Techron a few times a year in the gasoline for my car. I would even save a few bucks by just using the few drops of Techron left in the bottle.

I am not totally against the use of oil supplements and fuel system cleaners. Especially fuel system cleaners. But I have not used very much in the way of supplements for quite a while. I still like some products however that I have tried and found to work-like some Lubegard products, Schaeffer's oil supplement (if they even still make it), Sta-bil, and I have not used Kreen or LM moly but a lot of guys here say that Kreen and LM moly work. So I would be willing to try those products.

I am not saying that the FTC is perfect, but if the FTC fines any company for false advertising for a product I will guarantee you I would not use that product. Just like if there were an overwhelming negative comments about a product being discussed here that would result in my not being willing to try a product.

The bottom line is: Nobody HAS to use any supplements. But I would like for there to be effective engine cleaners for dirty or neglected engines and I think fuel system cleaners are useful. And there are a limited number of products that seem to serve some use. Sta-bil obviously has some usefulness.And maybe a product like LM moly is very effective in extending useful engine life.