www.teflons-torque.com, Teflon's Torque, Tef's-tQ, Teflon-Mike's Web-Site

  HOME Learner-Riders Workshop General Scrap-Book Miscellaneous e-mail  

Wonder Fuel & Widgets!

Crack-Pot Carburetors; Crazy Catalysts & inCredible Conversions

(Err...... Sorry for the delay! This is one of the articles that was hit by my hard drive failure; I'm still trying to scratch the bits of it back together. I WILL get it up eventually!)

Introduction

I first touched on this topic when I wrote No More Leaded Four Star where I provided some warnings over the talismans and charms that are often offered by snake oil merchants that are supposed to magically transform your car and give you more power, better mpg, greater throttle response, and all manner of 'improvements',  by the simple expedience of dropping some 'widget' in your fuel tank, or clamping it in or around your fuel line, or more convoluted mechanisms.

These wonder widgets have been about probably as long as the car itself, but they have been doing the rounds in various guises, making different claims quite significantly since the mid 1950's, marketed on whatever has been the 'concern' of the day; be it performance, economy, or in the case I highlighted in No More 4*, the lack of leaded petrol.

Any way, while the concern of damage from using unleaded fuel in an old engine has been one specific 'concern' these snake oil merchants have been able to easily exploit, they have also tried to sell pretty much the same product on any number of spurious claims, from improved performance to better economy, increased service intervals, reduced wear and tear, and well, basically ANYTHING you could want from your engine!

And, while the 'in line fuel widget' is probably the more common guise of these talisman or charms, there are as many variations on the 'product' as there are in the risible claims made for them!

About the ONLY thing that they have in common, is the marketing, which is PURE snake oil; fabulous claims, lots of plausible scientific banter, without MUCH proper explanation, a bunch of 'customer' testimonials, expounding how brilliant the thing is, and a cast iron, money back guarantee!

Take heed; much as you might WANT to believe them, and think that £9.99 is not a lot to risk to 'find out'; you CAN NOT defy the laws of physics! And few is ANY of these things have ANY real scientific basis, let alone practical merit what-so ever.

There's as about as much chance they will work, as there is that a Buddhist monk uttering a 'Protection Charm' over Stevie Wonder, would make him a 'safe driver'!

The REAL science of the automotive art I have attempted to illuminate upon in various articles in the Theory section of the site; key within those are:-

This article then is intended as a little light hearted look at the optimism of the Snake Oil merchants, and the gullibility of 'consumers'!

"Don't Sue Me Disclaimer!"

For legal reasons, allegedly, I HAVE to make a brief disclaimer to this article, which is that this is entirely my own 'opinion' of the 'sort' of devices often found in adverts, which share a common 'Snake-Oil-Esque' advertising style.

My opinion is formed entirely upon the basis of the advertising copy I have come across for these kinds of devices and my scientific knowledge and practical experience of engines and motor vehicles; which has significantly warned me not to even TRY any of the devices I have found in that kind of advert!

Any similarity between the 'kind' of devices I might describe, and real 'products' is then possibly NOT co-incidental. As they say, if the cap fits..... if you have a product for which you make spurious scientific claims, and market with a decidedly 'snake-oil' style of ad-copy, it's more than likely I have come across it, and that ADVERTISING has helped form the opinions I provide here.

However, I have NEVER tested any 'ACTUAL' products, and make no specific challenge to any marketing claims other than to suggest that the wild or ambiguous claims and explanations offered in such 'Snake Oil' adverts, ON THEIR OWN usually don't bear thorough scientific scrutiny.

Whether any actual product, might, in practice, be able to fulfil any advertising claim, in any particular application, is something I cannot POSSIBLY answer, I have most decidedly NEVER tested ANY of the kinds of product I describe in ANY application or installation.

Therefore, I leave it to you the reader to make up your own mind about any product you find offered, and consider how likely advertising claims are to be realised by any actual product in question......

