The next post will be about Lego or something, I promise

I'm sorry about this Firepower Fest, but a Who Da Bitch Now? opportunity like this doesn't come along every day.

Remember, gentle reader, how Firepower got hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from Austrade, the Australian Trade Commission?

(...and then hired as their new CEO one John Finnin, the Austrade guy who made the grants possible, among other even dodgier activities - and then fired him shortly afterward, when he was arrested as part of a child sex investigation, of all things...)

Well, now it turns out that the bright sparks at Austrade hired out consultants to Firepower at $190 an hour - one of whom also later joined the Firepower team... no, no conflicts of interest here, how dare you suggest such a thing!

But Austrade accidentally signed that consultancy deal with a Firepower "subsidiary" which didn't actually exist.

(This seems to be a common problem for Firepower-associated business entities. I noticed yesterday that Stephen Moss's "Global Fuel Technologies" does not seem to appear anywhere on the Australian Business Register.)

So now Austrade have joined the creditor chorus, as they try to get the $173,000 they're owed back from any part of Firepower that retains a shred of reality.

Mind you, the Austrade contract said that Firepower had lots of hugely lucrative deals in the pipeline, and also that Firepower's products had been "comprehensively tested by several world leading/independent testing institutes". Which they, of course, hadn't. So if you ask me, the whole contract was nothing but toilet paper from the moment it was printed and it serves Austrade right that they got completely screwed.

Since the money they were busy shovelling into Firepower's pockets came from the Australian taxpayer, though, I still think it'd be rather nice if they managed to screw some of it back out of Firepower.

Perhaps Firepower could sell that million-dollar Rolls-Royce which Stephen Moss so proudly insisted was absolutely 100% Firepower property?

Hey, the picture of Stephen and "his" Roller is back up on the front page of buyfirepowerpill.com!

Stephen Moss and 'his' Rolls-Royce.

I imagine that's a sight that really irritates the people who're trying to get what they're owed.

Further Firepower folderol

Thanks to Anthony Klan's new piece in The Australian, I now have a few more pieces of the riveting Firepower jigsaw puzzle.

(And yes, that's right, Firepower are now getting a kicking from the Murdoch press as well as the Fairfax-owned Sydney Morning Herald.)

My bestest buddy Mr Stephen Moss is such a fresh-faced looking chap because he's only twenty-three. And his father, Bill Moss, used to be the Head of the Banking and Property Group at Macquarie Bank.

Before he resigned from the bank, Bill Moss was part of a Macquarie Bank consortium that bought the Sydney Kings basketball team for $AU400,000, and then sold the team to Firepower for two million bucks. Nice work if you can get it.

Stephen's own Firepower-but-not-Firepower business, whose name he never revealed to me, is apparently called Global Fuel Technologies.

That company name appears to only exist on pages having to do with Firepower. It is notably absent from the Australian Business Register.

And now Stephen's unhappy, because he's one of the numerous people to whom Firepower owe money. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, he says.

Not to worry, Steve - I'm sure your dad'll be happy to help you out. I hear he's been doing rather well lately.

Sayonara, Firepower!

It's been a while since I last wrote about the fine and upstanding fuel-additive company, Firepower.

We left them threatening my long-suffering blog hosts because I made available for download some promotional literature which Firepower's Australian CEO instructed me to make available for download. That, you may recall, was after he himself had decided not to sue me after all.

That second threat - from some Firepower representative who still hasn't had the courage to actually contact me - didn't work out too well for them, as anybody who's spent a minute or two on teh intarwebs could have predicted.

But I'm sure Firepower have worse things to worry about now. Because, amazingly enough for a company whose fuel-saving products would obviously be worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year if the claims made for them were true, Firepower now appear to be on the verge of collapse.

Offices abandoned, boss-man uncontactable, angry creditors (including the basketball team Firepower so famously bought) trying to get their money... it's a sad, sad scene, which observers of the burgeoning magic-fuel-pill industry haven't witnessed since, oh, the last magic-fuel-pill company came along.

(The Firepower debacle has been very bad for the entire Australian National Basketball League. Not only did they buy one of the front-running teams and then just kind of... not pay anybody, but they apparently got one of their mates into an advisory position for the whole League.)

Oh, yeah - remember those financially brilliant sportsmen who so eagerly invested in Firepower? On account of how they saw a video in which some chimneys were producing black smoke, and then it turned white, and if that isn't hard scientific evidence then I don't know what is?

Bad news for them too, I'm afraid.

Yes, I'm a bit gloat-y about all this. But overall I'm just... tired.

