New Fuel Economy Information site

[Ecky]

Problems I see:

Some of these modifications are *illegal* in most of the world, particularly the US. Not that this would stop me. But, I would consider looking into implications of *selling* illegal modifications, especially with the recent crackdowns.

A large portion of modifications listed are at best fringe or circumstantial benefits (fuel heating, electronic enhancers, additives) at worst proven snake oil (magnets), or something in between (super carbs, smart emissions reducer, interjector, HHO).

What I don't see are any of the real, low hanging fruit. There are items that may give a tenth of a percent improvement described and for sale, but none of the single or double digit A-B-A tested and proven mods.

I have to say, overall the site reminds me of the affiliate marketing sites that were the rage in the late 90's and early 2000's.

[mpgmike]

Thank you Ecky for taking the time to have a look. Much appreciated. Someone led you to believe that putting magnets on the fuel line is akin to "Snake Oil". I don't know if this reflects your personal experience, if you have a Masters or even a PhD in some related field, but you expressed your "opinion". I'd like to counter with "opinions" of others with Masters and PhD's that came to different conclusions pertaining to magnets on the fuel line:

GMSARN International Conference on Sustainable Development: Challenges and Opportunities for GMS, 2007: Reduction of NOX Emissions in Bio Diesel Engine with EGR and Magnetic Fuel Conditioning

IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 2014: Performance of internal combustion (CI) engine under the influence of stong permanent magnetic field

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 2018: Magnetization of Diesel fuel for Compression Ignition Engine to Enhance Efficiency and Emissions

Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2010: Effect of Fuel Magnetism on Engine Performance and Emissions

I could go on as there are a multitude, but this should suffice for now. Next concern that "most of the modifications listed are illegal in most of the world". I am in the United States, and that is my frame of reference. I have lived in PA, UT, VA, IN, and NJ. I have professional associates in AR, OK, CA, NV, OH, NY, FL, and other states. I have traveled to -- and professionally done work in -- Saudi Arabia, Jordan, China (many parts of that country including Hong Kong), South Korea, Italy, Canada, and Puerto Rico. I have held State Inspection License in 3 of the US States. I was IM certified as well. I have worked with OEMs developing technologies for production. I have done OEM-level testing with Roush Industries in Livonia, MI. I am aware that some of the things listed may be illegal in one or 2 of the countries I've visited, but the vast majority are perfectly acceptable. Since you didn't mention anything specific, I have to be generic as well.

The rest of your comments only reinforce what I'm trying to do -- educate!! I assure you that everything I posted on the Ecoceptor | site has been well researched by me. Furthermore, not showcased is the 30+ years I have spent playing with that stuff (and much, much more!). I learned way more about what doesn't work to eventually get to the few things that do work, and what it takes to make them work. I really do understand that the way most of the technologies are implemented, there's no physical/scientific way for them to possibly work (magnets on the fuel line, for example). However, when done correctly, there are gains to be had (magnets on the fuel line, for example). I hope to educate folks on the proper way to use these technologies to the best of my ability, based on personal experience. The world needs it right now. Inflation is rampant! Fuel prices are trending upwards at an alarming rate! With very few exceptions, most of what is highlighted on our site is other people's stuff (that I personally tested and can put my name on). It's not about selling stuff; I get no commission if someone were to buy Pulstar Spark Plugs (for example), yet I have worked with their products for a dozen years now, and think they are well worth the purchase price (and then some). Many of the pages show folks how to do things themselves without buying anyone's products, like the Grounding information.

If challenged, I am prepared to defend -- with scientific documentation -- at least 90% of what I proclaim on that site, as I have half-heartedly done with the magnets-on-the-fuel-line issue. Looking over your list, I could take up an entire page with just one post countering your "opinions". To make this more educational and beneficial for all involved, if you can provide hard evidence that something I posted is illegal, or "snake oil", I will accept the challenge and post credible evidence to support my claims. Some of my rebuttal may be in the form of lab studies (as with the magnets), or may be actual test data from my dealings with various OEMs. If you personally test what I post and find it doesn't work, please let me know. I don't know everything. I have been proven wrong in the past, and I accept that. Under those circumstances, I "went back to school" and learned the truth, and dispelled my misconceptions. If it doesn't work, maybe it was done wrong, and we can correct the error so it does work.

Again, you don't know how much I appreciate you sharing your observations and opinions. For every one person that speaks out (as you have done), there are probably several dozen others that share the same thoughts that say absolutely nothing.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by mpgmike

Thank you Ecky for taking the time to have a look. Much appreciated. Someone led you to believe that putting magnets on the fuel line is akin to "Snake Oil". I don't know if this reflects your personal experience, if you have a Masters or even a PhD in some related field, but you expressed your "opinion". I'd like to counter with "opinions" of others with Masters and PhD's that came to different conclusions pertaining to magnets on the fuel line:

GMSARN International Conference on Sustainable Development: Challenges and Opportunities for GMS, 2007: Reduction of NOX Emissions in Bio Diesel Engine with EGR and Magnetic Fuel Conditioning

IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 2014: Performance of internal combustion (CI) engine under the influence of stong permanent magnetic field

International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 2018: Magnetization of Diesel fuel for Compression Ignition Engine to Enhance Efficiency and Emissions

Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 2010: Effect of Fuel Magnetism on Engine Performance and Emissions

