I bet my aunt called in the hit

From a Hungarian mail server whose security is presumably not all it might be:

Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:41:17 +0100 (CET)
Subject: BE MORE CAREFUL
From: "BE MORE CAREFUL" <restinpeac@yahoo.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

I am very sorry for you, is a pity that this is how your life is going to
end as soon as you don't comply. As you can see there is no need of
introducing myself to you because I don't have any business with you, my
duty as I am mailing you now is just to KILL you and I have to do it as I
have already been paid for that.

Someone you call a friend wants you Dead by all means, and the person have
spent a lot of money on this, the person also came to us and told me that
he want you dead and he provided us with your name ,picture and other
necessary information's we needed about you. So I sent my boys to track
you down and they have carried out the necessary investigation needed for
the operation on you, and they have done that but I told them not to kill
you that I will like to contact you and see if your life is Important to
you or not since their findings shows that you are innocent.

I called my client back and ask him of you email address which I didn't
tell him what I wanted to do with it and he gave it to me and I am using
it to contact you now. As I am writing to you now my men are monitoring
you and they are telling me everything about you.

Now do you want to LIVE OR DIE? As someone has paid us to kill you. Get
back to me now if you are ready to pay some fees to spare your life,
$30,000 is all you need to spend You will first of all pay $15,000 then I
will send the tape to you and when the tape get to you, you will pay the
remaining $15,000. If you are not ready for my help, then I will carry on
with my job straight-up.

WARNING: DO NOT THINK OF CONTACTING THE POLICE OR EVEN TELL ANYONE BECAUSE
I WILL KNOW.REMEMBER, SOMEONE WHO KNOWS YOU VERY WELL WANT YOU DEAD! I
WILL EXTEND IT TO YOUR FAMILY, INCASE I NOTICE SOMETHING FUNNY.

DO NOT COME OUT ONCE IT IS 7:PM UNTIL I MAKE OUT TIME TO SEE YOU AND GIVE
YOU THE TAPE OF MY DISCUSSION WITH THE PERSON WHO WANT YOU DEAD THEN YOU
CAN USE IT TO TAKE ANY LEGAL ACTION. GOOD LUCK AS I AWAIT YOUR REPLY TO
THIS E-MAIL CONTACT

Name:william Agent
E-mail: william1111@live.com

These messages have been around for a while, but I don't think I've ever received one before. Plenty of ordinary Nigerian scams, but not the death-threat type.

Quick advice for those receiving mysterious messages promising wealth or making menaces: Search for a string out of the message, to see if lots of other people have received the exact same thing.

Are those people all now rich, or dead, or whatever else the message promises?

(Hint: They won't be.)

You may forego the above steps if you yourself have received 28 copies of whatever the message is, all nominally from completely different people but all strangely similar otherwise.

Moletech Fuel Saver retraction gets official... sort of

I used the Sydney Morning Herald's feedback form to ask them what had happened to their adulatory article about the Moletech Fuel Saver. The other day that page had turned into a weird error-within-a-page, but it now gives a proper "your page was not found" error.

The reply, from "Thea & Justine", reads in full:

The article was removed from our site for legal reasons.

I've asked them whether they'd care to elucidate, but I suspect they would not.

I've also e-mailed the actual author of the piece. The game's afoot!

Moletech Fuel Saver - the plot thickens!

Four days ago (I forgot to post about it until now) I was surprised to actually receive a reply from the Australian Federal Government's pithily-named Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government about the Moletech (or maybe MTECH) Fuel Saver, an entirely generic-sounding magical fuel treatment device which I blogged about a while ago.

The enthusiastic Sydney Morning Herald piece about the Fuel Saver concluded with a claim that the abovementioned Department Of Having A Very Long Name had published some sort of report on the device, following "a vehicle emissions test report conducted in October last year".

One Craig Stone from that Department, though, did in fact get back to me, as follows:

Thank you for your query. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, formerly the Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS), is currently looking into this matter.

At no time has the Department endorsed this product or conducted emission testing on it.

Thanks, Craig!

And isn't this a turn-up for the books - it seems that some people selling a magic fuel treatment gadget aren't being entirely straightforward about the validity of their supporting evidence! Say it ain't so!

Oh, and one more thing: The Herald piece, entertainingly headlined "Fuel Saver No Snake Oil", was here and here, but isn't any more. This is odd, because I don't think the Herald (or their sister paper the Melbourne Age, which has done the same thing with its copy of the article) normally retract Web articles - certainly not with a mere "page not found" error, as is the case here.