.......hopefully armed with a few warnings over how this style of advertising can be easily misleading, allowing you to believe claims that haven't ACTUALLY been made, and how clever use of scientific jargon can easily give credence to a product that simply cannot do what the advertising implies!

If you are marketing some wonder widget; well, IF your product has some genuine and verifiable merit, and can provide me with verifiably independent evidence to show that your 'product' is actually useful and worth the Recommended Retail Price; I'll gladly add entry in the addendum to this article providing your product name and description, the claims you make for it, and the supporting evidence, and the comment that your specific product is obviously NOT one of the 'cons' I refer to in the text of my article. Though, I would have thought that it might be better to dissociate your product from 'Snake Oil', by re-thinking your style of advertising, if you think it MIGHT be considered that of a 'snake oil merchant'!

See HERE for list of 'Disassociated' products, for which manufacturers have provided such evidence, and requested such inclusion.

The 'Snake Oil' Brochure

The advertising blurb is convincing, I'll give them credit for that. There are usually a couple of ploys. The first is the 'Secret Formula' ploy. This plays on the idea, and a bit of urban legend that some mad inventor working for the government came up with this wonderful idea, but because it was so brilliant the technology was suppressed, either by the government, because it would have destabilised world power, or by the oil or car companies, because it would have destroyed their businesses.

And the 'So brilliant it was suppressed' idea has been with us for many years. Sometimes it was a fuel, sometimes a carburettor, sometimes a whole engine. And to be honest, there are probably some seeds of truth in the legends. Nitrous-oxide was originally developed for the military during world war 2, and was classified right up until the 1960's, by which time enough ex-RAF or USAF mechanics had hopped up their racing cars with a little laughing gas from the dentists. And fuel injection and turbo-charging and things have also seen much secret development work. As have many many alternative engine designs.

But, while I normally go along with a lot of 'conspiracy theories', and look for the power play and hidden motives behind the official facade, on things like the Kennedy Assassination and the Gulf War, I have studied to much physics, too much chemistry and too much automotive engineering, to be convinced by these stories.

I am also cynical enough to believe that while there are enough incredibly clever and influential people out there to make conspiracies possible, I've also met far too many stupid, ignorant, and gullible people to make me believe that a lot of them aren't just every day ef-ups, mis-understandings or pure fantacies.

Any way, the second main ploy the 'widget' merchants use is the 'scientific logic' technique. They put together something that sounds wholly plausible, using scientific language deliberately chosen to use terms that you have probably heard, but probably don't actually understand completely, to suggest that what they are offering you has some sound scientific technical basis. They will often also back it up with extracts of scientific or authoritative reports, but rarely hard facts.

And as often as not, they will combine the two ploys, and wrap it up with some good old fashioned marketing technique such as customer testimonials, money back guarantees, and 'special offers'

Form of the Fun

I have just mentioned that there is almost as much variety in the form of 'snake oil' as there is in the claims made for it; the most common though tend to be described as catalysts or ionisers or magnetic fuel polarizers, that do 'something' to your fuel on its passage from the tank to the engine. There are three common types of this kind of widget'.

These tend to be quite common, and their greatest sales feature is that they tend to be quickly or easily 'installed' without any great expertise or equipment.

Greatest marketing feature, tends to be that small size, volume & weight, and probably very simple construction, using 'cheap' materials; means that they can be made very cheaply, given a HUGE 'mark-up' in the retail price, and sold by mail order, where the cost and effort of popping one in a jiffy bag and attaching a stamp is no where NEAR the £2.25 added for 'Post and Packaging'!

Other similar Gizmo's are often as small, simple and cheap to make, but might fit into the air filter housing or carburettor mouth.

One that I came across was little more than a wire gauze that fitted in the carburettor mouth, but was claimed to have 'special coatings' (paint?) that did something wonderfully complicated to the air-flow!

