Truth is out of style

Robert X. Cringely would like us all to know that what the business world needs is more bullshit.

Apparently he's very impressed with some Indian entrepeneur - I think he's called Sumantra Roy - who is making tons of money, thusly:

1: Figure out that there seems to be a market, "older women stuck with (or thinking about getting) naughty parrots", to whom could be sold an expensive e-book of information about these creatures.

2: Realise that you don't know a thing about parrots.

3: Buy some books about parrots.

4: Realise that you don't know a thing about writing, either.

5: Hire some guy to read the parrot books and make you an all-new parrot e-book of your own, which you can sell to the abovementioned middle-aged ladies.

6: Make one of those God-awful mile-long CLICK HERE YOU IDIOT marketing Web pages [which, thanks to a commenter below, I now know is called a "squeeze page"], full of BIG TEXT and dodgy testimonials. Including one testimonial that goes on and on, from the supposed source of the info in the e-book. This supposed source is called "Nathalie Roberts", and she has a friend called "Wayne" who had a parrot called "Polygon". Nathalie has twelve years of "school of hard knocks" knowledge about parrot care and training!

Behold: ParrotSecrets.com!

7: Profit!

7b (optional, and inadvisable): Cheerfully admit to Cringely that Nathalie Roberts does not exist, and all that "experience" was just slapped together from four parrot books by some work-for-hire guy who sure as hell ain't gettin' a cut of your (alleged) hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

8: Get presented by Cringely as the kind of go-getting entrepeneur that the world needs more of. I mean, if anybody refused to do this sort of thing because of "ethics" or "morals" or any shit like that, they must be standing on, to quote Rob, an "egalitarian soap box".

The fake Nathalie Roberts is, Cringely says, "like Betty Crocker". You all remember when Betty was presented as a real human being who personally baked all of General Mills' products, right? Yeah, me too!

And anyway, Cringely reckons that all this stuff must be A-OK, because "I have yet to find people bitching and moaning on the Internet about being cheated by Parrotsecrets".

The Internet, Cringely kindly explains, provides us all with a "remarkable self-policing system of commerce". I presume that this explains why things like, I don't know, the standard ads you see next to a Google search, are so wonderfully scam-free.

So there y'go, guys! A product being sold to middle-aged women doesn't have a tide of complaints about it on the Web - so it must be kosher! Every Internet discussion board, as we all know, is just packed with women called Mildred who were born in 1952 - so obviously there cannot possibly be a problem with this product!

The absence of complaints could not possibly have anything whatsoever to do with the rather small intersection of the two sets,

A: Everybody, young or old, who has enough familiarity with the Web to be able to find a place to complain about a dud product where casual Googling will find the complaint, and

B: People who do not automatically categorise any single Web page with many different sizes and colours of text, that you have to page-down 28 times to get to the end of, and which is trying to sell you something, as a scam.

But all of this is a little academic, because right after Cringely said that, a commenter found this site. It's what you might call a... portal page... leading to rather a lot of complaints about Sumantra Roy and his numerous ventures.

Apparently Roy's got a bunch of other similar animal-related sites (which makes his total alleged income a bit more plausible), on which he's followed the same formula of making up someone who supposedly wrote a book and so on and so forth. And he's got a finger in the "Search-Engine Optimisation" pie as well, and... oh, it's all too horrible.

About the best argument anybody in the Cringely post's comments can come up with in favour of this "entrepeneur" is "OK, it's bullshit, but all marketing is bullshit, man!"

Well, OK, yeah. Coke won't really make you young and popular, Bernie Madoff never really made any trades, and those AAA-rated structured investments were all actually worthless. And whenever a financial crisis comes along, there are indeed always spivs who stand ready to find people in trouble and take away even that which they hath.

And apparently, because that's normal, it's also OK!

So get with the program, you unemployed layabouts! Get yourself on the winning team! There can never be enough middle-men, and truth is out of style!

Scams, glorious scams

It wasn't too bad from time to time seeing you answer questions about scams and hoax devices, but now it seems like a lot of your energy and brain power is wasted on that stuff. As a long time reader, every time I see a new letter answered that ends with "I'm sure it's a hoax but I just wanted to ask you" I die a little inside. You'd think by this time, with as much as we are all connected to the world, news, and technology we would just realize that if it's too good to be true it probably is... and if it ends up being true, we'll know about it soon enough. Anyway, take that how you will, I'll still idolize you in any case.

Jordan

That'd better be a golden idol, and a damn big one, if you know what's good for you.

Unfortunately for Jordan, though, I find scams and hoaxes fascinating. Not so much when it's the the same scam over and over, like those ridiculous "power saver" things, of course. But there's always something new.

Just today, for instance, I discovered that New York City currently contains hundreds and hundreds of locksmiths. Do a Google Maps search and it looks as if the city has a life-threatening case of the measles.

It turns out that almost all of these companies are fake. They get themselves listed as "emergency locksmiths" in the phone book, Google Maps and so on at a fake address (which may be the address of a legitimate locksmith). And then, when someone has one of those special lock-related emergencies and calls the "local" company, the rip-offs commence.

Apparently, what they usually do is make you wait while they drive to your place from wherever they actually are, and then charge you way more than they quoted. In this respect, they're a bit like the numerous rip-off camera stores that also infest NYC.

But there's a lot more a crooked locksmith could do. I imagine burglary and locksmithing go together very well - it's ever so much more civilised to let yourself into a victim's house through the front door while he's at work, rather than break a window. Many of the bogus locksmiths seem to be completely incompetent, though, so I suppose there aren't all that many gentleman thieves among them.

Bogus-locksmith disease appears to be more communicable than the bogus-camera-store version. The camera stores are still pretty much restricted to New York, but the locksmiths are spreading right across the USA.

The novelty in this scam is the intersection with online mapping systems, which are being made useless by the tide of fake-company spam that makes it impossible to see which "local" locksmith is actually real. Word of mouth has always been the best way to find good local tradespeople, but until someone comes up with a way to filter the fakes out of services like Google Maps, there's now no other option.

(I wouldn't like to be the person trying to fix this. If the fake-filtering accidentally removes some real locksmiths from the map, I bet someone's going to get sued. Perhaps people could just call locksmiths at random, and whenever one arrives demanding far more money than he quoted, shoot him. That could work.)

Apart from the mapping thing, the locksmith scam is just boring overcharging of captive customers. It doesn't have the elegance of a classic grift, like the one where a door-to-door salesman sells elderly people a safe for their valuables that's disguised as a Bible, then breaks into the house a week later to retrieve the safe and its contents.

Some of the classic scams have been made impossible by advancing technology. Look at the "replace all your light bulbs for only $5" one, for instance. The scammer in this case actually started out with only one house-worth of bulbs, and from then on he just moved used bulbs from each house to the next, collecting his fee each time. Now that people are using expensive compact fluorescents, though, that one doesn't really fly. (There's still this dumb variant and the Robin Hood version, but that doesn't make any money.)

Some scams that seemed to die have been reborn, though. For a while there it seemed that the boiler room, for instance, was dead, because you couldn't get away with faking stock trades after everybody switched to Internet brokers. But now it turns out that the boiler rooms just got much bigger and took a new name - "hedge funds".

My (irradiated) balls are always bouncing

A reader writes:

Do you ride motorcycles or know anything about them? Please take a look at the RiderSaver™ EMF Shielding for Motorcycle Seats.

It's a bit of a long read, and I will not cover my nutts with aluminium foil anyway so you don't need to read it, but in case you do, is there really some bad radiation on motorcycles that could harm my precious balls?

Vlaho

This remarkable item appears to be the product of one Randall Dale Chipkar, who has a Web site for the product and his "Motorcycle Cancer Book" here. And whaddaya know - yet again, here's a proudly-displayed patent for a device, once again exploiting the general public's belief that you can't patent a thing unless it works. (You can actually patent pretty much anything you like, however crazy, as long as it's sufficiently different from other patented things.)

The nutty-sounding stuff on the RiderSaver product page about how the "outstanding magnetic field attenuation results from a unique heating/cooling process within a hydrogen reactive atmosphere" means that RiderSaver EMF Shielding is - or is at least supposed to be - "mu-metal", which is indeed commonly used for magnetic shielding.

There are some problems with using it for this purpose, though.

Problem one: Mu metal doesn't just "soak up" magnetism, like heavy drapes soak up sound. To use mu-metal to "contain" a magnetic field, you have to form the metal into a casing right around the field source. (You can do the same thing with ordinary mild steel, by the way - it just won't work as well.)

Just putting a mu-metal "hat" on top of a field source won't do this, though. It'll do something, but it's quite possible that you'll actually end up with the magnetic field lines being pulled down and concentrated right where your arse meets the seat, which I'm given to understand includes a piece of the anatomy known technically as the Bollockular Region.

(There's more info on all sorts of shielding as it applies to electronics, with helpful diagrams, here.)

Problem two: Mu-metal is for screening low-frequency, or static (i.e. just a permanent magnet) magnetic fields. The higher the frequency at which a field is oscillating, the less effective mu-metal will be.

If you've got a two-cylinder four-stroke motorcycle chugging along at 3000 RPM, its spark-plugs will be firing fifty times per second, giving an electromagnetic field around the plug wires that oscillates at that same 50Hz. And changes shape too, depending on the ignition-system layout.

50Hz isn't high-frequency - it actually qualifies as "extremely low frequency", or ELF, and ELF magnetic fields are what bother a significant portion of the people who're worried about the effects of non-ionising radiation on health. Mu-metal is often used to shield EMR in the 50-60Hz range, which is what you get from mains electricity.

[Although, as commenters point out below, the radio-frequency energy emitted from spark-plugs and their wires is broadband RF noise from DC to daylight, because that's what sparks do.]

The 50-60Hz fields from overhead power lines are a big concern for the EMR-avoiders, though I don't think anybody's ever demonstrated there to be any real risk. Yes, people who live under power lines have a higher incidence of many diseases including cancer. But people who live under power lines also tend to be poorer than people who live somewhere more picturesque, and poor people get many diseases, including cancer, at higher rates than rich people. If you do a proper test that controls for these "confounders", the health "effects" of power lines approach zero.

When you start digging into stuff like this, you'll soon find people using for support reports that say things like "the risk was elevated but not statistically significant". This is an unfortunate choice of words, because to Joe Average it means "the risk was only a bit higher". Statistical significance is actually what tells you if a result is likely to reflect reality, or just be due to chance.

A lot of medical studies use a "confidence interval" of 0.95. If something is statistically significant to this degree, there's only a one in twenty chance that it's just a fluke (and if different 0.95-interval studies all find the same thing, the probability of error drops rapidly).

Something that isn't statistically significant is something that doesn't achieve a decent confidence interval. A measurement with a confidence interval of 0.6, for instance, is only 60% likely to be a real result not due to chance. It's not wise to make decisions based on lousy confidence intervals, and what you should say if you're talking about dubious results like this is "there was no statistically significant difference in risk".

Getting back to engines, it's easy for them to produce magnetic fields at higher frequencies. If you've got a four-cylinder four-stroke bike pushing a bit hard at 8000RPM, for instance, the spark-plug field will now be oscillating 266.7 times per second, and mu-metal shielding will be less effective.

The other significant electromagnetic-radiation source in a bike or car is the alternator, which is all made out of electromagnets (alternators are related to field-coil electric motors, which were the only game in town in the days before good permanent magnets). Half of the electromagnets in an alternator are whizzing round and round; the alternator therefore creates a complicated rapidly-changing high-frequency magnetic field which mu-metal is probably not very good at shielding at all.

