fuel ionizer
 

Do fuel ionizer really work? And if so do you know a good reputatable company that uses them?

I don't know any reputable companies that sell fuel ionizers.

drossdarkblood: basically, if it isn't in our mods list ( 65+ Vehicle modifications for better fuel economy - EcoModder.com ) you won't find people recommending it here.

If your spidey scam senses tingle when you read about some fuel economy gizmo, chances are it really is just a scam.

kindof figured
 

I kindof figured but i just wanted to be reassured I would be blowing 80 bucks on nothing. For the price it seemed it should be a decent product but then again i could throw a bunch of mixed mutts in a box for sale for 100 bucks and they gotta be some nice hybrid right? Or is my analogy way off?

Well, that's part of the art of the scam: you put a good-sized price tag on something you couldn't ordinarily give away, and a certain kind of person will think it must be worth the money. See for instance the contemporary art world :-)

When it comes to dogs, the only difference between mutts and hybrids or "designer breeds" is that someone had the chutzpah to put a sizeable price tag on the box, instead of "free to good home". Of course mutts are perfectly good dogs, usually as good or better than the purebreds, which is why your analogy is way off. Sure wouldn't trade my designer breed (yeah, sure) Bossie Collie (Border Collie and Australian Shepherd mix) for anything...

Scam? All?? :)

I'm not allowed to post links yet, so: Google:
NASA - NPO 15715 - REDUCING SOOT IN DIESEL ENGINES
NASA - NPO 20219 - ELECTROSTATIC DISPERSION OF FUEL DROPS TO REDUCE SOOT
for a start.

The engine, and fuel injectors, are grounded, so it's no simple matter to charge fuel and keep it so, but it does seem to work..?

Electrically insulating a carburetor would be easy enough though and air boxes and inlets are generally plastic if one wanted to ionize the air... (YouTube)

ie: I think there's something here, but it's not as simple as copper and aluminum in your fuel fuel filter.

The fuel ionizer things are snake oil. I remember when they were sold in the backs of magazines, with all the other scammy stuff.

If you search the internet, you'll find several tests where they've been debunked. Here's an example: https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...ices-debunked/

I think this question has been dead for 12 years, but I'll bite anyway: Gasoline is completely nonpolar and therefore will not hold (or even take) a charge.

I didn't even notice the thread necromancy. Oops.

I have a link open to a Peer Reviewed, Published paper that references 57 other Peer Reviewed, Published papers from various universities and research institutes, on this subject.

Sadly I cant post it yet. Its named:
A STUDY ON THE EFFECT OF MAGNETIC FIELD ON THE PROPERTIES AND COMBUSTION OF HYDROCARBON FUELS
and its on Researchgate.

I'm surprised at the lack of such references, here..?
No shortage of opinions though! :)

It isn't an opinion that gasoline is nonpolar, and is largely non-paramagnetic, sadly.

Here's two links to researchgate and four reposts: duckduckgo.com/?q=A+STUDY+ON+THE+EFFECT+OF+MAGNETIC+FIELD+ON+THE+ PROPERTIES+AND+COMBUSTION+OF+HYDROCARBON+FUELS+Res earchgate&ia=web

I have no opinion, just trying to be helpful.

I cant argue that.
I can argue that well equipped, scientifically rigorous studies are being done on the effect of magnetic fields on HCs and being published after peer review.

So the question is... Why..? :)

Thx :)

'ionizer'
 

If one 'ionizes' fuel, it's no longer 'fuel'.
Not only have you destroyed the long-chain hydrocarbons which constituted the fuel itself, you've destroyed the very carbon and hydrogen atoms they were made of.
You'd essentially have 'plasma.'
Free electrons, protons, and neutrons.
Engines can't operate on those.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When discussing a 'fuel', some other type of adjectives need to be in play. 'Ionization' doesn't cut it!

Just FYI, Researchgate is not a peer reviewed science journal. It's a social media site. They also seem to have an ongoing issue with "academic pollution". So I would take anything published on that site with a grain of salt.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ific_community

'magnetism'
 

Gasoline is 'paramagnetic'.
When exposed to a magnetic field it WILL align itself 'weakly' with the field lines, HOWEVER, once past the 'reach' ( inverse-square-law ) of the magnetic field, resorts to a completely randomized, chaotic orientation.
In modern, high-swirl combustion chambers, the very suggestion that an inline magnet could affect the combustion process is completely asinine.