Over and over and over, this shit happens. Some bloke in a thousand-dollar suit turns up with a PowerPoint presentation and some dodgy supporting documentation from conveniently far-away nations, claiming to have a magic substance that causes internal combustion engines to do thermodynamically implausible things. If he's telling the truth then he'll be the richest man in history by a couple of orders of magnitude... and yet, instead of making his case to General Motors or Exxon, here he is in a rented serviced office, selling shares for cash.

And people hurl money at him, completely ignoring the fact that the same damn scam has been run hundreds of times before. Heck, they don't even care if the same guy has run the scam before.

And there's much excitement and news reports and press conferences, and extravagant displays of wealth and power (it's fine to spend millions on a basketball team; oddly enough, though, they never remember to spend a few grand on a proper test of their claims...), and anybody who dares point out that it's all obvious bullshit gets threatened with legal action.

And then... they take the money and run.

Again.

(Find all of my Firepower posts here.)

72 years and counting

Modern Mechanix has been so good as to reprint the Popular Mechanics article BEWARE The Gasoline DOPE Racket, describing a bunch of worthless fuel additives which are, in promises and even in composition, the same darn thing that umpteen companies are still selling to suckers today. (Regular readers of this blog may be able to name at least one of these companies.)

The date of the article?

November, 1936.

(See also "Impossibility of Perpetual Motion Shown at Chicago Fair", from September 1934.)

Thrilling LED bulb replacement action!

LED lamps for standard low-power automotive sockets - things like interior lights, number-plate illuminators and brake lights - are now widely available and dirt cheap.

So I bought one, to see if it works any better than the standard interior light in my car.

There was nothing wrong with the standard interior light, but like a lot of low-power automotive bulbs, it's offensively inefficient.

The bulbs used in cars for things like interior lighting and instrument panel illumination have as their two chief design goals cheapness and durability. Both of these goals push manufacturers towards very low-efficiency devices. And the standard "dome" light in the middle of the ceiling of most cars generally doesn't even have much of a reflector behind its bulb, so something approaching half of the light just goes into warming up the light fitting.

So the dome light in my car looked like a fine candidate for LED improvement to me. Particularly now that one lamp will only cost you $AU8.98 delivered from Hong Kong.

(I got mine from this eBay seller.)

My car's interior light uses the small 31mm size of "festoon" bulb, the kind that look like a glass fuse but with points on the metal caps on each end.

The 31mm form factor doesn't give a lot of room for modern super-LEDs. You can now get 31mm lamps with a single allegedly-one-watt white LED in them...

LED bulb

...or you can go for the type I got, with no fewer than six surface-mount sub-1-watt super-LEDs.

There are also replacement bulbs that use a cluster of standard 5mm LEDs. They may be OK for things like instrument panel lighting, but you shouldn't expect as much light as you'll get from a single 1W LED unless there are at least a dozen 5mm LEDs in there. Even then, it's doubtful.

LED bulb detail

If you don't see a lot of yellow phosphor looking back at you, you're probably not looking at a very bright lamp.

I gave the new bulb a whirl on my bench power supply to see how much power it consumed. Then I tried the same thing with the (rather old) stock bulb.

The LED lamp drew only about 55 milliamps (mA) at twelve volts, for a power rating of only about 0.66 watts. Raising the supply voltage to 13.8V - which is what you'll get when the car's running and the alternator's turning - raised the current draw to about 105mA, for 1.45 watts.

The stock bulb has a nominal ten watt rating. From 12V it drew around 0.725A - that's 8.7W. From 13.8V it drew only a little more, about 0.785A (this is because the resistance of light bulb filaments rises with their temperature), giving 10.83 watts.

I expected the LED lamp to deliver much more light per watt than the incandescent bulb, and it also gets a big effectiveness boost from only throwing light out one side, wasting none of it by shooting it uselessly into the dome light fitting. But this was still a pretty huge power difference. At 13.8V, the old bulb draws 7.5 times as much power as the LED lamp; at 12V it draws more than thirteen times as much.

It was pretty easy to install the new lamp, although it did turn out to be a bit longer than it was supposed to be, making it a bit of a tight fit and also making it impossible to install it perfectly level. It ended up tilted a bit toward the left seat, though not enough to make a huge difference to the illumination on the two sides.

To cancel out any side bias, I tested the brightness of the two lamps with my somewhat accurate light meter sitting at the base of the gearshift (and with the standard plastic diffuser in place, too).

The light meter is calibrated in lux, a unit that's weighted to match human brightness perception. This gives the LED lamp another advantage, because the long-life low-temperature incandescent bulb gives very yellow light, while the LED lamp gives the characteristic blue-white of "white" LEDs. The blue-white has more energy around the green frequencies where human vision works best, so a given raw energy level of yellow-white light will appear dimmer, and read lower on a luxmeter, than the same energy level of blue-white.

Anyway, the stock bulb gave a reading of about six lux with the engine off (12V), and about nine lux with the engine running. Not a bad illumination level, given that it was being measured quite a bit lower than the place where you'd typically be, say, holding a map you were trying to read.