Problem three: Mu-metal actually needs to be hydrogen-annealed when it's in its final form. This is part of the reason why mu-metal shielding is expensive; you can't just buy a flat sheet of it and wrap and hammer it around whatever you want to shield. But the Web site for the allegedly-mu-metal stick-on RiderSaver stuff says it "can be cut and is bendable and pliable to accommodate intricate motorcycle seat internal base pans". As soon as you cut or bend mu-metal, you'll work-harden it, and its magnetic permeability, from which comes its high shielding ability, will be decreased. If all you do is wrap mu-metal foil around a box then it'll still work pretty well, only failing on the bent edges, but if you change the shape of most of the surface so you can jam your seat back down on top of it, you may well end up with no better a result than you would have gotten from some cheap sheet steel.

(All modern hard drives have a couple of high-powered rare-earth permanent magnets inside them. There's close to zero field outside or even impinging on the platters right next to the magnets, though, because the magnets are on the inside of an iron pole-piece assembly. Mu-metal would work even better, but it's not needed.)

Problem four: There's not actually any good reason to suppose that any of the clearly-understood risks of sitting on a motorcycle seat, above a spark-ignition engine, have anything to do with magnetic fields or electromagnetic radiation.

Motorbikes are dangerous, but that danger comes from Newtonian, not electromagnetic, physics. (I like the observation that if motorcycles had only just been invented, there's no way they'd be legal.) Per distance travelled, motorcyclists are something in the order of 35 times as likely to die as car drivers. (These numbers are the aggregate for all motorcyclists, though; if you ride a sedate commuter or cruiser bike then you're actually pretty safe. Crotch-rocket sport-bike riders apparently have a death rate ten times that of other motorcyclists, and they affect the statistics accordingly.)

If I had a bike, I'd be focussing my attention more on heavily armoured clothing than on any theoretical danger to my precious bodily fluids from non-ionising radiation. A factory-fitted device that disabled a bike's ignition if it detected that the rider was only wearing jeans and a T-shirt would do quite a bit to reduce bike-related deaths and injuries.

There's no way to convince some people that non-ionising radiation from phones or powerlines or wireless networks or whatever does not seem to be a significant health risk. "It's still radiation, isn't it?", they say. "And I read that Wi-Fi causes autism, too!"

Similar reactions to "nuclear magnetic resonance imaging" are what caused the name to be shortened to just "magnetic resonance imaging", or MRI. MRI machines have nothing to do with nuclear weapons, of course, but "nuclear", just like "radiation", equals "bad" for most people. Explaining that visible light is also a form of radiation doesn't seem to help. It's all forms of non-visible radiation that're considered to be dangerous. (See also people who won't eat food that has "chemicals" in it.)

There's a whole family of bizarre products and books having to do with the terrible dangers allegedly posed by all kinds of invisible radiation, empirical evidence be damned. "Electrosensitivity" - the alleged deleterious effects of non-ionising radiation of one kind or another - is a big market at the moment. Look at those "radiation shield" stickers for cellphones, for instance, which work every bit as well as the "antenna stickers". There are also cellphone anti-radiation products that may actually work; there's just not much reason to suppose that they're necessary.

(L. Ron Hubbard was ahead of the radiation-scare trend, in his inimitable style.)

But there are also plenty of people who believe that static or pulsed magnetic fields are good for you. There's some actual very narrow scientific support for this - pulsed magnetic fields may have some effect on the healing of fractured bones, for instance - but it is largely a crock, about as believable as the old electric belts. (Though presumably less harmful than the old health devices that used ionising radiation.)

Over and over, alleged "electrosensitives" have failed to demonstrate that they can even perceive electromagnetic fields and radiation, much less that those phenomena cause any ill effects. But that doesn't stop them from buying products like the RiderSaver that claim to protect them.

I find the RiderSaver much more amusing than most bogus radiation-blocking doodads. Worrying about whether EMR is in some unknown-to-science way barbecuing your bottom while you ride your donorcycle strikes me as being like making sure you put on extra sunblock before you participate in the Running of the Bulls.

Library, bumper-sticker shop... what's the difference?

I get a lot of link-farm spam, of varying levels of ingenuity.

This one's got a new twist, though.

From: Alicia
[sending server located in some craphole]
To: dan@dansdata.com
Subject: An Idea/Suggestion for 404 link on http://www.dansdata.com/usbadapt.htm
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:10:42 -0600 (CST)

Hey :-)
I happened to noticed that on the page http://www.dansdata.com/usbadapt.htm you have an outgoing external link to http://www.archive.org/movies/movies.php, however I found that it is a broken link (doesn't look like that page exists anymore or is temporarily down). I found this page to be a good replacement if you just wanted to change the link.
http://www.filmposters.com/articles/evolution-horror-movies.asp
Hopefully this adds another resource to your page if anything.

Hope this is of some help, thought it was a good site to reference. Hope it proves to be useful

Thanks,
Alicia

This really does look like an actual e-mail from a human being, doesn't it?

Of course, a human being would probably have noticed that although the Internet Archive's moving image collection page has moved since I wrote that review in 2004, the old URL redirects to the new one.

A human being might also be able to detect a slight difference in content between the place I was linking to and the place "Alicia" wanted me to link instead.

The Internet Archive moving image collection lets you download, for free, tons of movies that're out of copyright or otherwise free to distribute. Nosferatu, His Girl Friday, Night of the Living Dead, Reefer Madness, old computer TV shows, cartoons, vintage educational films, "ephemeral" films; you name it. It's great.

Filmposters.com, in contrast, is pretty much what you'd expect filmposters.com to be. The page "Alicia" wanted me to link to isn't the usual meaningless link-farm robo-content, though; it's about "The Evolution of Horror Movies", and seems to be a perfectly valid page with real content. But it also seems to not be in the Google database at all, which suggests that it's brand new.

Perhaps the idea behind this spam is to make actual valid content pages on sites that want the PageRank boost that all link schemes are about. Then you scan for broken links on Web sites and shoot off these seemingly-from-a-human e-mails, suggesting people update their link to point to your page.

