ΜΑΓΝΗΤΕΣ

Magnets round the fuel line or in the air flow Devices of this type include: Ecoflow, FuelMAX, Prozone, MAXPower, FuelSaverPro, EcoMag, ZEFS People have been claiming miraculous effects from magnets for hundreds of years. When considering these claim

Magnets round the fuel line or in the air flowDevices of this type include: Ecoflow, FuelMAX, Prozone, MAXPower, FuelSaverPro, EcoMag, ZEFSPeople have been claiming miraculous effects from magnets for hundreds of years. When considering these claims, bear in mind a simple physical fact: magnets only significantly affect things that conduct electricity. So magnets can affect metals, water and even the human body. But the only effect on a hydrocarbon fuel is the massively weaker "diamagnetic" influence. This would cause an extremely slight tendency of the fuel to move away from a magnet, but is highly unlikely to have any effect at the molecular level.Some devices claim to "align the fuel molecules". But the molecules are vibrating at high speed all the time, just as in any liquid. So even if they were aligned in the magnetic field, they would "unalign" straight away when they passed the magnet, and so would be back to normal when they reached the engine. And where are the experimental results which show that the molecules are "aligned"? How can the makers claim their device works in a particular way, without any evidence to show that this is really happening?Some magnet devices don't actually admit that they use magnets, because there has been so much negative evidence against them. But if a device clamps round the fuel line, doesn't have any electrical connection to anything, and claims to "align the fuel molecules" (or something along those lines), it is almost certainly a magnet. Devices made of neodymium, Samarium Cobalt or other "rare earth" materials are also almost certainly magnets.But let's ignore the non-magnetism of fuel for a moment, and assume the magnet really does affect it. What is this claimed to do to the combustion?A common claim is that it makes the fuel burn faster. Full details of the effect of burn rate on fuel consumption can be found on the turbulence page, but basically: Faster burning does not, even in theory, improve fuel economy significantly on modern engines (the burn rate is pretty close to optimum anyway) If the fuel really does burn faster, the ignition must be retarded to suit Another claim is that the fuel in some way burns "better" or "more completely". But only about one or two percent of the injected fuel escapes unburnt from the engine (because it was trapped in the head gasket crevice, for example). The other 99% is totally broken down into smaller molecules, and then combined with oxygen to form water, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Essentially all the chemical energy in the fuel is released as heat. How can the burning be any "better" than this?The mechanism by which magnetic devices often claim to work is by converting long-chain fuel molecules to short-chain ones. It is of course true that petrol and diesel consist of many different molecules, ranging from large ones such as octane (C8H18) to small ones such as butane (C4H10). Longer molecules can in theory be broken down into shorter ones, though this process normally requires heat and pressure, as well as the presence of a catalyst. But even if the fuel "saving" device does break the molecules down, this does not imply improved fuel consumption or emissions.Firstly, the precise blend of components of modern petrol (and indeed diesel) is quite carefully "tuned" to match the requirements of the engine. This even involves selling different petrol in summer and winter to compensate for differing temperatures! The proportion of the fuel that evaporates at different temperatures (the "boiling curve") is determined by the blend of high boiling point (long-chain) components and low boiling point (short-chain) components. If the proportions are altered, then the boiling characteristics of the fuel will change. The likely effects are either poor cold starting or poor hot starting, with increased emissions in each case.Secondly, short-chain molecules do not generally produce significantly more energy when burnt. The calorific values of most hydrocarbon fuels are around 44 - 46 MJ/kg, with small molecules providing only slightly more energy than larger ones. Claims that smaller molecules burn "better", "more completely", or "more energetically" are not supported by experimental data (consider, for example, the fuel economy of LPG vehicles).Some such products also claim a cleaning effect.One of the best-known examples of a magnetic fuel "saving" device is the Ecoflow. In 2002 the Advertising Standards Authority ruled against Ecoflow, saying:The Authority took expert advice on the Warren Spring [DTI] report. It understood that the testing procedure was flawed and therefore the results did not prove the efficacy of the Ecoflow fuel economiser. It considered that the letters, testimonials and articles sent by the advertisers to support their claims for the fuel economiser did not constitute rigorous scientific evidence.The vehicle tested, a non-catalyst equipped carburetted engine car, was not typical of current vehicles, which are fitted with catalysts and fuel injected systems. The Authority noted the vehicle tested was too old and too variable in its exhaust emissions for the test programme used. The Authority concluded that the reference to the Warren Spring report was misleading because the testing procedure was flawed and the test vehicle no longer representative. It told the advertisers to delete the reference to the Warren Spring reportThe ASA does not regulate Internet advertising, so this test data is still widely used by the sellers of magnetic devices ("tested by the DTI!"), but the authoritative remarks above should demonstrate the need for caution in accepting these claims.Ecoflow also said that their magnetic device was "the subject of a continuing product specific trial funded by an independent charity" but "the results would not be available for some time". This was said over two years ago - readers may draw their own conclusions as to the results of this trial, from the fact that they have apparently not been published.Another "famous" magnetic fuel "saving" device is the FuelMAX / Super FuelMAX. The makers and sellers of this device were recently taken to court by the US Federal Trade Comission, and banned from claiming significant economy or emissions benefits. Read the FTC press release for full details. (The "FuelMAX" was described by the FTC as "a bogus fuel-saving product that doesn’t save fuel", which is a pretty clear condemnation!) And in August 2006 the company was fined 4.2 million dollars for their false claims, and banned from ever selling such products again.Interestingly, certain makers of both magnet and catalyst-based fuel "saving" devices claim that they were used by the RAF during World War 2. Amazing that the British armed forces should have found not one, but two, miraculous fuel-saving devices; even more amazing that they have apparently now "lost" both of them. (Since getting fuel to the front line is a major logistical problem, the armed forces are more interested in fuel consumption than you might think.) A sceptic might wonder how much truth there is in either claim.On a related note, ask yourself why such magnets are not fitted as standard on aircraft. Since fuel is a very high proportion of an airline's running costs, you would think they would jump at the chance to save 10%+ on fuel consumption just by adding a relatively cheap magnet round the fuel line. Magnetic fuel "saving" devices typically claim to work on petrol engines, diesel engines and gas boilers, so why should they not work on jet engines?Magnets are also often claimed to be useful either medically (reducing pain, etc) or for reduction of "scale" in hard water areas. I am sceptical about both of these claims, but since water undoubtedly can be affected by magnets (and the human body is mostly made up of water) there is at least a hint of a possible mechanism by which they might work. This absolutely does not add any weight to the idea of magnets affecting hydrocarbons fuels, howeverMagnets are additionally claimed to improve the efficiency of gas boilers. The Energy Saving Trust conducted an (admittedly relatively small-scale, but carefully controlled) study of this and could find no effect from magnets on boiler efficiency or emissions. I have a copy of the report but the EST have requested that it not be "published" and so it is not available on this site. Of course this is not proof that magnets do not work on gas boilers, or that they do not work on car engines, but it is certainly a strong indication in that direction. As with car engines, there is strong pressure (in Britain in particular) for boiler makers to deliver good efficiency ratings. If simply adding a magnet could greatly improve efficiency, boiler makers would fit them as standard on most models.Skeptical Enquirer magazine has an interesting article on magnetic fuel and water treatment, including commentary on the lack of published data as to its effectiveness.Please also read the general comments on fuel "saving" devices, if you have not done so alreadyIf you found this page helpful, you may like to support my work. If you think I have made a mistake, or am talking complete nonsense, please take a moment to read the Response to Critics before saying so in public (on discussion Forums and the like.)

