Um, please debunk this "fuel saver"

I know this is a load of poo, just can’t figure it out.

Anyone?

http://216.142.45.12/fuelsaver/index.html

Sounds like bullshit to me.

The only real methods of reducing fuel consumption are to reduce throttle and lean out the fuel mixture.

One can also try a higher vaporisation of fuel by using a gaseous fuel like natural gas or propane, or by heating the fuel line, thereby causing the fuel to vaporize better than at ambient temperature. But that often causes a problem with backfiring.

IANAM ( I am not a mechanic) but as I understand it, fuels in modern engines are burned almost all the way to begin with. (this is why there are different octanes, to asure that your fuel is the type most efficently burned for your engine type http://theserviceadvisor.com/octane.htm)
The potential energy is lost through its conversion to heat, not the inefficent burning of the gas. Since it does nothing to prevent the energy being lost as heat, it would do nothing.

This is, essentially, pseudo-scientific nonsense. There is no way that it contains superconductors (unless it comes with it’s own supply of liquid nitrogen), there is no resonance frequency that will fracture hydrocarbon chains, and fracturing hydrocarbon chains will not increase fuel efficiency.

Okay.

Neodymium is a rare earth magnet. You cannot patent a magnet, AFAIK.

If it were really a superconductor, they’d be doing more with it than selling fuel line magnets.

Or just a magnetic field. If you’re an idiot I guess you could call it a “specific resonance frequency”

No, it won’t, at least not any more than the rare-earth magnets your fuel already passes through.

Of course, you probably know the magnets better as a “fuel pump”. But anywayz.

SCAM!

–Tim

Here is the debunking of a very similar device that uses the same BS psuedo-scientific “how-it-works” explanation.

Homer said:

Perhaps not, but you can patent the process by which you manufacture your magnet, and you can patent the gizmo as a whole - a plastic box with magnets clamshelled over a fuel line.

Funny, on the front page they call it a “super conductor”, but on the FAQ page, they call it a “super inductor”. Hmmmmm.

Quote from website:

Frequency of what? It doesn’t state what the medium is. Is it electromagnetic fields? Sound? Waves in the fuel? Light? Gravity? Spam? Nice technobabble.

Not accurate terminology. A hydrocarbon chain is a molecule - one molecule. Hydrocarbon chains are long molecules made up of many segments or units, called “mers”. A monomer is one unit. A polymer is a chain of mers. These can string out for thousands of mers, but they are still one molecule. Perhaps they are trying to dumb it down for the masses? :wink: (Yeah, like they’d want the masses to actually understand.)

Although it sounds funny, I do believe that fracturing is the correct word for breaking down polymers. My chemistry is pretty rusty.

Homer said:

Question: if the fuel pump is a rare-earth magnet, how does that work? (I tried looking it up - no dice.)

elfkin477 said:

I read the link. But your statement is not precise. The whole purpose of the catalytic converter on automobiles is to break down gases caused by incomplete combustion (i.e. not enough oxygen for the fuel burned).

http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/ES/TA/pasttech2.html

(emphasis mine)

Thus, gasoline does not fully burn in the engine, and does leave waste products. However, that doesn’t mean the “Fuel Saver” does anything to help burn more efficiently. (I don’t see how a magnet can break down hydrocarbon polymers into smaller chains.)

Just like the magnets in any other electric motor. :slight_smile: TBH, I don’t know the exact process for the operation of the fuel pump, but I’m pretty sure there’s hunks-o-magnets ™ in there.

–Tim

What about reducing friction? Increasing combustion temperature? Lowering wind resistance? Rolling resistance? If you are talking about fuel consumption of automobiles…

No, this is not why we have different grades of octane, and even the link you posted says that it is due to resistance to detonation. However, even that link is wrong when it says that higher octane “slows” combustion. It does not “slow” combustion, it prevents over-fast combustion and the detonation phenomena from occuring.