The only problem is that, as usual, it's all based on software that's trying, unsuccessfully, to find targets that're relevant to the stuff the spammer is trying to advertise.

If this really is the scheme, it's a step forward from normal link-farm sites, which exist only to trick searchers into clicking on ads. But I'm still not going to help "Alicia" do it.

Posted in Scams, Spam. 4 Comments »

The Loch Ness Carburettor

From a reader:

I was browsing the Internet and came upon this website:

http://www.himacresearch.com/books/secret.html

You've got a interesting ability to dissect stuff and determine if it's a lot of crap or not. It seems all very dodgy to me, but interested in your thoughts.

Leon

The 200-mile-per-gallon carburettor - in this case, it's only meant to be a 100-mpg carburettor - is, obviously, one of the golden-oldie corporate myths. (Where would you even put a 200-mpg carburettor on a modern engine?)

This site is a great example of the breed; among other things, it mentions the famous (in certain circles) Charles Nelson Pogue patents from the 1930s. You can patent almost anything, of course, whether it works or not, but the fact that those patents do exist is still, frequently, used as evidence that the Pogue carburettor worked as advertised.

Because the miracle carburettor is such a classic automotive myth, there are many excellent articles about it. Here on Snopes, for instance, and here on The Straight Dope.

Tony of fuelsaving.info has a page about atomisation gadgets, too, in which he explains why no possible carburettor could work any better than fuel injectors do, as can be proven by, for instance, looking at engines that run on gaseous fuel.

(It's also been pointed out that the steady progress of automotive technology means that lots of cars on the road today actually could be 100mpg vehicles. But as engines have improved, more and more heavy safety and luxury stuff has been added. If you strip that stuff out of a modern car and perhaps add some alarming aerodynamic mods, a hundred miles per gallon is not out of the question.)

There are other things that make these supposed devices look very unlikely, too, beyond the basic objection that people have been talking about it for decades, but the Giant Car Industry Or OPEC Or Masonic Or Something Conspiracy has managed, even in this modern age of the Internet, to prevent anybody from ever even sneaking such a car into a technical-college garage for tests. (The many people who've actually tried it and been disappointed are, of course, all actually just part of the Conspiracy.)

The maximum theoretical efficiency for any heat engine, including internal-combustion engines, is equal to the absolute-temperature difference between the hot and cold ends divided by the temperature at the hot end. To put it another way, a heat engine takes a high-temperature thing and extracts some energy from it, sending whatever energy it can't extract to its heat-sinking exhaust. For an internal-combustion engine, the hot thing is the fuel burning in the cylinders and the heat-sink is the atmosphere - and, to get the calculation right, that "absolute temperature" thing means you need to use Kelvin or some other starts-at-absolute-zero scale for the temperatures.

The bigger the temperature differential, the more efficient the engine. This is why steam engines need their steam to be so very hot, and also why Smokey Yunick's Hot Vapor engine quite possibly got better mileage than even the most advanced car engines do today. Shame about that little "setting everything else in the engine bay on fire" problem.

Anyway, even if aliens have given you a perfect internal-combustion engine, its ceiling efficiency is still cappped by this calculation.

Given the combustion temperature in internal-combustion engines and typical ambient temperatures, the maximum possible thermal efficiency for an internal-combustion engine is up around seventy per cent. No real engine actually manages much more than 25%, but about 70% is the limit.

The "200 mile per gallon" carburettor is supposed to work on ordinary big dumb American engines, whose fuel-efficiency without the magic carburettor is, let's say, 25 miles per gallon. If you boost a 25-mpg engine to 200-mpg, you must have improved its thermal efficiency by a factor of 200/25, which is 8. But we can empirically calculate, by measuring combustion-chamber and exhaust temperatures, that its initial thermal efficiency is about 20%. Multiply that by 8 and you get one hundred and sixty per cent, way off the end into perpetual-motion territory.

Even if it was a really fuel-efficient engine to start with, getting 40 mpg, and you're only talking about a one-hundred-mile-per-gallon miracle carburettor, you're still improving by a factor of 2.5. This is, at least, theoretically possible - assume 20% efficiency to start with, multiply by 2.5, and you get only 50%, below the theoretical maximum. But in all the engine labs of all the world, in all the sheds and garages and universities and giant car companies, there is no evidence that anybody's ever made an internal-combustion engine that is that efficient, unless it runs at spectacularly unmanageable temperatures.

It's perfectly possible to make a car, or even a motorcycle, that contains a very very hot engine of one kind or another. But the "miracle carburettors" never say anything about that. They're just bolt-on devices for normal engines, promoted with the usual BS about making the fuel burn better or swirling it around or something. Modern engines provably burn fuel very nearly optimally, so there's not anything to actually gain there.

But the myths will never die. The miracle carburettor is like the Loch Ness Monster; no amount of scientific investigation or logical argument can ever prove it's not out there, somewhere, in the mist.

You should see what it does to whiskey

Yet another reader leads me somewhere I'd rather not go:

Science Illustrated magazine is running an ad for the John Ellis water machine which I'm pretty sure is a big pile of steaming crapola. This ad is billed as a medical discovery, and contains testimonials from people who supposedly recovered from incurable diseases in just days. I've attached a scanned copy of the offending ad:

Water gizmo ad

Normal I'd just scoff at such ads, but this was in a science magazine, so I wrote the email below to the magazine. Could you confirm that I'm correct when I say this product is nothing but snake oil and voodoo science?

David

-------------------------

Hello Science Illustrated Magazine Staff,

Your magazine was recently included as a bonus gift with Popular Science magazine here in Australia. Your magazine was a good read but I cannot take it seriously as a science magazine because you carry a full page advertisement for the John Ellis water machine which is obviously nothing but snake oil.

