Fuelstar!
Some questions for Mr Ian Cornelius, "inventor" of Fuelstar:
Why do you continue to refuse to have your product independently evaluated by Auckland University's Engineering school - at no cost to you?
Why are you withholding test results conducted by reputable, independent testing and research organisations and universities?
Why do you claim the product doesn't work on stationary vehicles, yet one of the few tests you do quote includes a stationary vehicle?
Why do your own installers claim the device works on an engine running on a dynamometer yet you and Jim Sprott say it cannot?
Where has the research money been spent on proving the device before the extraordinary claims made for it were stated?
Given the claimed sales of 180,000 units, at an average cost of say, $300 = $54,000,000, you clearly have a product which is creating lots of money - why do you have no premises, no contact address, not even a phone number beyond an 0800 one?
Does NZ Cricket know that the generic term "cricket" is being associated with Fuelstar through sponsorship of news broadcasts? (Ceased early 2008)
The "technology" of Fuelstar, if real, is an achievement worthy of a Nobel Prize for chemistry. It would cut world fuel usage by a hugely significant amount, it would introduce an entirely new technology and you would be the toast of the free world (and China). How is it that your technical expert is an automotive mechanic, while your own technical background isn't stated, yet you have made a discovery almost as great as the internal combustion engine itself?
Why do the NZ Automobile Association, Ministry for the Environment and the American Environmental Protection Agency think the device doesn't work?
The Government of China would pay billions of dollars for your invention if it worked. Why are you not trying to sell it to them?
Why do no vehicle manufacturers recommend your product?
Why, in fact, do they recommend it NOT be fitted?
Do you advise your customers that fitting a Fuelstar could count as a modification which cancels their insurance policy?
Why has the emphasis on the benefits of your product changed from the false "replaces lead" when lead was outlawed, to the equally-false "saves 12% on fuel costs" now that petrol is a buck eighty a litre (over two bucks for unleaded! - ed - June 2008) for super? (not to mention the also-false claim the greenhouse gas emissions are lowered, now that gas emissions are trendy?)
Are you comfortable in promoting a product which relies on an unknown effect, created by an unknown frequency of vibration causing an unknown catalysis of petrol/diesel producing unknown emissions, some of which could be highly toxic, carcinogenic, or both?
Why did the large South Island transport company which evaluated your product on road, on its fleet, in everyday working conditions return their product for refund?
Was it because they were one of the very few organisations which have bought your product to conduct an actual evaluation, using GPS and computer technology?
We continue to look forward to your acceptance of our proposed test.
Copyright © 2008 Immortality Ltd
Other bits of pseudoscience pretending to save you fuel: