[Ecky]

Originally Posted by mpgmike

Ecky, you are awesome!! I have seen your posts in other threads and believe you are a player. I believe you are striving for truth just as much as the best of the rest of us. You bring up some interesting points. Instead of posting links to more studies (which you seem to take with a grain of salt), I want to pontificate on some things that should become obvious once pointed out. You have a sound foundation in chemistry, which is good.

It isn't so much that I take studies with a grain of salt generally, as, I take them with a grain of salt when what's written in their papers uses scientific terms that pass a cursory glance but fail to hold up to scrutiny.

When the fuel passes through the fuel pump, does it not pass through an electro-magnetic field? When it passes through the fuel injector, does it not pass through an electro-magnetic field?? Both devices require electro-magnetism to operate (pump = motor, injector = solenoid; both electro-magnetic in nature). Accidental?

If the fuel pump exerts an electro-magnetic field on the fuel -- albeit a less-than-ideal field -- there is a probability that the reports from my previous post may apply (at least in part). I assure you that some OEM engineers are amply aware of the effects of magnetism on fuel, and acknowledge that fuel pumps and injectors exert magnetic fields on the fuel. (I speak from talking with OEM engineers!)

I'd say so. Any and all motors have electromagnetic fields. It's no accident that fish tank pumps push water through an electromagnetic field, but it's just a side effect of pumps being electrical devices. It's also no accident that our homes and cities are filled with fields, but not the intended purpose.

I have studied lab reports covering the effects of magnetism on water, hydrocarbon petro-chemicals, combustion, even human blood. I've even looked at studies related to putting magnets in your shoes... (As a side note, in addition to automotive combustion efficiency, I expend much effort into researching alternative health. With that said, the next issue of Nuts and Volts Magazine will feature an alternative health-related subject as their front cover article -- penned by me.)

I suspect we might not be able to come to an understanding, unfortunately! I think we may view the way the world works in very fundamentally different ways. I'm generally of the opinion that something ceases to be "alternative health" when it can be tested and shown to have a health benefit. It's then just "health". Granted, there are tons of things we don't know yet, but I don't buy into crystal energy, chakra fields or homeopathy (just as examples).

Modern physics, chemistry, electricity, and most other sciences seem to believe they can isolate a phenomenon in a closed-loop environment.

The sciences themselves don't, and it's broadly acknowledged that even observing systems has an effect. I'd say we likely have a different understanding of what science is and does, as well.

You can look at lab reports and discount them because of the format or poor English (probably because English is not their native language). You can discount them for the lack of at least a dozen PhD's signing off on them. UNTIL YOU TEST FOR YOURSELF YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

I am sharing my experience. With that said, if YOUR EXPERIENCE differs from my experience, I'd like to discuss what you did differently than I did. However, if YOUR INTERPRETATION of a lab study differs from mine, then all further debate is moot, as there isn't a level playing ground. I'm trying to differentiate EXPERIENCE from "I read it on Wikipedia". I have EXPERIENCE and am trying to share what worked for me. I merely use lab reports to reinforce the probability that my experience is valid.

It's an unfortunate truth that we only have so much time and energy in our lives, and have to go about things making assumptions, or we'd never make it out of bed in the mornings. Undoubtedly, all of us make mistakes in the things we assume.

I may be making a mistake by combining 1) trusting sources that have tested magnets and seen no benefit, along with 2) it not passing my intuition (fails both the test and the understanding). I'm pretty certain it's snake oil. I have, however, received products in the past from inventors and vendors and make good faith attempts at testing them.

If you put magnets on your fuel line (not the steel portion as that disperses the flux) as I have recommend (flip-flopping polarities), and you see no benefit, let's talk. Until then, it's your opinion against my experience.

If you can specify how you'd like it made, I can do this. I currently have two magnets on my desk that, if placed on either side of a rubber fuel line, would crush it, so I have the required materials. I would just need to find a way for it not to wreak havoc under the hood.

~

OK, I took a lot of time preparing my last post, and you (Ecky) posted in the interim. My studies backed by my experience suports a really good magnetic fuel treatment is worth <12%. I collect studies that substantiate overall claims, though there may be small portions I have doubts about. I don't endorse 20% gain claims. Nevertheless, I do endorse significant gains. Ecky, I have to agree with you on the elaborate 20% number. Good catch!

You've put out there that we don't necessarily understand why things work, so I'm not going to hold you to it, but all of the papers linked claimed the causal mechanism was improving the completion of combustion. That is to say, enough gasoline is unburnt, that one can gain 20% (or 12%) more economy by improving this factor.

Some quick math:

A 2022 Honda Civic complies with the LEV3-SULEV30 standard. This requires 4mg per mile or less of uncombusted hydrocarbons.

At 36mpg combined, it's burning 2840 grams of gasoline per 36 miles, or 79 grams per mile.

4mg = 0.004 grams

0.004 grams / 79 grams = 0.0005% uncombusted hydrocarbons in the exhaust.

This is, unfortunately 1/24,000 the minimum amount we'd need to account for, for this to make sense. It's not even close. So, if magnets work for the reasons those paper authors claimed they work on their engines, it would not work in a modern car because the inefficiency simply isn't there anymore.