You insult your readers by running such ads. Worse, by taking money to run such ads, you are complicit in offering false hope to terminally ill people with discredited voodoo science.

Any magazine should be ashamed to run such an advertisement, especially a science magazine. Your legitimate advertisers should be appalled to be seen in the company of John Ellis.

David
Melbourne Australia

------------------------

There's a long tradition of ads for questionable devices in the backs of magazines like Popular Science. "Build Your Own Flying Saucer", et cetera. I agree, however, that outright full-page quackery is not at all the same thing as the usual "Make Big Bucks By Raising Minks" sort of ad.

And yes, this is, so far as I and the entirety of the world's evidence-based scientists and medical practitioners can tell, bollocks.

There's a surprisingly large number of other "clustered" or "energised" or "oxygenated" water products out there. I've written about them myself from time to time (see also, The Wine Clip), as have others. See, for instance Penta Water, a classic clustered-water product sold by classic clustered-water salesmen.

The John Ellis "Electron Water Machine" is a bit unusual, because it is a machine, essentially a still, with which you can convert the lethal product of your kitchen cold tap into a transcendental substance alleged to have the usual long list of peculiar qualities.

The Electron Water Machine is, for instance, alleged to create "a water freed of diseased memory plus extra electrons and oxygen, lowered surface tension and enhanced hydration". The "extra electrons" are classic water quackery; a Nobel Prize in physics - or accidental destruction of the planet, whichever comes first - could be yours if you actually managed to make "extra electrons" just sit there in bulk water. And the "lowered surface tension" part is the sort of thing that a young child could measure, were it true.

The thing that really makes people selling the Ellis machines different from every other water nut is that "diseased memory" thing. Apparently the fact that any given water molecule on this planet is rather likely to have passed through a lot of human and animal kidneys before it makes it to your glass is very, very bad, and this terrible ju-ju must be exorcised to make the water not actively injurious to health. (Take that, you eight-glasses-a-day fools!)

Like almost all other water woo-woo, though, the output of an Ellis machine is likely to be harmless, which is more than can be said for a lot of quackery. People selling magic water, and people selling devices that shine coloured light on you to treat every disease under the sun-through-a-stained-glass-window, and people who're just practising homeopathy for that matter, usually get to do their thing without interference from the government. That's because the regulatory bodies are usually understaffed and overworked, and are flat out just trying to deal with the really monstrous quacks.

I would also venture the opinion that if a given person can't figure out that there's something fishy about John Ellis from the 5000 words of large-text ranting that currently comprises the johnellis.com front page, then that person is likely to hand their money over to some other quack soon enough.

And the Ellis distilling machine probably does make perfectly good distilled water, though I wouldn't be surprised to see a less-floridly-advertised still that does the same thing for half, or less, of the $US1500 price of the base-model Ellis device.

If you're interested in the burgeoning field of water woo-woo, allow me to recommend Stephen Lower's "Water-related pseudoscience, fantasy and quackery". He breaks the various varieties of H2O scammery down into categories - there's "ionized" and alkaline water, for instance, a category which includes Australia's own "Unique Water". (That stuff was going to revolutionise medicine some years ago, but never quite managed it, for some reason.)

The John Ellis Electron Water Machine gets its own page on Lower's site, here. Lower addresses the bizarre advertising claims that Ellis made until recently - like, for instance, that "Fifty years ago the hydrogen bond angle in water was 108° and you rarely heard of anyone with cancer. Today, it's only 104° and, as a result, cancer is an epidemic!!"

Had the angle of any hydrogen bonds actually changed, the fundamental chemical and/or physical properties of water would have changed with them and there's a good chance life on earth would have died out, Vonnegut style. And note that the Science Illustrated ad talks about breaking hydrogen bonds in water, not changing their angle.

In a trivial sense, of course the Ellis device breaks hydrogen bonds; the plethora of hydrogen bonds in water is what gives the tiny water molecule such a high boiling point compared to other small molecules like, for instance, carbon dioxide (boiling point -78.5° Celsius) or methane (b.p. -161.6°C). So to boil water, you have to break the hydrogen bonds, and all normal distillation gear does boil whatever it's distilling, so duh, his thing does too. But so would a kettle, or an appropriately-modified cat-food tin. Presenting the breaking of hydrogen bonds as being something special and unique is like saying "Only the '09 Datsubishi Grapefruit reduces exhaust nitrogen oxide to nitrogen and oxygen, and oxidises carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide, at the same time!"

(Oh, and just for the sake of completeness: Overall cancer rates have indeed, generally speaking, increased over the last century - but, one: Cancer incidence neatly tracks increases in life expectancy, on account of most cancer being a disease of the elderly; would you rather live to 87 and then die of cancer, or die at 12 of smallpox? And, two: Cancer treatment today is far better than it was in the 1950s. We don't have a cure for all cancers, but we certainly do have cures for a lot of them.)

As Stephen Lower's article points out, Ellis has now changed his selling strategy, no longer mentioning impossible quantum physics and switching to impossible biology instead. Ellis now alleges that ordinary stills let through all sorts of dreadful substances - drug residue, germs, those mysterious things he calls "disease markers" - which his special machines block.

These claims are not hard to test. It is easy to prove that various off-the-shelf benchtop water distillers do in fact give you distilled water with tiny-to-zero content of undesirable substances. Well, except for "disease markers", which I suspect do not mean the same thing to Ellis as they mean to everyone else.

Ellis's old nutty quantum-physics claims survive here and there on his site, too. Just look at the order form (PDF). It informs you that different models of "LWM Electron" machine can be had for between $US1500 and $US2800 (all apparently big discounts on the retail price!), but it also babbles on about "clusters of water molecules" that "pick up more electrons". And on he goes with the bizarre statements about air oxygen levels "as low as 10% near the traffic in major cities!", which is what us professionals refer to as "not true".