Hmmm... ok..? :)

I'm heading out of my depth here, so perhaps you can help me critique this paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...-Stroke_Engine

Some quotes:
"...Magnetic fuel treatment works on the principle of magnetic field interaction with hydrocarbon molecules of fuel and oxygen molecules. Liquid fuel is a mixture of organic chemical compounds consisted predominantly of carbon and hydrogen atoms - hydrocarbons. Due to various physical attraction forces, they form densely packed structures called pseudo compounds which can further organize into clusters or associations [8]. These structures are relatively stable and during air/fuel mixing process, oxygen atoms cannot penetrate into their interior. The access of appropriate quantities of oxygen to the interior of these molecular groups (associations) is thus hindered. This result in the incomplete combustion of fuel in the interior of such associations and causes the formation of carbon particles and carbon monoxide as well as increased quantities of hydrocarbons emitted into the environment [9]. It is now well accepted that a hydrocarbon fuel can be polarized by exposure to external force such as magnetism. The effect of such magnetism is the production of a moment created by the movement of the outer electrons of a hydrocarbon chain moving the electrons into states of higher principal quantum number. This state effectively breaks down the fixed valance electrons that partake in the bonding process of the fuel compounds. These states create the condition for freer association of fuel particulars. In so doing, the hydrocarbon fuel becomes directionalized or aligned which does not necessarily create new hydrocarbon chains but more explainable aligns the conduced magnetic moment into a dipole relationship within itself. This magnetic alignment then permits rapid bonding with the respective oxidizing media. The result of which is, of course, more complete and rapid burning of the hydrocarbon fuel [10, 11]. Hydrocarbon molecules treated with a high magnetic field tend to de-cluster forming smaller associates with higher specific surface for the reaction with oxygen leading to improved combustion. In accordance with van der waals discovery of a weak clustering force, there is a strong binding of hydrocarbons with oxygen in such magnetized fuel, which ensures optimal burning of the mixture in the engine chamber..."

"...fuel have been taken and exposed to a magnetic field with different intensities (2000, 4000.6000, 9000) Gauss without retention time within the system of magnetization..."

"...Because the molecular attraction energy of non polar hydrocarbon is determined by group vibrational frequency, so a conclusion can be easily reached that the higher the frequency the lower the absolute value of molecular attraction energy, or, the lower the group attraction energy. Thus, it can be deduced that the molecular attraction force among hydrocarbons decreases after they are magnetized. This is why the property indices of hydrocarbons, such as viscosity and surface tension which are influenced by the molecular attraction force, decline after the hydrocarbons flow through magnetic field..."

"...This means that the transition probability of electrons in the - bond conjugated system among different energy levels has become higher. Since the transition of the bond electrons from the ground level to the excited level is the main process of molecule radicalization. This may enhance the splitting of the C=C bonds in the aromatic rings in the course of combustion under intense actions of light and heat, and therefore the oxidation of the aromatic rings can be accelerated and easily completed thoroughly.."

Take anything you find there with a grain of salt.

Anyone can write a bunch of probable-sounding gobbledygook and pay to have it published there - and they do.

Ok; so where would you recommend I find Peer reviewed, published papers?
And how would one go about deciding on the trustworthiness of the people and institution who published the paper?
Also; who funded the research? As it seems to me that with a big enough grant anyone will say anything and people will believe it.

Then there's also the issue of:
one man's gobbeldygook being another man's 'simple and logical'
depending on intelligence and education.

For eg: It's simple for anyone to simply declare a paper gobbledegook without any argument as to why they deem it so...

There are also a number of reasons why the above may not have worked for everyone.
For example the shielding effect of ferrous metals on magnetic fields.
ie: You arrange a magnetic field on a steel fuel pipe correctly, but said pipe shields the fuel within from it.

Don't get me wrong; I nave no idea if the paper has merit or not.
All I know is that there are a good number of similar papers and I find it difficult to imagine all these people to be lying for no particular reason.
Can you think of one?
It's not like anyone has a sole distributorship on magnets.

Unfortunately I am not aware of any central authority on trustworthiness. To go about this, I would probably contact a university or research institution, and ask the advice of several senior researchers in the field to see if there is any consensus.

You're also right - money often buys science. And, that science may not even be wrong in the specifics, but can be deceptive in that it's an incomplete picture, or simply in the amount of focus in one area, compared with a relative lack in another.

~

The honest truth about the basis of my views comes from my fairly strong general science background, and my observation that magnets are one of the areas where scammers and con artists most often prey upon people, using scientific language to describe pseudoscientific concepts. Electromagnetism is not something easily intuited, so it's difficult to apply the sniff test effectively. I don't completely dismiss magnetism's potential usefulness, but given the overwhelming amount of BS I've encountered, and the sheer amount of money that has been conned away, there needs to be pretty strong evidence in favor - such as a single example of a working device.

So far, there has yet to be a single device that works, in practice, in any measurable way, despite a century or so of such products being sold. Perhaps one day there will be, but I'm inclined to believe it's largely out of the reach of backyard tinkerers.

researchgate
 

1) Once the fuel passes the toroid's magnetic field ( of dubious Gauss magnitude ), it is no longer affected by the field ( inverse-square-law ). You can demonstrate the effect to yourself with a niobium rare earth magnet from Radio Shack, and a magnetic compass.
2) Whatever influence the field had had on molecular ionic/covalent bonding electrons in the outermost shell of the hydrogen / carbon atoms would disappear. There is no 'alignment.' There was hardly any to begin with.
3) There's no need to waste anymore human capital discussing the particulars of the ' process' ( sic ), as any 'process' would be null and void at this juncture. Saying anything in addition would just constitute a more sophisticated version of the same fallacy.