There's no official notice of retraction that I can see, either. The only mention of the Fuel Saver on the Herald's site right now is in this reprinted AFP piece.

And actually, it gets even weirder. The text of the article as it currently stands, surrounded by all the rest of the normal ads and navigation and so on that surrounds any other article text, now appears to be a standard Internet Explorer "The page cannot be found" 404 error, complete with the bit at the bottom that says

HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Explorer

That looks pretty bloody odd when you're viewing the page in Firefox.

It's not a frame, or anything; it really looks as if someone's copied and pasted an Internet Explorer 404 page into the Sydney Morning Herald's content management system as the text for that article.

I wonder if we're looking at the handiwork of an embarrassed author, here?

Even better than Mr Fusion

A reader, coincidentally also called Dan, just sent me this:

Holy CRAP! How did we miss this amazing revelation?

[I'll spare you the enormous forwarded e-mail Dan tacked onto his message, but it started with the words "Do You Want To Know RIGHT NOW How You Can Drive Around Using WATER as FUEL and Laugh At Rising Gas Costs, While Reducing Emissions and Preventing Global Warming?"]

P.S. I didn't even bother to read through the whole thing, my obviously limited knowledge of chemistry, thermodynamics, entropy etc. made me feel like I had been purposely misled by my professors to support the great Oil Companies' conspiracy.

The text you forwarded is from the Easy Water Car site, but it's been copied all over the Web.

These scams are old, old, old, though they've gained new life as oil prices rise.

They always include some bulldust about electrolysis or fuel cells, then usually something about "HHO" gas or "Brown's Gas" (supposedly a magical special combination of hydrogen and oxygen that can somehow give you more energy than you used cracking water to make it), and then you make some gadget that pumps its tiny gas output into your engine's fuel input, and it doesn't do a damn thing, and that's about it. Unless you decide to tinker with the thing until you die of old age, which seems to be the choice of many people who're enthusiastic about this stuff.

I've written about the "HHO" sorts of scams before, here. There's a bit more about car-on-water scams, in the similarly ancient "turning water into gasoline" variant, here.

The versions of the scam that try to run the whole car off an electrolysis gadget always fall at the first hurdle, of course. It's theoretically possible, but you might as well take the tons of electricity needed to make enough gas to run an engine and use it to drive an electric car directly. Anything that can run off a normal car's alternator will not, duh, run a normal car.

The "hybrid" versions of the scam, though - which, like the Easy Water Car version, claim to use the mystic hydrogen generator to greatly decrease the fuel consumption of a normal car - can run just about as well as an unmodified car, because that's basically what they are. So there are plenty of options for the creative scammer to make a demo machine that looks as if it's working. Any slightly experienced race-car mechanic could make a car look as if it's running on nothing in a hundred ways.

Despite that, many of the scammers put on a very poor show. One of the front-runners, who's been pulling stuff like this for many years, is Dennis Lee.

A lot of the current "water car" excitement also has to do with the "Joe Cell", a rich and abundant source of very high-energy pseudoscience.

10mg ginseng, 50mg caffeine, 65mg carpet fluff

In the USA, marketing of "dietary supplements" - which pretty much means all over-the-counter edible "alternative medicines" in the USA - is regulated by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, known for short as the DSHEA.

The DSHEA restricts the ability of the US Food and Drug Administration to regulate these "dietary supplements". It, essentially, means that the people who make and sell supplements do not need to demonstrate that their products are effective, or even safe. There is no pre-market testing at all. No effort whatsoever is made to determine that dietary supplements do what they're meant to do, or even that they contain what they're meant to contain.

This laissez-faire approach has had pretty much the effect you'd expect it to. Never mind debates over whether St John's Wort is actually of any use in the treatment of depression, or whether echinacea is any good against colds; it's perfectly normal for pills allegedly containing a given quantity of those substances to contain far more, or far less, or none at all. And until someone notices and makes a fuss, not a thing will be done about it. The FDA won't investigate by itself, because the DSHEA says it can't.

I present all this by way of an explanatory preface to this little Consumerist post, in which the manufacturing processes of one modern dietary supplement manufacturer are explained.

(The DSHEA is a clearly codified lack of regulation, but realistically speaking you don't seem likely to be able to buy better "supplements" in most other nations. Here in Australia, one major pill-maker was busted heavily in 2003 - but that's very much the exception rather than the rule.)

