More SpiralMax

[Michael D. Porter]

David A. Cooley wrote:
> 
> Well, Here's their response...
> More BS with no backing of evidence that it works!
> 
> The dyno tests are on the web page, the results are repeated all the
> time in field tests and dyno tests (at your expense and time) can be
> repeated anytime. We are listed by the CARB, which is the Calif. Air
> Resource Bureau and legal to sell and install for several years. Not
> only that, we have orders from government sources as well. We have
> successfully installed on EFI and diesel vehicles, in fact, repeat and
> multiple orders from EFI type cars represent a majority of our market.
> Before you shout foul, fraud and what not, make sure you know where you
> stand with or get the shock of you life.
> 
> Later,
> Dave
> 
> ===========================================================
>            David Cooley N5XMT           Internet: N5XMT at bellsouth.net
>      Packet: N5XMT at KQ4LO.#INT.NC.USA.NA   T.A.P.R. Member #7068
>        I am Pentium of Borg...division is futile...you will be approximated.
> ===========================================================

Interesting.... I would say, from the evidence on their site, that it
could possibly be construed as containing false advertising. For
example, their Dodge mileage tests, before and after installation of the
device, are not identical tests (the "before" results include two runs
of "hard city" driving which reduce the mileage in those two runs to 15
mpg). 

Patent pending, meant to suggest that the device is patentable, simply
means that an application for patent has been submitted. In fairness,
this can be either a marketing ploy or a means of dissuading others from
filing a patent for the device. Unfortunately, the US PTO does not list
applications in its database, presumably for security reasons, so
there's no way to check to see if the patent application has been filed.
At any rate, anyone who pays the $280 or so filing fee and submits the
application can say, "patent pending." Also, it is important to note
that patent law is different than copyright law. If one applies the
copyright symbol to published material, this establishes right to
copyright (although, eventually, the material must be registered as
copyrighted with the Library of Congress for full protection under
copyright law). Not so with patents. If one says, "patent pending," when
no application has been filed, that's fraudulent advertising, since the
intent is clearly to suggest a patentable device, i.e., one with clear
efficacy based on known principles. 

As I recall, any device certified for aftermarket use in California is
issued an exemption license number. That exemption number indicates that
the device does not interfere with the emission and mileage
characteristics of the vehicle as sold _and_ performs as claimed. The
site states that the device "has the California Air Resource Bureau #EOD
400-2 which makes it legal in California, and the 50 states." Executive
orders, I believe, are usually issued for devices for which claims
cannot be proven, but which do not appear to harm emissions or mileage.
Suggesting in any way that the CARB EOD is an endorsement is false
advertising. In fact, this is the same sort of thing that got the makers
of "The Force" in hot water with CARB. Whether the language on the site
could construed as CARB having endorsed the product is probably legal
conjecture. Moreover, a CARB executive order does not, _ipso facto_,
make it legal for sale elsewhere.

Moreover, the complete dynamometer results are _not_ on their web
site--there are only a couple of sample figures from supposed dyno
results, along with the disclaimer that the complete records are on file
at corporate headquarters.

Also, the phrase "we have orders from government sources" also implies
an endorsement, where that order may simply the equivalent of Barney
Phyfe of Mayberry buying one for his cruiser.

As has been previously suggested, the claims for increased power and
mileage for diesel engines is absurd, and the claims for port-injected
engines likely are just as specious, for the reasons given. If the
device is installed in front of a port-injection throttle body, the
throttle plate perturbs the flow of air, anyway, and any curvature in
the intake runner induces helical turbulence in the air in much the same
way as the device claims.

As for carbureted cars, the position of the device makes it a
restriction to inlet air, rather than an enhancement to inlet air
volume. In point of fact, if the device does manage to induce turbulence
in the inlet air, it also increases drag in the inlet, thereby reducing
gas flow through the intake system--with regard to current
widely-accepted thermodynamics theory, that will not produce more power,
thus offsetting any declared gains in mixture distribution. 

What is very apparent from a look at the site, however, is the utter
lack of rigorous comparison testing by a certified independent testing
agency, and a lack of an explanation of the operating theory which jives
with reality. Of the language in the advertising, I can only say that
there are two words in the advertising which are clearly
fraudulent--turbocharge and supercharge. This passive device can do
neither, by definition. Moreover, the assertion that the device acts as
a velocity stack is also likely fraudulent. A velocity stack changes the
effective length of the intake runner from free air to the valve head,
thereby changing the tuned length, thus affecting the torque
characteristics of the engine. The suggested installation of one or more
of these devices in the flexible hose from air cleaner to throttle body
or carburetor does not change that tuned length, and therefore does not
act as a velocity stack.  

The simple way to find out if the product has legitimate value is not to
engage in a war of words with the owner, but rather, to ask the Consumer
Protection Agency to test the company's claims for the product.

Cheers, all, and a merry Christmas.