Another is a thin metal 'baffle' sold as an 'air corrector', the advertising claims it puts a 'swirl' like a cyclone (See Disclaimer) , that aids air flow, and hence efficiency, offering either or both, greater power or better economy, and probably quite a bit of added throttle response.

The Lead Replacement Pill

But let's have a look at an example and see how the 'con' works. The phasing out of leaded four star started around the mid 1980's, and I guess took about ten years to the mid 1990's before leaded or lead replacement fuel disappeared from the petrol station forecourts, and was a 'fear' the snake oil merchant could milk quite cynically while there were a lot of cars still in service not designed to use unleaded.

Since, they have found that they can re-awaken the fear in the minds of 'classic' car owners; where their target market is probably even MORE concerned about the suggested 'damage' to their engine of using unleaded fuel, and where they can target their advertising in low circulation publications and avoid their products getting the kind of attention that might land them so quickly in 'hot water' or have them revealed for the con they almost all undoubtedly are.

Let me describe a typical one aimed at people concerned with lead free fuel. Its a nylon net bag full of lead pellets, and its advertised for £14.99, with the 'Blurb'....

"Put the Lead back in YOUR fuel - no need for expensive additives or costly conversions. Our product puts the lead back into your fuel for thousands of miles, for a the price of one fill-up. Our revolutionary product contains micro-coated lead alloy pellets that replace the lead removed by legislation. The special coating and alloys in the lead control the rate and concentration of 'dosing' so that you always have the right amount of lead in your fuel.........."

Now, the net is nothing more than a nylon fruit net, and the 'specially coated and alloyed lead pellets' are nothing more than the shot that is used in industrial cleaning processes, or even split and sold as fishing line weights. Selling for £14.99, the mark up is HUGE.

There are a lot of variations on the theme. The 'specially coated lead pellets' can be in an inline fuel filter housing, or set into a tablet of plaster of paris, but the idea is the same. They LOOK like they will do the job - but they don't.

The wording of the adverts are very clever. Sure, they put lead into your petrol. Lumps of the stuff, and they sit there and the fuel flows around them and that is about it. And by putting one of these widgets in your tank, you have done what it says, put the lead back into your petrol.

And they do carefully control the level of 'dosing', they control it at zero! Take note; they make NO mention of how much lead there should be in your petrol, they simply say "control the rate and concentration of 'dosing' so that you always have the right amount of lead in your fuel".....

What, do you suppose is the 'Right' amount of lead in your fuel? Do you have ANY idea how much lead there was in a gallon of old fashioned Four-Star? If you did, would YOU say that was the 'right' amount to have in YOUR fuel? What might some-one else say was the 'Right' amount of lead to have in your fuel? What would the manufacturer of  the engine say? Or your local Mechanic? Or what about the MOT Man? Who is the 'authority' to say what the 'Right' Amount of lead should be?

You can stop wondering; bottom line is THE authority to say how much lead there should be in your fuel is the Government; and THEY said, and provide it a requirement of LAW, that there should be NO lead in your petrol!

So, the 'Right' amount of lead............ is none!

Which is EXACTLY what the product does; BUT it IMPLIES something quite different, and allows you to believe that it puts in the amount of lead that WAS 'right' before the legislation decided otherwise!

Interesting legal argument; IF you took the manufacturer to court under trades descriptions legislation; suggesting that their product DIDN'T do what its advertising claimed; you would have the dilemma of convincing the court that YOU believed that the advert suggested it put an ILLEGAL fuel additive into your fuel......... and that YOU were mislead by advertising, believing that the product they were offering would allow YOU to break the law.........

You, the 'Punter' have been easily duped by the sales blurb; You are worried about engine wear and damage from not being able to get leaded fuel; so they are selling to your fears. But immediately, they are offering you a cheap, easy and convenient panacea. "no need for expensive additives or costly conversions". Sort of suggests that this product is a SUBSTITUTE for additives or conversions, doesn't it?