Magic hangover pills!

Somehow I came across this thing called PePP, marketed as a hangover cure. The web site (pepp-up.com) claims to "reduce alcohol levels by 50% within 40 minutes", which seems like a dubious claim to me.

Short of either vomiting or pissing it out, how can this thing possibly remove alcohol from your system?

Andrew

Pepp is supposed to contain "natural digestive and metabolic enzymes", which digest that nasty alcohol right out from under you!

(They also say it has "...various organic acids, vitamins and nutrients", but adding those things to the enzymes won't do anything to the enzymes except perhaps give them molecules to break down other than the alcohol. Popping multivitamins during a night on the town is not, by itself, exactly a hangover-zapping breakthrough.)

The major problem here - which applies to all of the other "enzyme" supplements as well - is that if you're a reasonably healthy human, your body already produces as many digestive enzymes as it needs. Enzymes you eat will be destroyed in the digestion process, anyway.

So anything these pills do, they'll have to do to alcohol that's still in your stomach or gut. This, in itself, is not ludicrous; enzymatic digestion certainly does happen in the stomach.

I suppose it's possible that the "recent clinical trials" they mention (PDF) actually exist. But, following the ancient tradition of makers of nonsense "supplements", they don't tell you where (or even if) these "studies" have been published. So who knows whether they're just making it all up or not.

There is absolutely no valid reason for anybody citing a scientific study that supports their statements to not mention, at the very least, who did that study and in what journal it was published. "Secret" studies of one kind or another abound in the world of alternative medicine and other Weird Science; as a rule of thumb, you can take unidentified "studies" as an anti-recommendation for a claim, like when you find out Doctor Smith actually bought his doctorate for $50 from a dude in Antigua.

(If the Sydney Morning Herald is to be believed, there was only one "study", and it was actually not so much a study as... a segment on Australian tabloid TV show "A Current Affair". In which they sent four people out to get pissed and two of them took the Pepp pills. And then someone with a clue actually looked at what was in the pills and concluded that "nothing here that is an actual drug or an actual compound that is known to have an effect on alcohol metabolism".)

There's an ingredients list on that page too, which rather tellingly does include the names of six enzymes (the "-ase" compounds), but which puts them at the very end of the list. If they're following standard ingredients-list rules - which they seem to be; the soy and rice protein pill-fillers are at the top of the list - that means that there's less of the enzymes in the pills than of any of the numerous, and irrelevant, other ingredients.

You'd better hope the top-listed enzyme, amylase, doesn't do anything, because the different amylases all break down starch into alcohol. Whoops - screwed that bit up (Thanks, Ubertakter!). The top-listed enzyme, amylase, actually breaks starches down into sugars. It's still pointless in an anti-alcohol concoction, though, and including it as the highest-dose enzyme still looks to me like a very strong indication that (a) there's actually only trace amounts, at most, of any enzymes in the pills, and (b) the makers of the pills think their customers are a bunch of idiots.

Then there's lipase, which catalyses the hydrolysis of ester bonds in water–insoluble lipids. It's irrelevant to alcohol metabolism, but at least it doesn't make more damn alcohol.

Then there's protease, which breaks amino acids apart (nope, still no good for metabolising alcohol), and cellulase, which is used for cellulose metabolism in creatures that can metabolise it (i.e. not us, but who cares, since cellulose isn't alcohol either).

Then there's lactase, which breaks down (wait for it) lactose, not alcohol.

And, finally, there's something just called "Dehydrogenase" in italics. Lets be generous and say that the emphasis means that it's actually class 1, hepatic, alcohol dehydrogenase. And yes, at long last, we now do have a compound that actually does do something to ethanol. Hepatic alcohol dehydrogenase turns ethanol into acetaldehyde.

But wait - that's the end of the list of enzymes in the pills!

So, assuming this stuff actually works and actually converts a significant amount of the alcohol in your stomach into acetaldehyde... that's where it'll stop. It won't go on to apply acetaldehyde dehydrogenase to the result and leave you with harmless acetic acid. It will, instead, leave you with a gut-full of acetaldehyde.

Acetaldehyde is the chemical considered chiefly responsible for hangovers.

People with East Asian genealogy who flush bright red when they drink alcohol and then have immediate hangover symptoms do so because they've got unusually effective alcohol dehydrogenase, and unusually ineffective acetaldehyde dehydrogenase.

