Taking a look at the third link, the intro reads:
Quote:
vehicle manufacturer got a huge challenge to research, develop and produce ever cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles The last few years have seen a drastic change in emission levels and improvement in exhaust gas treatment techniques. In the following content, there is a comprehensive study based upon the changes in quality of performance of an engine while using magnetized fuel. Among many technologies in use to reduce the emission and subsequently improve the overall performance of the engine, magnetization of fuel (MOF) remains one of the most underdeveloped technologies of all. Magnetization of fuel is linked with altering the stereochemistry of fuel to instill proper combustion of fuel. Under the effect of strong magnetism fuel particles tend to react more with the incoming oxygen which leads to complete burning of fuel.
It has observed an increase of 5% in brake thermal efficiency with 15%-20% reduction in brake specific fuel consumption. The emissions are subsequently reduced with significant reduction of 12% in CO, and 27%-30% in unburnt hydrocarbon (UHC), although nitrogen oxide (NOx) is found to increase about 20%.
|
20% reduction in brake specific fuel consumption is a tall claim, considering BWM (as an example) spends tens of millions of dollars chasing a tenth of a percent, and is not using this technology. That's not a rebuttal, but something to keep in perspective.
Some of the claims of this paper seems to be that the (extremely weak) diamagnetism found in fuels results in breaking up of groups of hydrocarbons, making them more reactive with oxygen. There are some reasonable questions here. Part of my skepticism is that any magnet that wouldn't be wildly dangerous under the hood of a car, would have any measurable effect on large hydrocarbons, which are extremely weakly diamagnetic. As someone who took extensive chemistry in college, I'm inclined to believe that as soon as the fuel is past the magnetic field, it ought to immediately rearrange itself to how it was. However, I've never tested any of this and I might be very wrong.
The central claim of the paper however (not to be obfuscated by the rest), is that a 20% improvement in BSFC can be achieved due to more complete combustion - that fuels are not combusting completely. That might be the case in their test engine, but in most road vehicles, HCs make up an extremely small percent of what comes out of the engine. A 2021 Honda Civic, for example, vastly exceeds the spec of emitting less than 4mg per mile traveled. This is after being catalyzed... but without really digging for specific numbers, unburnt fuel is not low-hanging fruit, and if magnets do cause any kind of improvement, this isn't where it's from.