(Ellis is, however, amazingly enough actually right when he says that atmospheric oxygen levels, as measured from air trapped in prehistoric amber, were much higher in the distant past. That was well before even the first mammals evolved, though; the air's current 21% oxygen content has been nicely steady for a very great deal longer than humans have existed. This is a detail that Ellis, like the numerous carpetbaggers who base their business on oxygen rather than H2O, does not feel the need to mention.)

And then there's a document on Ellis' site called "A Picture is Worth 1,000 Words..." (PDF). The "picture" in this case is a rather hideous scan, talking about how the Ellis "Electron Machines" are the only ones that remove "disease markers", modify the bond angle of water, et cetera et cetera as per his previous front-page selling points.

The exact wording (minus the painful ALL-CAPS) of what seem to be the critical part of this rather confusing document is:

"NOTE: By breaking down the hydrogen bonds in water, the CEA marker went down the water went into the blood stream (94% water)!! No other water can do this and it can be seen under a microscope that the red blood cells are nice and round with plenty of movement caused by electron energy!"

This seems to be saying that red blood cells, among other things, are chronically dehydrated, or something, in people who drink ordinary water. One or another version of this is a frequent claim among water weirdos, and so far as I can see, it's yet another quivering hairy sack of bollocks.

The human body, like the bodies of every other form of cellular life, is indeed quite critically dependent upon the water content of its various fluids. Generally speaking, it's important for many bodily fluids to have neither too little nor - and here's the important part - too much water in them.

The process by which your body keeps the fluids at the right level of dilution is a subcategory of homeostasis, called osmoregulation.

There is not the slightest reason to believe that you need to drink some special kind of water to make osmoregulation work properly. On the contrary, in fact: If someone did manage to make a form of water that "goes through a membrane" more effectively than the ordinary kind, plumping up all of your red blood cells until they were indeed "nice and round", then you would be suffering from hypotonicity, gravely ill and probably well on the way to death from hyperhydration.

Fortunately, the special water from these Electron Machines is in fact just ordinary distilled water, so I'm pretty sure that drinking it will not plump up your blood cells and kill you dead.

But the plump-blood-cells stuff sounds pretty good to the average punter on the street, who is unlikely to know anything in particular about osmoregulation or atomic bond angles or the difference between polar and non-polar molecules. So it's easy for water quacks like Ellis to come up with a line of quantum flapdoodle that sounds good enough to sell even very expensive allegedly-therapeutic thingummies.

The same strategy doesn't work nearly as well when you're talking about things that ordinary people actually understand, like for instance the basic characteristics of cars. Fuel-additive scammers must carefully restrict their claims to areas where an unscientific investigation can leave the customer thinking there's been an improvement, like fuel economy. You're guaranteed a healthy flow of testimonials if you sell mothballs as a guaranteed fuel-economy booster, because customers can't test them properly. Someone who's inclined to buy your mothballs in the first place may also, for instance, be inclined to drive more gently after popping the pills into the petrol tank, on account of how he wants to make sure that he doesn't accidentally drive much faster and thus unfairly erase the pills' effects. And then hey presto, there's your testimonial.

If the sellers of potions and gadgets for cars used the same promotional techniques as the sellers of water woo-woo, they'd say stuff like "The ThunderPower WonderPill improves power in V6 and V8 engines by increasing the angle between the cylinder banks!", or "MegaCam enlarges and multiplies your camshafts!"

And then there's the medical scammers who toss their scientific word-salad really thoroughly and thus babble on about tightly-wound quantum-entanglement dimension-brane conjugance. The automotive equivalent of that sort of sales spiel would be something like "The Alchemagic Performance MaGNeT makes your car go faster, because it puts an extra carburettor in the semi-boloid luggage manifold!"

(Actually, I'm sure there are some car gadgets that do make claims like this. The "Magic Power System Power Shift Bar", which plugs into the cigarette-lighter socket, is supposed to not just "tune-up" your car, but also clean it. And I'm honestly not exactly sure what the "Car Drive Power Igniting Ignite Engine Air Power Plus" is supposed to do, but it says something about the "piston pressure", which suggests a compression-ratio change, which cannot be done without changing the shape of major engine components. There are probably a few more of these sorts of products in the California Environmental Engineering filing cabinet. But the successful magic car gadgets do not make claims that're so obviously idiotic.)

This sort of self-evident nonsense - self-evident, that is, to anybody who knows what at least some of the "quantum" words actually mean - does, however, remain adequate to get at least some people to buy really expensive magic health gadgets, like the Ellis Electron Machines.

And sure, most of these things are, in themselves, harmless. But every penny someone spends on one of them is a penny they could have spent on something that would actually make them more healthy - or at least more happy. And it all stops being funny rather suddenly when you start making straight-faced claims (oh, I'm sorry, when your happy customers start making straight-faced claims...) that your nutty gadget can, in as many words, cure cancer.

So don't worry about orthodox therapy, which that evil oncologist told you gives a 90% chance of complete remission for the rest of your life, as long as you act quickly. Don't you know that guy's one of the "Cut! Burn! Poison!" crowd? Just get yourself a magic still, and drink your way to perfect health!

They never met a fuel catalyst they didn't like

Another of you annoying readers writes:

Dan, I would love to hear your thoughts on the merits of the "Vapor Fuel Technologies" fuel-saving tech discussed here.

I think of EETimes as a fairly reputable website, but discussion of fuel-saving gadgets seem a bit out of EETimes' area of expertise. In the article, no claim is made regarding burning fuel more completely; it seems the claim is that since combustion event occurs over a shorter period of time, that this somehow more efficient. Still, something about the claim of 30 percent better mileage just strikes me as unlikely.

Strange that the Vapor Fuel Technologies website mentions independent tests by some group called California Environmental Engineering (CEE), but they do not actually provide any formal documentation of the test procedure and results.

Matt

Yep, here we go again.

But this time I found a rabbit-hole that went a lot further than I thought it would.