“Get more miles to a full tank of Petrol than I ever have – on average a 12% increase in miles per gallon!...Using Fuelex” More MPG from your petrol engine car by using Fuelex The FuelEX is a very powerful, inexpensive fuel conditioning unit that is sim

“Get more miles to a full tank of Petrol than I ever have – on average a 12% increase in miles per gallon!...Using Fuelex”More MPG from your petrol engine car by using FuelexThe FuelEX is a very powerful, inexpensive fuel conditioning unit that is simply attached around the inlet fuel line of a petrol engine. The most prolific benefits of this device can be a significant reduction in Petrol consumption, and much cleaner exhaust emissions. The FuelEX Units create a power source between two neodymium super magnets (the most powerful permanent magnets available). This magnetic field is powerful enough to crack open the hydrocarbon clusters in any fuel, dispersing the molecules and allowing them to react more readily with oxygen. This can provide significantly improved combustion characteristics in your petrol engine and can give you more power, lower emissions and more miles for your money!!!fuelex - save fuelThe reduction in emissions resulting from this improved combustion can be massive. The cleaner combustion extends the power retention and life of your engine. The cleaner exhaust also extends the life of your catalytic converter.

"Complete nonsense" Right, here we go, let us investigate the claims of magnetic fuel savers and their basis in science shall we: 1. Fuel is 'aligned' by the magnets No, it just isn't. hydrocarbon fuels (all of them) are non-magnetic and non-conduc

"Complete nonsense"Right, here we go, let us investigate the claims of magnetic fuel savers and their basis in science shall we:1. Fuel is 'aligned' by the magnetsNo, it just isn't. hydrocarbon fuels (all of them) are non-magnetic and non-conductive, which limits a magnet's influence on them to the diamagnetic effect, which is weak to the point of being unobservable. Even IF this force was strong enough to produce detectable effects (which it isn't) it would only introduce a tendancy for the fuel molecules to flow away from the magnets, not align them in any way.2. 'Hydrocarbon chains are broken down'Magnets cannot affect the molecular structure of hydrocarbon fuels, or any non-magnetic and non-conductive material for that matter.3. Magnetic fuel systems were used by the RAF in WW2.I actually happen to be a pilot in the RAF and I can tell you that this claim is absolute rubbish. Do you not think if we'd figured this one out all those years ago we'd just have stopped bothering to use it? As it happens we kinda like fuel economy as it means we have to ship less of it around. The British Armed Forces do not use this device and never have, that is a fact.And now even assuming that the above is true:4. Shorter hydrocarbons burn with more energy.Yes, they do, VERY VERY VERY slightly more energy. Nothing even close to a percentage point here. This would produce no observable effect.5. Fuel burns fasterGreat, and that will see significant LOSSES in power and economy unless the ignition timing is adjusted to compensate, and you'll be handing your local tuning garage about £400 for an engine remap to achieve that.6. Fuel burns more completelyAny car made in the last 20 years will burn over 98% (higher in most cases) of fuel that enters the cylinders, so even with magical perfect burning efficiency how is that ever going to produce more than 2% efficiency increase?So to conclude, the science that these things are based on is pure fiction, none of it stands up to even basic scientific scrutiny. what's more, despite contacting many manufacturers, including this one (they did not respond) requesting the studies they so love to quote, I have yet to see a shred of data. Strangely, there are reams of data from many reputable car and review bodies that have tested these products, and they all seem to share my opinion. Please do not waste your money on this, it is a scam and i think it's disgraceful that these con-artists aren't behind bars.Thank you for reading