But that is NOT what it SAYS. It simply says 'No Need for expensive additives of costly conversions." Take heed of the full stop, it is not a comma. if it was, THEN the copy would say, "Our Product, puts the lead back into your fuel without the need for conversions or additives." But it isn't, its a full stop, a stand alone statement.

It SHOULD say, "No Need for expensive additives of costly conversions, IF............." with a qualifier after wards to tell you the circumstances that make the 'NEED' redundant.

We read the qualifier as 'IF you use our product" but that is our imagination putting that in; NOT the copy. Could as easily put in "IF we don't ever use the car" or "IF we accept that at some point the engine will suffer premature valve seat regression"

But, that "specially coated and alloyed lead pellets"........ Sounds impressive, doesn't it! The 'Specially' implying that the pellets have been specially formulated for the job they want to imply they do..... but ACTUALLY, err... no they COULD just as easily have been 'specially' alloyed and coated to prevent them being toxic to swans when abandoned by fishermen! Or to have JUST the right hardness when used in shot-blasting...... COULD have been specially alloyed with whatever impurities they couldn't easily get out of the base metal, so that they were 'specially' cheap!

The 'Emissions' Con

This is a REAL advert pulled off the net, that is PURE snake oil;

For years you have heard of hi-mileage devices for your car. Now you can buy one that really works.

Hi-mileage devices have been around for years. Many of them, like Charles Pogue's revolutionary carburettor in the 1930's, really worked.

With a Vapour King fuel vaporiser, your car actually uses more of the energy available in the fuel, hence greater economy, far less waste and pollution.  It's made of stainless steel. N o moving parts. It never wears out.

But not many have ever reached the market place, these days its hard to even find one on any car,anywhere. Times are changing. Deadly pollution, much of it spewed by the internal combustion engine is threatening the health of all life on earth.  A renewed global effort is being made to bring in new fuels and improve the efficiency of older engines. This is why we at Future Perfect Ltd. have developed a device that actually vaporises the fuel as it enters the intake manifold, just beneath the carburettor. Made of the finest stainless steel high-tech mesh (more than 3600 microscopic holes per square inch), the unit actually fractures the fuel droplets into smaller units, some of which actually vaporise. Any good mechanic will tell you, its the vapour that does the work, not the liquid petrol drops. They only burn in a partial combustion Hence the UN-BURNED HYDROCARBONS coming out your exhaust pipe as pollution. We call our device VAPOUR KING. It is easy to install on any car, truck, boat, motorbike, chainsaw. In fact any engine with a carburettor. It's inexpensive - only $20.00 - and it has no moving parts to wear out. It can save up to 20% of your fuel bill, and can cut deadly carbon monoxide and unburned hydrocarbons by up to 67%. It simply enables your car to maximise the energy in the fuel. Less waste means less pollution and more economy.  That's it. In fact it can get some older cars running cleaner than some newer ones, helping the older cars pass the new
stringent emissions standards. It's fully guaranteed to perform as advertised. It can be yours to day for only $20.00.  (It takes about 1 hour to install on most cars. Depending on how long it takes to remove and refit the carby )

Err....... yeah!  So what do you think of the 'Vapour King', hugh? Worth twenty bucks of your money?! You know, if you are chucking 20% of your fuel down the exhaust pipe unburned, you need to push the choke in mate!

"stainless steel high-tech mesh (more than 3600 microscopic holes per square inch)"
AHA!
"actually vaporises the fuel as it enters the intake manifold, just beneath the carburettor"

I have just sussed what this thing ACTUALLY does; carburettor has already 'vaporised' the fuel; if its any good, any way; so what our widget is doing, is putting a baffle or restrictor plate in the inlet manifold!

The 'Pogue' carburettor

And that reference to the 'Pogue' carburettor? By all accounts, patents actually exist for that particular device, and it seems to be the source of the urban legend of the carburettor that threatened to bankrupt the oil and motor industry, and resulted in its inventor either being 'paid off', bumped off or committed, in order to save the global economy and the power base of American Industry.