The Vapor Fuel Techologies (yes, I know...) site raised its first red flag when it proudly mentioned that the company has some patents, as if that has something to do with the usefulness of the thing patented. (All a patent actually means is that the Patent Office doesn't think your idea is excessively similar to someone else's - and modern overworked Patent Offices don't even manage to do that very well. They don't check, and never have checked, to see whether a patented thing actually works, unless it's very obviously a perpetual-motion machine.)

OK, so off we go to the "Product" page to find what this awesome patented thing is meant to be, and we discover that VFT are making pretty claims not very different from those made for various fuel vaporisation, or atomisation, gadgets.

Their central claim is a bit different, though. They say that heating the air that's heading to the combustion chamber causes it to expand, so that less fuel-air mixture goes into the cylinder, and you use less fuel.

Well, OK, that may be true if you can get your engine-management computer to cope with it, but the fuel-injection system in a modern car is perfectly capable of doing the same thing all by itself, whenever you're asking for less than full power. Putting a ceiling value on the mass of air that can go in to the cylinder will, at best, just give you a car that now uses less fuel at wide open throttle (WOT), because you've reduced the "wideness" of that throttle. Now, when you put your foot to the floor, it has the same effect that putting your foot four-fifths of the way to the floor did before. A similar effect occurs when you drive on a hot day; the air is less dense and the maximum power your engine can make is, therefore, slightly lower than it'd be on a cold day.

This does not strike me as something worth paying money for. Just let your air cleaner get filthy and it'll do the same thing for free.

(Note, now that I think of it, that there's no connection I can see between Vapor Fuel Technologies and Smokey Yunick's famous-in-certain-circles "Hot Vapor" engine.)

Also from the Product page: "...improves the combustion process by increasing flame speed and creating the conditions for a chain reaction Autoignition."

My initial reaction to that was "why the hell would you want that to happen!?", because there is no reason to actually want fuel to "autoignite" in a petrol engine. If you do manage to substantially accelerate combustion, by for instance using low-octane fuel in a high-compression engine, your engine may indeed suffer from "autoignition", also known as "knock" or "detonation". That's how diesel engines work, but it's very bad for petrol engines.

Fuel burn time in petrol engines is a compromise, as explained in detail by Tony of the eponymous Guide to Fuel Saving Gadgets on his page about turbulence gadgets. There's no reason to suppose that it's just generally good to burn the fuel faster.

Elsewhere on the Vapor Fuel site they mention that the orthodox automotive industry is exploring "HCCI and Autoignition". This is true; HCCI is "homogeneous charge compression ignition" and "autoignition", in this case, means controlled autoignition, happening when you want it to and not all willy-nilly, possibly before the piston's made it to top-dead-centre.

The idea here is to make engines with diesel-like ignition and fuel economy, but conventional-spark-ignition-like emissions (instead of the characteristic "diesel smoke" that's led to some diesel cars now carrying around a little tank full of "urea-based reductant", thus instantly spawning a million jokes from people who also make jokes whenever they see the word "methane").

The idea that you can make a normal spark-ignition engine into one of these new advanced pseudo-diesel designs by just bolting on an air heater strikes me as puerile.

It doesn't matter what I think of it, of course. You can't argue with success; if it works, it works.

But the only evidence that it does work, so far as Matt and I can see, is that single test, there on the "Independent test results" page.

This, it turns out, is where the real fun is to be found.

First, that page has an odd side-swipe at "the gasoline HCCI and Autoignition efforts currently underway by others"; those engines, the test-results page says in as many words, would find it "difficult, if not impossible", to just do an EPA highway cycle test.

I presume what they meant to say was that their competitors would have difficulty achieving their claimed mileage improvement in an EPA test, but this sort of lack of attention to detail may be in some way related to the fact that the Vapor Fuel Technologies EPA test is stated as having happened almost two years ago now, and yet... still no sign of anybody else taking advantage of this amazing 30% MPG improvement. Or even a replication of the test.

Oh, but wait a minute - where was it that this test apparently took place, again?

At "California Environmental Engineering ... an EPA recognized and California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified independent test laboratory".

That name rings a bell.

That's right, regular readers - that's the same lab that said the Moletech Fuel Saver works!

California Environmental Engineering were mentioned in that mysterious disappearing Herald piece about the Moletech gizmo, and I noticed then that CEE seemed to be a bit keen on the old fuel-saving miracle products.

But I very severely underestimated how many of these talismans and potions they've tested, invariably with positive results.

On top of the marvellous yet mysterious Moletech molecular modifier, CEE are also said to have given their stamp of approval to "Microlon" (PDF), and something called the "CHr Fuel Improvement Device" (PDF), and this (PDF) hydrogen-injection thing, and this other "HHO" gadget, and the Nanotech Fuel Corporation "Emissions Reducing Reformulator" (PDF), and the "Rentar Fuel Catalyst", and the "Fuelstar fuel combustion catalyst", and the "Green Plus (liquid!) fuel catalyst", and the "Omstar D-1280X fuel conditioner", and some other "Fuel Saver" back in 2003, and the Advanced Fuel Technologies carburetor for two-strokes back in 2000, and the "Hydro-Cell Emissions Reducer" (PDF), and the Hiclone turbulence device, and the CHEC HFI Hydrogen Fuel Injection system (PDF), and some HyPower product or other (I'm not sure which, because the PDF links on HyPower's Test Results page are broken), and this "Brown's Gas" doodad, and the SV Technology "DynoValve" crankcase-ventilation thingy, and the Petrol.Net Fuel Additive (though this time CEE's test is, amusingly, mentioned on the testimonials page...), and the Hy-Drive On-Board Electrolyzer. And it goes on, and on, and on...

And yet, not a one of 'em's being fitted to, poured into or waved over cars on the production line yet, bringing hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars per year to their brilliant inventors. All are still being sold over the counter to individual motorists, or being offered as this year's sure-fire investment opportunity.