Swapping in the LED lamp gave... exactly the same readings!

My light meter isn't terribly accurate down in the single-digit lux, so I won't swear to you that there wasn't actually a bit of a difference one way or the other. But there clearly isn't a huge difference. And the new lamp, subjectively, lit up the cabin of the car just fine. Despite drawing around a tenth as much power.

This sort of thing can make a big difference in certain circumstances. If, for instance, you have a typical small car battery with about 25 amp-hour capacity before it starts getting very unhappy, a ten-watt interior light will drain it in thirty hours. Swap to a one-watt LED lamp and you'll probably still be able to start the car even if you leave the light on for ten days.

This doesn't matter much for normal automotive interior lighting, but if you've got a caravan or motor home or something that has a lot of friendly yellow incandescent bulbs in it, it could be a very good idea to swap them for the new cheap LEDs.

The best Firepower can manage

Stephen Moss, CEO of Firepower International, hasn't breathed a word about suing me since starting our correspondence with that threat. But he sent me a report yesterday. It was apparently done for Firepower by a Shell laboratory in Germany.

Just like all the best scientific studies, this one is a big secret, so I'm not allowed to make it available for download.

The test was of some substance referred to as "Polyfuel Type #1", which was a thick gelly that had to be mixed with quite a lot of diesel before it became liquid enough to be poured into a fuel tank.

(Note - I originally said "jelly" in the above sentence, rather than using the non-word "gelly" which featured in the original report, specifically in the phrase "...which resulted in a gelly-like composition." I presumed that this spelling was just a typo or a German translation glitch or something, but apparently the use of the letter J in that word greatly angered someone representing himself as being from Firepower. He then contacted Blogsome and made a number of demands, one of which was that I change the spelling to what it said in the original. No problem, Mister Firepower Spelling Expert!)

Mr Moss tells me that this thick... gelly... was actually just what you get when the almost-on-sale "Firepower Pill" is ground up and mixed with diesel fuel, and it was presented this way to make the test easier.

Since the report says the gelly had to be pre-mixed, for some time, with ten litres of diesel before it was thin enough to use, this raises some obvious questions about what the heck the Firepower Pill actually is. I'm also personally willing to bet that if you crush one of the (rather small) Firepower Pills and put it in some diesel yourself, you will not get any sort of gelly, or even jelly. Mr Moss has offered me some Pills to test for myself; I may take him up on that, just to see if they do gel diesel, or petrol, or anything else.

Anyway, whatever the heck it was that they were actually testing did, according to this report which Moss says I may not distribute, reduce the fuel consumption of a Volvo FM12 truck, in a proper rolling-road drive cycle test, by about four per cent. Less on the highway cycle, more on the city-street cycle, where the engine was occasionally idling. Emissions improved, slightly, too.

So we've got a test of something that I have to trust Mr Moss was in some way related to the Pill they're now (almost) selling, on a large diesel vehicle (the Firepower Pill is meant to work on any petrol or diesel vehicle), which showed only a 4% fuel economy improvement, versus the 10%-to-30% claims Firepower make on their site and in their proudly presented anecdotal evidence.

In our correspondence, Moss has trotted out the "unburned fuel" fallacy, and stuck to it with some enthusiasm, even though Total Hydrocarbon ("THC"; quiet, you boys in the back row) emissions figures make clear that almost all of the fuel that goes into any modern engine is fully combusted.

The secret Shell report itself makes this clear. Here's a darn great diesel truck, consuming much more fuel per kilometre than a passenger car, yet even on the urban cycle where it's occasionally not moving at all (and before the magic Firepower substance was administered) it still only emitted 0.456 grams of THC per kilometre. It consumed 0.422 litres of fuel per kilometre on that test, which has a density of about 850 grams per litre, so it burned about 358 grams of diesel, and emitted less than half a gram unburned.

In other words, the worst it ever managed was burning 99.87% of the fuel that went into it.

Now, according to the report the 0.456 gram-per-kilometre THC figure dropped to only 0.389g/km when the Firepower concoction was added to the fuel; reducing THC emissions by 15% is a good thing, as long as there are no hidden downsides. But the notion that this reflects a more complete burning of the fuel which could have some perceptible effect on power or economy is ridiculous, since 15% of 0.13% is, to a first approximation, bugger all.

Mr Moss went on to favour me with the "catalyst" fallacy, which I have addressed on previous occasions, including the very first time my then-so-innocent eyes fell upon Firepower, back in 2006. In brief: The common fuel-additive claim that it makes the fuel burn faster (from the buyfirepowerpill.com site: "Treated fuel burns 25-30% faster..."), or more easily, is nonsense. Fuel in a modern engine already burns pretty much optimally; if it burns faster or lights more easily, all that'll give you is engine knock, which is a bad thing.