Also seems to be the source of the "rediscovered blue prints" Urban Legend, that suggests that before the 'big boys' had our intrepid inventor done over, he secreted the plans for his fabulous device somewhere, and after forty years, amazingly they turn up; only mysteriously the finder has a tragic accident, and there's a fire where he worked.... or whatever!

Two intriguing excerpts for you on the subject from either side of the fence.

The first comes from Sepp Hasslberger's News Grabs and is reported as being taken from Times-Online; 19 April 2003. Checking Times-Online, seems that it is in their archive; which unfortunately is members only, so I couldn't check. But this Sepp chap is probably more reliable than the author of the article, so it doesn't really matter!

Oil Industry Suppressed Plans for 200-MPG Car
Source: Times Online Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003

The original blueprints for a device that could have revolutionized the motor car have been discovered in the secret compartment of a tool box. A carburettor that would allow a car to travel 200 miles on a gallon of fuel caused oil stocks to crash when it was announced by its Canadian inventor Charles Nelson Pogue in the 1930s.
But the carburettor was never produced and, mysteriously, Pogue went overnight from impoverished inventor to the manager of a successful factory making oil filters for the motor industry. Ever since, suspicion has lingered that oil companies and car manufacturers colluded to bury Pogue’s invention.
Now a retired Cornish mechanic has enlisted the help of the University of Plymouth to rebuild Pogue’s revolutionary carburettor, known as the Winnipeg, from blueprints he found hidden beneath a sheet of plywood in the box. The controversial plans once caused panic among oil companies and rocked the Toronto Stock Exchange when tests carried out on the carburettor in the 1930s proved that it worked.
Patrick Davies, 72, from St Austell, had owned the tool box for 40 years but only recently decided to clean it out. As well as drawings of the carburettor, the envelope contained two pages of plans, three test reports and six pages of notes written by Pogue. They included a report of a test that Pogue had done on his lawnmower, which showed that he had managed to make the engine run for seven days on a quart (just under a litre) of petrol. The documents also described how the machine worked by turning petrol into a vapour before it entered the cylinder chamber, reducing the amount of fuel needed for combustion.

Mr Davies has had the patent number on the plans authenticated, proving that they are genuine documents. He said: “I couldn’t believe what I saw. I used to be a motor mechanic and I knew this was something else altogether. I was given the tool box by a friend after I helped to paint her house in 1964. Her husband had spent a lot of time in Canada.”
The announcement of Pogue’s invention caused enormous excitement in the American motor industry in 1933, when he drove 200 miles on one gallon of fuel in a Ford V8. However, the Winnipeg was never manufactured commercially and after 1936 it disappeared altogether amid allegations of a political cover-up.
Dr Murray Bell, of the University of Plymouth’s department of mechanical and marine engineering, said he would consider trying to build a model of the Pogue carburettor.
Engineers who have tried in the past to build a carburettor using Pogue’s theories have found the results less than satisfactory. Charles Friend, of Canada’s National Research Council, told Marketplace, a consumer affairs programme: “You can get fantastic mileage if you’re prepared to de-rate the vehicle to a point where, for example, it might take you ten minutes to accelerate from 0 to 30 miles an hour.”

All Patent applications have to be accompanied by detailed outline descriptions, concept drawings and detail drawings, as well as any supporting evidence. Patent records offices keep these on file in archive indefinitely; firstly to protect the original patentees rights, and secondly because when you go to patent an invention, one of the fees that you have to pay is for a patent search, to discover if any-one has registered something similar before.....

It is the quandary of many an inventor; a patent gives you a monopoly on your design, but only if you publish the designs, that other people might have access to and copy! Ie; it's no longer 'secret'!  So the existance of Patent applications for the Pogue Carburettor SORT of explode the myth that it was a great kept secret! Any-one with the fee to have a patent search undertaken SHOULD have been able to get access to his blue-prints and technical descriptions!