There are no superconductors in this device. I guaran-fucking-tee it.

Doing some searches on the Laboratory that tested their device, “California Environmental Engineering”, yields a disturbing trend of a company that 1) only seems to test free-gasoline, super fuel-economy, or super-emissions control devices, and 2) never found a gimmick they didn’t like.

The fuel pump on most electronic fuel injection cars has an electric motor in it, and it may have rare-earth magnets. AFAIK, they are fairly normal Cobalt type though - a fuel pump is not a real high-performance device. Aftermarket, I’m sure you can buy them with Nd magnets.

And yes, all IC engines produce some level of HC emissions. However, elfkin477 is correct when he (she?) says “fuels in modern engines are burned almost all the way to begin with”. The combustion process is almost complete, but not all the way. Thus the need for the catalyst (as well as reducing NO[sub]x[/sub])

A similar device (or maybe the exact same one, I don’t recall) was a topic of discussion on tonights James Randi Internet “Radio” show. He offer the million dollar prize to the company if they could meet the claims made on the package and went into a little rant about how this stuff is permited to be sold.

Just thought I’d let you know…

Jeff

I guess the big question is what out there WILL cause complete combustion? I guess you could sell that instead of hokey gadgets like this.

For reference, here are the patents cited:
[ul]
[li]4,802,931- High energy product rare earth-iron magnet alloys[/li][li]4,496,395 - High coercivity rare earth-iron magnets[/li][li]4,770,723 - Magnetic materials and permanent magnets[/li][/ul]
(I would post the URLs here directly, but they don’t seem to work. You can search the USPTO yourself.)

It’s beyond me how magnets can “fracture the hydrocarbon chains in the passing fuel providing accelerated combustion.”

Complete combustion? 110 octane zero sulfur fuel, 14.7:1 a/f ratio (.9v O2 sensor), 1650f exhaust temp, with 12:1 compression, complete fuel ionization, and (depending on the engine) a strong timing advance curve. That’s about as complete as you’ll get on a normal engine. The stuff Anth mentions (decreased friction, higher combustion temps) will help also.

–Tim

SouprChckn, you asked about complete combustion. To expand on Homer’s answer…

Factors affecting the combustion:

  1. Amount of fuel vs. size of combustion chamber (cylinder). Too much fuel and it won’t all burn. Too little fuel and you don’t get all the force possible. This is an optimization problem - determining the proper amount of fuel to inject each cycle for the burn.

  2. Air/fuel mixture at the proper levels to allow complete combustion. If the ratio is off, you either have too much fuel compared to the available oxygen and thus get more carbon monoxide, or you have too much air and you’re not getting full power on the burn.

  3. The fuel composition. Gasoline is not one unique composition material. Rather, it is a complex blend of hydrocarbons of various types, with other additives. If it were all one material, say iso-octane, then the chemistry would be simple. But with hundreds of chemical structures (with varying numbers of carbon molecules, extraneous oxygen molecules, and sulfur), you get a variety of chemical reactions taking place simultaneously.

  4. Reaction temperature. The hotter it burns, the more of the components burn and the more power you get (because heat means gas expansion). Vs. heat of metal parts and non-metallics and the oil to lube the pistons breaking down, etc.

  5. Fuel ionization - I think this is talking about vaporization. Liquid gas doesn’t burn. Gas vapor is what burns. The trick is to spray the fuel into the cylinder and have it evaporate in just the right amount of time to be ready for ignition.

  6. Timing advance curve?

If you’re really curious, here’s a FAQ. It’s 4 pages long.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part1/

This is just another pseudo scientific claim regarding magnets, so far, I’ve learned that magnets can make you immortal, remove limescale from your tapwater, protect you from cellphone radiation, and now they can increase fuel economy.
Obviously the people selling these things come from a different planet and perhaps they don’t know that ours has it’s own magnetic field built in, it’s saved me a lot of money.