Mr Moss also had a go at the "engine cleaning" fallacy, and just when I was wondering if I perhaps wouldn't be hearing it, the "conspiracy theory" fallacy as well. And he reiterated his great fondness for anecdotes.

And that, plus this super secret report I'm not allowed to show you, is all he's got.

Tim Johnston, the Chairman of Firepower Holding Group, has been selling fuel pills with these same claims since 1992.

Mr Moss seems to be distancing his outfit, Firepower International, from Tim Johnston - he told me that "Firepower International is not owned by Firepower Group, I think some articles have made the mistake of assuming we are the same entity. Firepower International is privately owned by a collection of investors and owns the worldwide rights to the Firepower Pill."

(And interestingly, a reader's just pointed out to me that the firepowerinternational.com domain is actually registered to Stephen Moss.)

But Firepower International, or Group, or Whoever, have all engaged in conspicuous displays of wealth - sponsoring sports teams and, Mr Moss insists, actually buying the million-dollar Rolls-Royce he was until recently depicted next to on the buyfirepowerpill.com site.

So you'd think that at some point over the last several years they might have found the time to spend a measly hundred grand on used cars to hand, along with some Firepower Pills, to an automobile association or technical college or something for proper testing.

But no. The Australian Automobile Association say they'd love to talk to Firepower, but over the whole of last year Firepower have unaccountably failed to pick up the phone.

So that's it. The crowning jewel of Firepower's evidence is this one secret report from 2004, of a substance that resembles their Pills in no way whatsoever, and which found not even half of the smallest benefit that Firepower allege is commonplace in all sorts of vehicles.

Mr Moss keeps urging me to just try the magic Firepower pills in my own car, whereupon he says I'll be unable to deny the obvious power gains, if not the improvement in fuel economy.

But countless people - probably millions of people - have tried snake-oil fuel products in the past and been convinced of just those improvements, because they wanted to see them. They wouldn't have bought the darn stuff in the first place if they didn't think it was at least likely to work; that belief sets you straight on the train to a textbook case of confirmation bias.

Even if the product is something that's actively harmful at best, like Slick 50, you can find a long queue of people who'll swear, hand on heart, that it works.

You can also, of course, find a long queue of people who'll swear that using an electric fan in a closed room is deadly dangerous, that elves are real, or that a fence post near Coogee Beach was an apparition of the Virgin Mary.

(I have personally witnessed that last queue. But not Mary.)

The first principle of science, though, is that you must not fool yourself - because you are the easiest person to fool. If you do an unblinded, uncontrolled test like just dropping a pill into your petrol tank and driving around, you can very easily completely fail to get any closer to the truth than if your test involved throwing darts at a piece of graph paper.

We've been working on science for about the last 400 years, and it's really worked out quite well. If you're lucky enough to live in a First World country, practically everything you see, touch and do on a daily basis is either entirely the product of, or has been almost unrecognisably improved by, science.

And science is hard. But it's worth it.

It's long past time for Firepower to put up or shut up.

A few more Firepowery links

It's not just me and the Herald who've been paying attention to Firepower lately.

(Actually, I'd pretty much forgotten about them, until their CEO threatened to sue me yesterday.)

Here's a Webdiary piece that sums up the strangeness that is Firepower, including the previous versions of their fuel pill. All these years, and it still hasn't set the world alight.

Here's a piece on Gas Week that asks, among other things, why almost $400,000 of Australian taxpayers' money seems to have been handed over to these people. And here's Gerard Ryle, the Herald journalist, summing up the story as it stood early last year, on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Science Show. Firepower's science doesn't seem to have moved on in the interim.

Here's a piece about the Australian Automobile Association trying to get Firepower - or any of the several other, lower profile, fuel-pill makers active in Australia at the moment - to submit to proper testing. That was a year ago, and Firepower said then that they hadn't even noticed that the AAA had called. I wonder if they've answered the phone yet?

Oh, and much the same "results" that were presented to me in PDF form just yesterday were shown to Crikey a year ago, in great secrecy. Crikey weren't very impressed, either.

Big sites pick up the story!

M'verygoodfriend Joel Johnson at gadgets.boingboing.net could, I think it's fair to say, be more impressed with the CEO of Firepower International.

(I'm basing this assessment on the idea that "blowhard dickbag" is an insult. Do tell me if I'm wrong.)

Rob Beschizza of the Wired blog has also picked up the story, taking the time to Photoshop the Firepower logo a bit, and writing a disappointingly sober piece on the subject of Firepower-esque scams in general.

Oh, sure, it's all very sensible, Rob. But how are we supposed to take you seriously if you haven't called anyone a cockmonger?