The Second excerpt for you, comes from Mike Brown Solutions, and is reported to be an excerpt taken from; Chapter III from the Fish Carburettor Book by Michael H. Brown, pages 11-12 (1982): (Ie; HE wrote it! ) Gawd knows what his credentials are; he seems to have written about theology, the Kansas Justice system, and Harley Davidsons! But, one thing; the Fish carburettor is a real device.

Chapter III from the Fish Carburetor Book by Michael H. Brown, pages 11-12 (1982):
The 100 MPG Carburetor Myth

There have been numerous books and plans written purporting to "reveal the secrets" of the famous "200 mpg carburettor," a device supposedly built in 1935 by Charles Nelson Pogue of Winnipeg, Canada. As of this writing Mr. Pogue is in a nursing home in Winnipeg, Canada. Several of our customers have visited with him. Each came away with a slightly different story.
Mr. Pogue actually did manufacture a carburettor he titled the "Winnipeg" in the late 1930s; 317 all told. One of our customers had one and claimed it delivered 35 mpg on a Ford Mustang with considerable loss of power; however, he agreed to let us have it for testing and we are still waiting.
There are two problems with the "Pogue principle," which is being touted in high mileage seminars and books all over the country.
The first is that the Pogue carburetor violates the first law of thermodynamics, a commonly accepted scientific postulate that has been with us since 1830.
The law is written as follows: U = q + w
Or, in simple English, if you have chemical energy in a system (U) in its expenditure, it must equal q (heat) plus work (w). That is, if you have 100,000 BTUs in a gallon of fuel in which you then burn the end products—in a system operating at 30% efficiency—you will have 30,000 BTUs of work and 70,000 BTUs of heat. Anything you put inside the combustion chamber can do only one of two things during the ignition stroke. Produce energy (mechanical movement) during the reaction. Absorb energy (leave out the exhaust as heat) during the reaction.

There has been a lot written about the "unburned particulates" furnishing the extra fuel for the extra 50 mpg or so, but if you’ll check the Fish dynatune emissions levels you’ll see there aren’t enough of them to get you another 300 yards down the road.
The second problem encountered with Pogue-type devices is that—in some instances—they actually predate the carburettor. Let’s elaborate in both cases. Back before the carburettor as we know it came into being in the 1890s there were several novel methods of getting fuel into the engine. One method was using a kerosene-soaked rag to drip fuel into the engine. Another method—that became quite common—was allowing air to pass over the surface of gasoline and then to be sucked into the engine. Sometimes a valve—called a "mixing valve"—would be positioned between the fuel reservoir and the engine. The valve would pop open when the downward motion of the piston created enough suction.
This method—and variations of it—have been touted all over the United States in "100 MPG CARBURETTOR" seminars sponsored by various individuals as being the "ultimate" in sophisticated fuel systems, usually with exhaust heat or radiator water added to "vaporize" the fuel much more effectively than a standard carburettor.
There are a number of things wrong with the concept of such a "100 MPG" system. The first is that the gasoline's in use during the days of the mixing valve were far more volatile than the ones in use today. Some of you may remember when you could stand ten feet away from an open pan of gasoline, light a match, and watch the gasoline immediately catch fire. Gasolines were changed in the 1930s with the advent of the catalytic cracker now used in petroleum refining. Carburettors like the Pogue, which depend on easily vaporized gasoline, simply will not work with today’s gasolines.