People who design engines strike a balance between power, economy and driveability. An engine that lets a family car deliver 75 miles per gallon, but has power and torque curves that look like different areas of the Swiss Alps, is no use for normal automobiles.

Car companies have been tuning, balancing and refining their products for more than a hundred years. And racing engine designers have pushed pretty much every oddball modification to its screaming limits. But now we're expected to believe that Vapor Fuel Technologies have just, for the very first time, thought of deliberately heating the intake charge - you know, like a non-intercooled turbocharger, except without the boost - and discovered that doing that is good for what ails you.

And to support their claim, they show us a report from a "laboratory" that apparently never met a mileage improver it didn't like.

Pull the other one.

Ten-trillionth time's a charm

A reader writes:

From: John
To: dan@dansdata.com
Subject: re your rod magnets.
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:35:17 +0900

Dear Dan,

Amazing,!!! I was looking for what was available and came across your page, and it seems you have what I am looking for.

I am a retired engineer who has had a bee in my bonnet for years about using magnetic force to produce a reliable motor that requires no electricity.

I had a reasonable plan of how to do it but like most never quite got round to doing it.

Now I am looking at videos from YouTube showing how many people have all had the same idea.

I would like to know if you do a pack of 1/4inchx1'long high powered magnets and if so how much in total I am thinking of say twenty to start with.

There is a video under the heading of free energy by a company called Tesla comp. in the States who look like they have cracked it and it is worth watching.

if you could, I would like a price list showing the type of magnet, and the price per pack and of course the number in the pack including freight costs to Australia.

If you have more detailed information that you think would be of help please email me and let me know.

I am really very keen to go into this while I still can.

I served in the royal navy as a saturation diver and worked on the first nuclear subs.

Because they leaked badly (there was a team of eight) we all got cooked about three times and all had problems with cancer of some kind, I got cancer of the bone but am the only one of the team left, and have been on chemo for thirty years. However that is beginning to lose its effectiveness.

As you can guess like all those involved nobody owns up to what they did so no compensation for any including a lot of friends I made in the U.S. Navy.

I look at it that I am still here so you never know.

So i just get my pension for what it is.

Maybe I will come up with something that will pay better, you never know.

It was nice to find your web page and your sense of wit.

All the best and look forward to hearing from you.

John
Western Australia

My reply:

I can only urge you to find something better to do with the remainder of your retirement.

This sort of quest has, on the very very numerous times it has previously been tried, at best led to nothing but frustration and disappointment. I've written about it previously.

I don't sell magnets, I just wrote about them a few times. It's easy to get NIB magnets of all shapes and sizes, from miniscule to large and very dangerous, on eBay these days.

The two outfits that provided me with various magnets for my two big reviews were Otherpower's Forcefield Magnets and Engineered Concepts. (There was also Amazing Magnets...

Mysterious magnetic object

...but they're not really what you're looking for here.)

I'm not sure exactly which video you're referring to, because the brilliant - but also rather deranged - Nikola Tesla is almost unavoidable in all areas of electrical "weird science".

(And, of course, a measure of magnetic field strength is named after him. According to the units that bear their names, Nikola Tesla is worth 10,000 Carl Friedrich Gausses!)

The first "TESLA free energy generator" video I found on YouTube/Google Video when I just did a search was this one:

The fact that this video obviously comes from a well-played VHS tape, yet the company responsible still hasn't managed to "reinvent the electric power companies in America", may tip you off to the fact that the product on offer is not quite as valuable as the video makes out. This company is in fact "Better World Technologies", run by one Dennis Lee, who I have also written about previously. There are a number of other outfits doing essentially the same thing Dennis is doing.

I apologise if this isn't the video you were talking about, but I think you'll find that most, if not all, other such works on YouTube, etc, fall into two categories.

The first category is hobbyists who're barking up much the same tree that you're considering, and who may or may not think they're making progress. Often, measurement mistakes like not correctly reading the RMS output of a device make it look as if it's doing something; the poor hobbyist in this situation may spend years trying to find the "minor bug" that must be the only reason why his contraption can't charge its batteries faster than it empties them.

(At this juncture, allow me to recommend the Pure Energy Systems Wiki, PESWiki, which is all about "breakthrough clean energy technologies". It has articles about just about every currently popular free-energy scheme, plus equivalents like "run your car on water" systems. Most of the things documented on PESWiki are utterly preposterous and, in my opinion, not considered nearly critically enough, but it's a great reference source, to see if even True Believers think they've made Device X work, or if they find the claims of Promoter Y plausible. PESWiki has a whole directory page about Dennis Lee.)

The second category of YouTube free-energy videos is entirely made, so far as I can determine, by scam artists, who may be deliberately doing what the hobbyists do by accident, or may have any number of other tricks up their sleeves.

Here in Australia, "Lutec" are a big name in the "press releases about free energy" business. They haven't, to my knowledge, been as successful at the "actually MAKING free energy" aspect of their business.

And then, as we come back toward things that could actually work in the real world, there are outfits like Thermogen, which aren't selling perpetual motion machines at all, but whose numbers still don't quite add up.

There are many "free energy" ideas - in the sense of "power that you don't have to pay for", not "energy from nowhere" - that really are very promising. High-efficiency solar collectors that'll fit on a suburban roof, for instance.

Evacuated-tube thermal collectors are very effective, and can be used for simple water heating or to power a heat engine. There's also considerable promise in photovoltaic concentrator designs, that let you use fewer, higher-quality solar cells - provided you can keep the cells from burning up, and track the sun accurately enough.

(Note also the next letter on that page.)

In closing, I really must urge you in the strongest possible terms to use your remaining years on this planet to do something other than become a footnote, to a footnote, to a footnote, in the Big Book Of Failed Free Energy Ideas.

I am aware that the man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the man who is doing it, but when "it" appears to have many things in common with both finding the Loch Ness Monster and travelling faster than light, I cannot in good conscience advise anybody to invest any time at all in such a miserably hopeless activity.