On 31 Jan 2007 08:07:59 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

He tired it out on one of his two engines (each with a dedicated fuel
tank), made careful notes about the engine hours, took photographs of
filter changes, etc. What sort of assessment could he make, based on
his own personal experience, except subjective? Why would it be wrong
to report his personal experience? I remember Karl as a pretty sharp,
analytical sort of guy. Wasn't he a software engineer (or similar) who
started an ISP and got bought out during the dot.bomb craze for
something north of $10mm? I hope he got cash, not stock. Not exactly
some hillbillie who clipped an ad out of National Enquirer, sent away
mail order for a miracle device, and then pronounced it "workin' like
a charm" 30 seconds after installing it.

No question Karl was (is) an intelligent guy who knew a few things
about diesels but that was not his primary forte, nor was molecular
biology or nuclear magnetics. In all fairness, they are not my
profession either.

Fact is though, Karl's observation is only one data point in a very
non-quantative analysis, not exactly the sort of thing that great
science is made of. I'm sure he knows what he saw but given the lack
of controls, lack of independant repeated results and lack of
measurable data, there is nothing there to hang your hat on.

On the other hand there are lots and lots of well funded people who
can, and probably have, done a well thought out analysis. Other than
the FTC there is no incentive for them to report negative results,
only potential lawsuits. If they had gotten positive results
however, you can bet that these things would be on every commercial
diesel vehicle in the country. As far as I know, virtually no one is
doing that.