I could go on as there are a multitude, but this should suffice for now. Next concern that "most of the modifications listed are illegal in most of the world". I am in the United States, and that is my frame of reference. I have lived in PA, UT, VA, IN, and NJ. I have professional associates in AR, OK, CA, NV, OH, NY, FL, and other states. I have traveled to -- and professionally done work in -- Saudi Arabia, Jordan, China (many parts of that country including Hong Kong), South Korea, Italy, Canada, and Puerto Rico. I have held State Inspection License in 3 of the US States. I was IM certified as well. I have worked with OEMs developing technologies for production. I have done OEM-level testing with Roush Industries in Livonia, MI. I am aware that some of the things listed may be illegal in one or 2 of the countries I've visited, but the vast majority are perfectly acceptable. Since you didn't mention anything specific, I have to be generic as well.=

I'm glad you're taking my criticisms with good humor! I don't mean to be harsh or for it to be personal in any way, they're simply my impressions.

Looking at the first link (from the perspective of a scientist) it reads very pseudo-scientifically. Maybe that's only an except from a larger paper, but in one sentence it talks about the fuel being "energized" (which magnetic fields do not do, especially to non-polar substances like most hydrocarbons, which don't show any response to magnetic fields). In another, it states that (one of) the most important factor(s) in the conditioning of the fuel is collimating the magnetic lines of flux - this is gobbledygook and is literally meaningless. While it's formatted like a scientific paper, and scientific terms are being used, it's mostly nonsense.

Looking at the second link, it starts out:

[quote]A magnet is any material that has a magnetic field. The effect magnetic field on the biological and mechanical systems is the subject of study of interest from last fifty years. Many studies suggest that magnetic
field has positive effect on the performance of the system.[/img]

It then goes on to discuss methane as being the largest component of natural gas. Methane is entirely non-polar, and does not interact with magnetic fields.

Then:

Hydrogen occurs in two distinct isomeric forms para and ortho.it is characterized by the different opposite nucleus spins. The ortho state of hydrogen has more effective than para state for maximum complete
combustion. The ortho state can be achieved by introducing strong magnetic field along the fuel line.

It's worth reading this about the spin isomers of hydrogen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_isomers_of_hydrogen

A mixture or 50:50 mixture of ortho- and parahydrogen can be made in the laboratory by passing it over an iron(III) oxide catalyst at liquid nitrogen temperature (77 K)[4] or by storing hydrogen at 77 K for 2–3 hours in the presence of activated charcoal.[5] In the absence of a catalyst, gas phase parahydrogen takes days to relax to normal hydrogen at room temperature while it takes hours to do so in organic solvents.

The second paper (without going through it completely) is using scientific terms and is formatted like a scientific paper, but is largely nonsense.

Now, the existence of two papers that are nonsense doesn't say anything about the truth of the claim that magnets do... well, something, to non-polar molecules, that makes engines that burn them more efficient. But, consider me unconvinced so far.

This doesn't respond to your entire post! I'll swing back around to the rest later, if you don't mind.

[Ecky]

Taking a look at the third link, the intro reads:

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.

[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. Therefore consider this:

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 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.)

Modern physics, chemistry, electricity, and most other sciences seem to believe they can isolate a phenomenon in a closed-loop environment. Although incorrectly called "Maxwell's Laws and Equations", his original 20 equations were actually "codified" a time or two by Oerstead, Ampere, Faraday, Gauss, Thompson, Kelvin, and Lodge before being canonized by Oliver Heaviside into a mere 4 equations. Perhaps those "Laws" should be called "Heaviside's Laws" instead of "Maxwell's Laws"? Maxwell's 20 observations (the original 'good stuff') factored in the environment. The Earth is one gigundous spinning magnet, influenced by energies from outer space. Testing on Earth MUST factor in that influence. In science, it never does (thank you Heaviside).

Sometimes you can study the math, physics, and other sciences and "simulate" an outcome. But when you actually test, it doesn't necessarily work out according to simulation. I so want to talk about stuff I KNOW will make me look like a charlatan... but I digress.

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.

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.

[mpgmike]

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!

[mpgmike]

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.

The studies I've looked at start at 9000 Gauss and culminated with a high end of around 25k Gauss. The Magnetic Heat Exchanger I've played with and tested uses 80k Gauss magnets. I assure you that of the hundreds of vehicles I'm aware of it being installed on, there has never been an issue due to too much magnetism under the hood interfering with electronics.

[mpgmike]

Since the lead topic seems to have gravitated to "magnets on the fuel line", it seems like a good time to share the emissions readings from a "before" and "after" installation of the Magnetic Heat Exchanger:

Part 1

Part 2

[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.

[Ecky]

Originally Posted by mpgmike

The studies I've looked at start at 9000 Gauss and culminated with a high end of around 25k Gauss. The Magnetic Heat Exchanger I've played with and tested uses 80k Gauss magnets. I assure you that of the hundreds of vehicles I'm aware of it being installed on, there has never been an issue due to too much magnetism under the hood interfering with electronics.

Can you show me where you found your 80k gauss magnets? Just as an example, a 2" x 2" x 1" N48 magnet (like I have sitting on my desk) has a ~250lb pull force and can very easily break your fingers, and would risk ripping things off in the engine bay that have any kind of steel on or in them, tearing fuel lines and wires. Its surface field is approximately 5,000 gauss.