The drug disulfiram ("Antabuse") does essentially the same thing to people who don't have that genetic defect.

It would appear that these pills are trying to give everybody the fantastically awful feeling of acetaldehyde poisoning.

Wow, thanks!

Except, of course, they won't, because the (presumably alcohol) dehydrogenase is right down the end of the list of ingredients, so there's probably pretty much none of it in the pill. Maybe literally none; if that were the case, these would be far from the first "supplement" pills that turned out to have none of the allegedly active ingredient in them at all.

The alleged PEPP "studies" are supposed to say that the pills do something if you take them while you're drinking, and hey, maybe despite all this they actually do. Frankly, I think they'd be more likely to cause people taking them to turn into pumpkins, but what do I know.

But if you're going to take an alcohol-destroying pill along with the alcohol you're drinking, as the "studies" allegedly examined - why not just order friggin' ginger ale? Or save a bit less money by buying your expensive booze and pouring it into a potplant, rather than drinking it along with some pills you bought on eBay from Thailand (only ten bucks for... at the moment they don't say how many... pills - in "organge" flavour!) that promise to remove its effect?

What people are actually doing with the pills, apparently, is making the very wise decision to buy them for hilarious prices after they've already gotten drunk, then deciding they feel much better and driving home.

It is statistically unlikely that the people selling the Pepp pills will be the ones these drunk drivers run over.

But one can hope.

We're still talking about fuel catalysts? Really?

After my lengthy series of posts following the Sydney Morning Herald's entertaining deconstruction of the Firepower "fuel pill" saga, a reader felt compelled to bring this new Herald article to my attention.

The article sings the praises of the Moletech - or possibly MTECH - Fuel Saver, a catalytic device that allegedly changes the properties of the petrol, blah blah blah.

I saw it mentioned on the gadget blogs, too - these upstanding businessmen must have a stand at CES '08. At least the Engadget piece was properly derisive.

Moletech seem quite proud of their supporting evidence from one "California Environmental Engineering laboratory". Assuming I've found the right site for the lab, it looks kosher at first glance. But then you discover that the CEE lab has previously "proved" that the "Advanced Fuel Carburetor and Cat Converter" does the usual miraculous things. That was back in 2000.

And then there was the "Green Plus" fuel catalyst, also claimed to do similar things to the Moletech gadget, which the CEE lab also said worked.

And then there's the "Rentar Fuel Catalyst", also proclaimed genuine by CEE.

And that was just from the first page of Google results.

Gee, that oil company conspiracy that keeps all of these miracles off the market must be working pretty damn hard, huh?

There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of "fuel catalysts" marketed in the past, many of them with claims indistinguishable from those made for the Moletech gadget.

But this one's the one that actually works. This time for sure, Rocky!

(The end of the Herald article makes reference to another report on the gadget, this time from the Australian Department of Transport and Regional Services, which has recently and very helpfully been renamed the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I've used their Publication Information Request form to ask them whether the quoted report even exists. Hope springs eternal.)

UPDATE: What do you know, they actually replied! Read all about it, including some fresh weirdness, here!

Another overpriced heater

Hot on the heels of my post about the rather audacious "Amish" fan heater, came this:

I've been seeing commercials on TV that proclaim the advantages of a certain compact heating system that uses some sort of mixture of infrared lamps and a heat exchanger. They also claim, like the "Amish" heater people, that it uses less electricity than a coffee maker.

Now, I live in a 120+ year old house, and I'm quite... thrifty. Given the rise in natural gas prices, this of course piqued my interest.

The "Portable Furnace" is a similar product to the one in the ads.

Still, something sounds off here. I remember in my grandparents' old cottage they had a heating lamp of some description in the bathroom, over the spot one would be when one stepped outside of the shower door. It worked well then, but move a few inches either way and it was quite useless.

Smoke and mirrors?

Joe

I'll be darned if the "Portable Furnace" isn't just another surprisingly expensive ($US599!!) 1500-watt fan heater.

It's a nice-looking one that probably doesn't make much noise and may last longer than the $10 discount-store type, but it's still essentially the same thing. And, once again, the ads are trying to trick people into thinking it's something special, when it really, really isn't.

I can say this with such confidence because basic physics tells us that all resistive electrical heaters are, to a first approximation, exactly the same.

