Some people - particularly those I have criticised - ask what gives me the right to set up these pages and make negative comments about various devices and technologies. It's a fair question, so here are my reasons.

First, ask yourself a question. Which of these two people do you think is the most "guilty":

1) A person who sells a product that doesn't work, thus effectively stealing from people
2) A person who points out that the product doesn't work, so preventing people wasting their money

If you answered (2) then your world view and mine are so different that we can never agree. But most governments, and I think most people, would answer (1) - it is more "morally wrong" to perpetrate a scam, than it is to point out a scam. If someone's business is effectively stealing, then it's not wrong to point that out - even if doing so may damage that person's business. Maybe they don't know they're stealing - they genuinely believe their product works - but if it doesn't actually do what they claim, then it's wrong either way.

And we're not talking about a trivial amount of money here. Motorists around the world have effectively had millions, probably tens of millions, of pounds (or US$, if you prefer) stolen from them by the false claims of fuel "saving" devices. This "theft" is still going on today, and (as Edmund Burke didn't say) "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

As a Humanist, I believe in helping one's fellow people. Some people raise money for charity, some do volunteer work, some campaign for moral causes they believe in. Those don't really appeal to me, so this is my way of giving something back to society.

Sometimes, especially when dealing with yet another threat of legal action, it just doesn't seem worthwhile. But then I get messages like this:

"THANK YOU for providing such a thorough and well-reasoned analysis of fuel-saving gadgets on your website" - Gary, Florida, US
"This is just an expression of thanks for the material you have brought together for us. It was educational and enjoyable and it surprised me by its wide scope" - Ray, England
"Thanks again for all you're doing to help folks like me who don't know that much about combustion engines" - Corey, Colorado, US
"Just a thank you for saving me a lot of work in putting together all the answers on fuel saving gadgets" - Mike, Australia

and suddenly I am reminded why I do it.

The next point is, why don't I just leave this kind of thing up to the relevant authorities? Well, certainly the authorities do often take action against these products; the US Federal Trade Comission has recently cracked down on the Super FuelMax, for example. But generally the companies selling these things are small, operate internationally, and advertise and sell mostly through the Internet - as a result, prosecuting them is more trouble than it is worth for overworked, understaffed agencies with enough "local" villains to deal with. I have spoken at length to people from Trading Standards departments in the UK who would love to go after fuel "saving" device makers but simply can't justify the expense. So it's down to a volunteer - somebody like me, in other words.

Then comes the "guilty until proven innocent" charge. Fair enough; most societies say that a person should be considered innocent until they are proven to be guilty. Why, then, do I accuse these devices without having solid test data to prove them useless?

The answer to that is based on experience and theory. The US Federal Trade Comission has evaluated over a hundred claimed fuel "saving" devices. The vast majority saved no fuel at all; some gave tiny savings, far too small to justify the purchase price; and one or two did give worthwhile savings but only at the expense of very large increases in toxic pollutants. The same sort of figures hold true for devices evaluated by other authorities. So experience says that the vast majority of fuel "saving" devices on the market almost certainly don't do what they claim.

The second part of the answer is the theory. Operation of internal combustion engines is well understood, and the various areas of inefficiency are pretty well characterised. So it is relatively easy to examine the claims of a particular device from a theoretical basis, without actually testing it, and still be 99% sure of the answer. (For example, if somebody was selling a "flying elephant" on eBay, I wouldn't feel it necessary to actually test it in order to state with some certainty that it does not really fly...)

It is true that I cannot demonstrate "beyond reasonable doubt" that the products I mention do not perform in the way their makers claim. However, I think the combination of previous experience and theoretical considerations is enough to demonstrate "balance of probablility", which to my mind is sufficient justification for me to state an opinion. (And enough for a defence against any claims for libel, by the way...)

Of course, this "balance of probability" opinion could easily be overturned by sufficiently rigorous test data. Critically, I (and many regulatory bodies) say that the preliminary evidence against these fuel "saving" devices is so strong that it is up to the makers and sellers of the devices to prove that they work, not up to the sceptics to prove that they don't. (After all, the sellers stand to make a fortune if their device is proved to work, so surely they should spend the money on the tests.)

Also don't forget that many of the specific devices I name, and most of the generic technologies, have been thoroughly evaluated and tested by various independent bodies and proven to be essentially worthless.

Another complaint is that I should make these accusations privately to the makers of the devices, giving them a chance to defend themselves, before making comment in public. Certainly this would be ideal, but in practice is very difficult. Firstly, most of my comments are about generic technologies rather than specific devices; there's no realistic way I can contact all hundred or so makers of air-bleed fuel "saving" devices, for example, before setting up a page explaining the flaws in the general principle.

For the devices specifically named, in many cases I have tried to contact them - but invariably my messages have either been totally ignored, or met with a brief "we are right and you are wrong, go away and stop bothering us" response. As a result I have largely given up trying; if you are a representative for a fuel "saving" product who would have answered my queries, I can only apologise and urge you to contact me as soon as possible to discuss the issues. I will always respond to criticisms, and carefully consider any requests for changes to my pages.

The final accusation levelled against me is, "what gives you the right to set yourself up as a self-appointed expert"? For the answer to that, please look at my biography. I don't claim to know everything about the subject, but feel I am better placed than most to make authoritative comments in this field. However, as mentioned several times on this site, feel free to contact me if you think I am wrong.