As with most fuel "saving" products, the primary evidence in favour is uncontrolled on-road testing, where people compare their economy with and without Ethos FR. As explained here, it is very easy to get false results from this sort of testing since fuel economy is very strongly affected by traffic, driving style, weather, etc. Espacially significant is the "placebo effect" - anyone who has invested in Ethos, and wants to see it work, will naturally (if unconsciously) adopt a more economical driving style. (Also, do not forget the "MLM effect" mentioned at the top of the page.) Similarly, claims of improved performance are almost entirely restricted to comments along the lines of "my car feels quicker now", which could very easily just be wishful thinking.
There is a long history with fuel "saving" products of glowing testimonial evidence followed by scientific testing proving that the product/device has only a tiny effect (for example, the Ecotek CB-26B). Because of this, governments and other regulatory bodies generally say that testimonial evidence on its own is not sufficient to demonstrate the effectiveness of any fuel "saving" product. (See for example the advice from the Federal Trade Commission.) It's also worth considering the case of BioPerformance, which has an absolute mountain of positive testimonial evidence yet is currently the subject of legal action by the Texas Attorney General, and indeed is frequently condemned by Ethos supporters as a "worthless scam". Strange that testimonials that support Ethos are reliable, yet those that support BioPerformance are meaningless...
It's worth pointing out here that the frequent positive comments from Pacific Waste Services, regularly cited by Ethos as a big industrial user of the product, are also just testimonials. I don't see any evidence of a proper scientific test program (for example use of placebo controls and double-blinding) at Pacific Waste, just a comment that "economy got better since we started using it".
Those who market and support Ethos, as with other fuel "saving" devices, always condemn those (such as me) who criticise it without trying for themselves. "If you haven't tried it in your car, you can't comment on it", they say. But the point is this: the sceptics know very well that any testing they could do would prove absolutely nothing, due to the natural fluctuations in fuel consumption. Maybe they would see an improvement, maybe they wouldn't. Either way it would not demonstrate conclusively whether the product works or not. Only rigorous scientific testing can do this (and such testing costs far more than any independent individual such as myself can afford). In June 2006 Ethos suggested that they would be carrying out such testing, but then in October they stated that this testing would not now happen because "when the EPA tests something, the results will only be on one vehicle". This is of course nonsense; two vehicles is the absolute minimum, but 3 or 4 would be more common. (You can see this for yourself by looking at the EPA's test procedure, or the reports on other products they have tested).
Use by various companies and governments Ethos supporters frequently point to many "famous" users of the product. These include:
U.S State Department - Humvees
Marines - Hovercraft - Added to Jet Fuel
Airforce
China
Ecuador
Thailand
Pacific Waste Services, a division of Allied Waste Industries - Billion dollar company
This seems very impressive, yet I am not aware that we have any proof, other than Ethos' own claims, that anybody other than Pacific Waste Services actually is using the product. The Air Force etc may have tried it out, but that doesn't mean they have actually endorsed it and are using it in large quantities. Indeed, given the large list of companies in the test reports apparently seeing great improvements in economy and emissions, it seems odd that only Pacific Waste is willing to openly support the product. Are the other companies not using it any more? Interestingly, I was told quite specifically by a representative from Cloud 9 Shuttle (the only gasoline fleet to show an economy improvement in the Ethos test data mentioned above) that "We are no longer using the product, and have not been for some time".
Ethos frequently suggest that their product is being used in various developing countries, and they are seeing big improvements in air quality as a result. But remember that these countries are rapidly adopting US-style pollution controls (catalysts, fuel injection, etc), and these measures are far more likely to be responsible for reductions in emissions.
An article in the San Diego Magazine, commenting on use of Ethos FR by China, is frequently cited by supporters of Ethos. There are however some "oddities" about this report, for example:
Why is this (presumably very important) story only reported in a small local magazine focussing on "entertainment, fashion, events and news"?
Why are there no other references to "Globalization Economic Cooperation & Promotion Network Ltd" (the Chinese company mentioned) anywhere on the Net?
Why is Yi Li Wang, supposedly the highest-ranking woman in the Chinese government, also apparently invisible to Google?
The story repeats the claim, long since debunked, that Ethos FR is patented (see below)
It should also be remembered that Chinese vehicle technology, especially in the area of emissions control, is 15-20 years behind the US. Even if this article is taken at face value, and Ethos FR really is reducing emissions of Chinese vehicles, that absolutely does not prove the same is true for American vehicles.
Ethos supporters claimed in June 2006 that Enrique de Vilmorin (Ethos president) would be attending a major ceremony in China in early July where he would be given an award by the Chinese government for Ethos FR's contribution to reducing pollution. Supposedly this ceremony would be widely reported in the media due to its great importance. One year on, there has been a deafening silence from the world's media, and the report on Ethos's own site just seems to refer to signing up of a local distributor. Not quite so impressive, and no sign of any Chinese government officials.
One person wrote to me suggesting that contacting Lt. Col. Bill Lusk, who is listed as Ethos' Military Sales distributor, should confirm the military use of the product. One would assume that Lt. Col. Lusk is a full-time serving military officer, presumably working in a procurement department. Yet oddly, the number given ( (702) 531-5350 ) turns out to belong to Lusk Enterprises Inc, a small Health Services company in Las Vegas. This immediately suggests that Lt. Col. Lusk is in fact retired, rather than being a full-time serving member of the armed forces as one might imagine. It also makes me wonder: if Ethos is really doing tens of millions of dollars a year of business with the military, why does their distributor only do this as a sideline to his main job? Overall, the whole thing seems very suspicious to me.
Ethos have also recently started sponsoring an IndyCar team. The car certainly looks impressive in Ethos' livery, and if a racing team is using Ethos FR, then that sure proves its effectiveness - doesn't it? Well, actually, no: sponsoring a team just means that you give them money, and they display your logo on the race car. There's no evidence I can see that Playa Del Racing are actually putting the product in their vehicles. And again the question I have to ask is: why spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on flashy marketing, while refusing to spend a few tens of thousands on scientific testing to actually prove the product works? See:
http://4ourfuture.comThe revelation that Ethos' total sales in the four years 2003 - 2006 was only 7 million dollars (see "Things...that are not true" below) also makes the claims of multi-million-dollar contracts with these companies and organizations seem suspicious.
Company History, and D-1280X
The product was originally patented in 1990 by Morton Fainman. At the time the product was known as "D-1280X". In 2000 rights to the patent passed to "D-1280X, Inc", a Californian company with an address of 126 Marine Avenue, and by 2001 D-1280X was listed by the EPA as a registered additive, supplied by Omstar Products of 126 Marine Avenue, Wilmington, California.
Some time after this, the product started appearing under the name "Ethos FR", and had been registered with the EPA by January 2004. Here the supplier was listed as Ethos Environmental (though note that neither Ethos FR nor Ethos Environmental were mentioned in 2001, so immediately the company's claim to have been selling the product for seven years looks a little odd).
Interestingly, the company "OnstarE.com" (still of 126 Marine Avenue) is apparently still selling D-1280X, which seems odd given the publicity surrounding Ethos FR. What is the relationship between OnstarE.com and Ethos Environmental, Inc? The most recent suggestion from Ethos is that Omstar effectively stole the idea from the original inventor, and patented it; the original inventor then joined Ethos Environmental and, after a court case, won the right to sell it. (Though there are also people who claim the exact opposite - that OmstarE is the rightful owner, and Ethos "stole" the product. I have absolutely no knowledge one way or the other - though it is interesting to note that the last recorded "owner" of the Patent, in 2000, was the company that became OmstarE.com - not Ethos Environmental).
Also not clear is whether the product now sold as Ethos FR is the same formulation as the original D-1280X, or something significantly different. Both the statement from Ethos mentioned above, and this (now deleted) page on Ethos' website, talk about applying for new patents in the future based on improved formulations - which suggests to me that they are essentially the same product. Ethos' claim to have been selling the product for past seven years (or 10, depending which story you read) also does not seem to fit the idea of recent major changes to the product, although I should note that they claim they have made big changes since 1990.
If we assume that D-1280X and Ethos FR are one and the same, then some very interesting test data is available. D-1280X was tested by the California Air Resources Board in June 1990, on a number of 1984 diesel trucks, using proper scientific techniques. The conclusion of the report was that the additive reduced hydrocarbon emissions, but had no statistically significant effect on fuel consumption. Later statistical re-evaluation suggested that the additive probably improved fuel economy by 4% - but only on urban driving, not Highway, and only with one of the two diesel fuels tested. This is hardly definitive proof of a "7 - 19% economy gain", as is always claimed by Ethos - and remember this was only on diesel vehicles, and vehicles that by today's standards would be over 20 years old.
Perhaps now we can see why Ethos have not wanted to carry out any further scientific testing of the product - if this data is valid, it seems likely that such testing would merely prove it is of no benefit!
Things Ethos supporters have said, that are not trueIn the early days of the 4-E pre-launch (early 2006), a number of comments were made by supporters and distributors of Ethos FR, which gave added credibility to the product and its staff. Many of these things are now known to be not true, though they are still frequently repeated.
Enrique de Vilmorin (Ethos CEO) has a PhD from Harvard. False - he did briefly attend Harvard, but his PhD (which, by the way, is in Economics not a technical subject) is not from there.
Enrique de Vilmorin has 15 patents. False - he holds only one Patent, and that is only distantly related to the ideas behind Ethos FR.
Ethos FR is protected by patents. False - D-1280X (see above) was patented, but this patent expired in 2002 because the patent owner did not pay the maintenance fee. This patent does not in any case seem to have ever been controlled by Ethos Environmental. Ethos Environmental do not seem to hold any patents at all, though there is talk that some may be in preparation. 4-E's website has now dropped the claims of a patent, though you can still see the old claim thanks to Google.
Enrique de Vilmorin has been nominated for a Nobel Prize. False - the latest suggestion is that the Patent Office suggested to the Nobel Comittee that he be nominated, on the basis of the Patent mentioned above. Even this seems highly unlikely to me - Nobel prizes are usually awarded for work on fundamental science rather than engineering, and in any case in my professional opinion this invention does not seem particularly radical (or even practical). Various Ethos supporters have claimed that the Patent was "rushed through" in 6 months (or 8, depending on which story you read) because it was so important, but comparing the filing date (Mar 9th 2005) and date of publication (June 6th 2006) clearly shows this to be also untrue.
Ethos Environmental Inc is selling tens/hundreds of millions of dollars of product a year (claim made early in 2006). False - the submission to the US Securities and Exchange Comission by Victor Industries in support of their planned merger with Ethos Environmental Inc, and the 2006 Annual Report, give the following sales figures for Ethos:
2003: $ 198,812
2004: $ 332,780
2005: $ 1,780,825
2006: $ 4,768,013
So where are the multi-million-dollar contracts with China, the Air Force, etc? Ethos have attempted to explain this away as being "creative accounting" to reduce tax liabilities, which is supposedly common practice in business. There is an element of truth in this idea, and if (say) 10% of revenue was "hidden" that might be plausible. But 99%? That's just not credible - and remember that these are audited accounts, presented to the Securities and Exchange Commission, so there is little room for misleading information.
It was also claimed that the "real" results, and explanation for the discrepency, would be revealed as soon as the merger with Victor Industries and stock market floatation was completed. Well, that was back in early November 2006, and still there is nothing.
Those at the top of Ethos have suggested that these false claims were due to misunderstandings, but sceptics believe it more likely that they were made deliberately, in order to increase credibility. The sceptics also say: if these easily-testable claims were false, why should we believe other claims?
Phil Piccolo, and others involved in Ethos Many people have commented on the histories of those leading 4-E Corporation, and noted that several key players seem to have been involved in a number of failed MLM programs in the past. That is not really the subject of this page, which is more concerned with technical aspects of the product, but is slightly concerning nonetheless.
Phil Piccolo, a former Ethos distributor, had been conducting a campaign against 4-E, making a number of serious (though generally unproveable) allegations. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not associated with Phil - and I certainly would not advise anyone reading this to leave 4-E and join with his businesses instead, since these seem no more credible than Ethos. A critical point is that most of the sceptics' concerns about Ethos FR arose long before Phil Piccolo appeared on the scene, and doubting Phil's allegations is not a reason to automatically believe the claims of 4-E Corporation. For most "Ethos sceptics", Phil Piccolo and his claims are simply an irrelevance - and indeed the site making those claims has now apparently been shut down.
Exclusive deal with PetroEcuador
On 20.12.06 Ethos announced an exclusive deal to supply Ethos FR to PetroEcuador (the Ecuador state oil company), on the basis of test results "proving" improvements in emissions and fuel consumption.
This sounds impressive, but reading the report there is no evidence of any proper scientific testing; it's all uncontrolled on-road results with varying traffic, driving style, etc as confounding factors. And even if Ethos FR really does improve the economy and emissions of buses in Ecuador, the technology in these vehicles is rather different to modern US or European passenger cars, and so does not show general proof of effectiveness.
Most of peoples think this is a scam or some kind of fraud product but I can assure you that its working with peoples who have tested on there motors. So be the one of them and try it today.
click here to buy