In a resistive heater - actually, in any electrically powered device at all - each watt of electricity ends up as one watt of heat. End.

You can change exactly how a heater delivers its heat to the room - as infrared light, in the case of a simple old-fashioned "bar" heater with a reflector, or as a rising column of convective hot air, in the case of an oil-filled heater, or as a hot breeze, in the case of a fan heater. You can even get all tricky and add a ceiling fan, probably spinning in the opposite direction to the way it spins in summer, to suck air up in the middle of the room and blow it down the walls, thus preventing hot air from gathering up by the ceiling where nobody is sitting.

But the base efficiency of the system is exactly the same for all electrical heaters.

The allegation that the Portable Furnace's heating elements are in some way special because they're big light bulbs (I presume the same kind you get in the bathroom ceiling heaters you mentioned) instead of the simple coiled element you get in a $10 fan heater is nonsense. It would make a difference if the light bulbs were pointing at you - instant warmth on the side of you facing the bulbs, at the price of a lot of glare - but since they're just pointing at some heat exchanger doodad inside the heater, over which a fan moves air, the end result will be exactly the same as that of any other fan heater, except presumably with a bit of a jolly glow coming out of the exhaust slot.

(The kind of heat lamp you see keeping reptiles and birds warm, that has a deep red glow, looks that way because there's a red filter over the lamp. Heat lamps really are basically just big bright light bulbs; they run at a relatively low temperature by light bulb standards, but without a filter 375 watts of heat lamp is still good for easily as much visible light output as a regular 200W bulb.)

If the diagram on the "how it works" page is accurate, the Portable Furnace's 1500 watt power rating and four bulbs means this thing does indeed have four 375W heat lamps inside it, just like a normal bathroom light-heat-and-fan combo package here in 230-volt Australia. Those lamps have a pretty long lifespan, but I'd be surprised if they lasted any longer than an ordinary cheap fan heater. Hence, I suppose, the availability of replacement Portable Furnace lamp sets (for a mere eighty bucks - which is easily twice what they ought to cost...).

The advantage of resistive electric heat is that you can have exactly as much heat as you need, exactly when you need it, from a dirt cheap heater. No other technology can give you that two minutes of heat while you're towelling off after your shower. And if you really do need to heat only one room, a central heating system with a furnace will waste considerable heat even if you remember to close the vents in all of the other rooms.

But resistive electrical heating is still more expensive per unit of heat than all of the other technologies. It's a lousy solution for long-term applications. And the "dirt cheap heater" advantage kind of goes away, too, if someone suckers you into paying six hundred freakin' dollars for a fan heater. Sheesh.

If gas or other combustion heating is out of the question, consider reverse-cycle air conditioning. That's much more efficient than resistive heating, because it uses some electricity to pump heat from one place to another, and adds its own waste heat. The result is at least two times, maybe 2.5 times, as much heat output as electricity input. The only big disadvantage is that if the cold side of a normal air conditioner is cooled close to freezing, it won't be able to pump any more heat from it - so reverse-cycle works well for heating in relatively temperate climates, but is no good if a real winter has set in.

Air-con's also not cheap to buy - you certainly can get a basic reverse-cycle window air conditioner for the price of a Portable Furnace, but that ain't saying much. And even a window air conditioner is not entirely trivial to install. Portable air conditioners need a certain amount of "installation" too (cumbersome hoses...), and they have lousy efficiency. And all air conditioning is kind of goofy unless you intend to use it at least occasionally for cooling as well.

Cheap air conditioners also all still use the old "binary" control system; they're either pumping heat at full power, or not pumping any heat at all. You have to pay extra to get an "inverter" system that's able to run at fractional powers, which is often what you actually want rather than endless noisy thermostat-driven cycles.

The very best electrical heating, though, is the kind you get as a side-effect of something else that you'd be doing anyway.

If your TV consumes 100 watts while it's on, you get 100 watts of heat out of it, "for free". The same goes for every other electrical appliance in the house, definitely including computers. This is bad if you're paying to cool your house (or room full of servers...), but it's great if you're paying to heat it.

So if you're to the point where you're considering resistive electrical heating anyway, think about more entertaining things you can get that electricity to do on the way to warming the room. Even if all you do is abolish all traces of Seasonal Affective Disorder by lighting your living room with two $25 500-watt halogen shop floods pointed at the ceiling, that still beats the hell out of being suckered into paying $600 for a lousy fan heater!