It’s a disaster when a ENDOTHERM ONLY saves 5% MAX during a trial, when it’s stated that ENDOTHERM has been ‘proven to achieve a 15% saving’.
The situation is further compounded when the 5% saving achieved during the trial, is the best saving figure achieved!
The other savings figures achieved in the trial where 1%-2% and 1% respectively- NOWHERE NEAR THE 15% QUOTED.
Let’s outline the facts in the case, so we are all clear.
The figures below are based on a trial of the product conducted between mid December 2013 until end of March 2014 in the wet heating system of a public sector building.
The ENDOTHERM product is a central heating additive, a competitor to our product, and the company claims that proven savings of 15% can be achieved.
The product was dosed into the wet heating system of a building in the public sector.
As stated by the company on their website, and I quote,‘ENDOTHERM has been independently tested and proven to achieve a 15% reduction in heating costs’.
The savings achieved in the first six weeks of the trial – mid December 2013 to end of January 2014 – were 1%-2% – NOWHERE near the quoted 15%.
The next four week period of the trial – February 2014 – achieved a savings figure of 5%, so getting better but not much!
But then the savings figure for the next 4 week period of the trial – March 2014- was 1% – a 4% DROP on the previous month!
The public sector body undertaking the trial stated ‘The site state there were no alterations made to time programs’, so this is not a factor that could have affected the trial results.
This is the second trial of this company’s product, where it has been installed in the wet heating system of a public sector building, that I have received information about and proving that the product DOESN’T save the claimed 15%.
In the other trial of the product, mentioned above, the fuel consumption actually INCREASED.
The person responsible for sanctioning the trial and purchase of the product has vowed NEVER to use this company again, A. because of the trial results and B. their customer service was diabolical and C. after sales service was, and I quote, ‘NON-EXISTANT, all they wanted to do was chase payment of their invoice and try and sell me more of a product that wasn’t working’.
So what went wrong?
The following questions should be asked:
⓵ Was there human error when calculating the volume of the system?
⓶ Was the dosing of the system done correctly?
⓷ Were there any lab tests preformed on the liquid of the system prior to dosing?
⓸ Was the correct amount of the product dosed into the system?
⓹ Was the product itself formulated and blended correctly at the manufacturing stage?
If the answer to ⓵ is NO and the volume of system was calculated correctly, that means the answer to ⓸ would be YES.
If the to ⓵ is YES, then the company is simply incompetent.
If the answer to ⓸ is NO then the company is incompetent.
We can’t say for sure that ⓶ was carried out correctly because although the product is in the system, it is showing very poor results.
I very much doubt that ⓷ was even considered, let alone carried out.
Now that just leaves question ⓹ unanswered and this is an important question that needs to be answered – Why?
Well, because the company that supply the product BOUGHT a report, compiled and authored by TAS, that they use to substantiate the savings claims of their product. Yes, that’s right they BOUGHT the TAS report, they didn’t commission the report, they BOUGHT it. This was an historical report produced for another company and NOT produced for the present company and their current product. These are important factors because in respect of the TAS report, the one they BOUGHT, this report was compiled after tests were carried out an earlier generation of the product, manufactured and supplied by another company, and NOT the new and improved formula of the product supplied by the new company in question, the product that has been used in the above stated trial. This is the new product that the company loves to tell their potential customers about and how it can save 15% and they substantiate this claim by referring to the BOUGHT TAS report!
So, the company claims that the new and improved formulation of their product, is far better than earlier generations of the product – Really? It doesn’t seem that way, taken the results stated above.
If there is a new and improved formula of the product, doesn’t that then negate any data contained in the TAS report that they BOUGHT, as it relates directly to a previous generation of the product, manufactured by another company?
Ethically, shouldn’t the company have new tests carried out, and a new TAS report compiled on the their new product with its new formulation, to substantiate the new savings claims? You would think that an ethical company would do this but the company hasn’t and still uses the TAS report they BOUGHT, based on tests of an earlier generation of the product, that was manufactured by another company. Is this deceitful and unethical business practices?
The company has a second report, in respect of EndoTherm and authored by Enertek International. Now, to my knowledge, nobody outside of Enertek International or the company, know the contents of this report. This report is also used to substantiate the product savings claims. If, as a company, you had a report that substantiated your product’s savings claims surely you would shout about it from the rooftops, tell anyone and everyone that mattered, publish it in every applicable industry trade publication, make sure potential customers could download it from your company website, publish it on social media…..you get my point here.
But NO, they don’t do any of the aforementioned and the company to my knowledge, won’t publish the Enertek International report – WHY? Is it because the data contained in the report doesn’t actually substantiate the savings claims made of the product? Taken the figures achieved during the trial stated above, don’t you think it is a distinct possibility that this is the reason that they don’t/won’t publish the said Enertek International report?
I will leave you draw your own conclusions about the product in question.
* All the figures quoted in this article can be substituted, as I have in my possession emails from the public sector body whose building’s wet heating system was used to run the trial.