The second seminar-taught error is the method of using exhaust heat or radiator water to heat the fuel to the "vapour" point to extend the mileage. Warming or preheating fuel does have some value, but it’s limited. Consider using hot water from the radiator to vaporize the fuel first. Today’s gasolines do not completely vaporize until they reach 450º Fahrenheit heat, while the maximum temperature of the water in today’s pressure radiators reaches only 250º Fahrenheit. You just can’t heat a substance to 450º Fahrenheit using a 250º Fahrenheit heat source. At least, not on this planet.
Exhaust heat works a bit differently. It is the function of an internal combustion engine to change chemical energy into heat, and then the heat into mechanical movement. If the heat is not changed into mechanical movement it simply leaves—as heat. Any time you feel heat coming off an engine you are feeling wasted energy. The exhaust ports of an engine that operated at 100% efficiency would be ice-cold to the touch since ALL the heat would have been changed into mechanical movement. Which means that the more efficient your engine is the less exhaust heat you’re going to have. For example, if you have 600º Fahrenheit exhaust heat produced by one gallon of gas over a 20-mile trip and you use "exhaust heat" to "vaporize" the fuel and go 60 miles, what produces the 600º Fahrenheit heat for the next 40 miles? If you answered "two more gallons of fuel," go to the head of the class! Seriously, there are ways to go several times the distance on a gallon of fuel (none of them involving carburettors); it’s just that the foregoing examples aren’t two of them. In short, Charles Nelson Pogue was a machinist with no formal training in thermodynamics and may have actually believed that what he was attempting would work.
All a carburettor can do is meter and atomize fuel in correct proportion to air. Any further increases have to come from increasing the thermal efficiency of the engine itself (such as raising compression) or reducing rolling friction.

Err... yes, well! This Mike Brown chap seems a bit of a fruit to be honest; he sells his own books, on law, theology and knife fighting?!, as well as reproduction parts for Harleys, and small steam engines! However, one thing mentioned amongst his reproduction parts was the Fish carburettor, which apparently he made for a while, hence I suppose his book on the subject.

John Robert Fish, is another 'boffin' who probably adds a grain of truth to the 'so good it was suppressed' carburettor urban legend; he did 'invent' a novel float bowl-less carburettor in the 1930's; and he did put it into production.

Reports of 'foul play' by his competitors accusing him of mail fraud when he tried to market them by mail order, or of sabotaging his race cars when he tried racing with them permeate. But, it was far from suppressed; it just wasn't bought by any of the big manufacturers!

David Visard, in Tuning BL's A-Series, however devotes almost a whole chapter to the device; because it did have a notable following in America and the UK as an aftermarket 'economy' carburettor

 

Addendum: 'Disassociated' Products

This article is published with the disclaimer that no 'specific' products are mentioned by name, and refers only to a 'type' of product, that significantly share only a particular style of advertising copy.

Provided within 'disclaimer', it has been provided that, IF any actual product has some genuine and verifiable merit, that can be supported with verifiably independent evidence to show that it is actually useful and worth the Recommended Retail Price; entry may be requested for that product in this addendum.

This list then provides entries for all those products for which inclusion has been requested, and verifiable evidence that they are NOT snake oil, provided:-

Product Name Brief Description / Claims Marketed by
(Blank Entry)

Link To Full Advert / Supporting Evidence

Summary: (Blank Entry)

Name: (Blank Entry)

Contact: (Blank Entry)

(Blank Entry)

Link To Full Advert / Supporting Evidence

Summary: (Blank Entry)

Name: (Blank Entry)

Contact: (Blank Entry)

(Blank Entry)

Link To Full Advert / Supporting Evidence

Summary: (Blank Entry)

Name: (Blank Entry)

Contact: (Blank Entry)

(Blank Entry)

Link To Full Advert / Supporting Evidence

Summary: (Blank Entry)

Name: (Blank Entry)

Contact: (Blank Entry)

(Blank Entry)

Link To Full Advert / Supporting Evidence

Summary: (Blank Entry)

Name: (Blank Entry)

Contact: (Blank Entry)

Back To Text

  HOME Learner-Riders Workshop General Scrap-Book Miscellaneous e-mail  

Hit Counter
stats counter

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +