# Um, please debunk this "fuel saver" **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 28, 2001, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481 "2001-06-28T16:34:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sethdallob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@sethdallob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sethdallob)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/1 "2001-06-28T16:34:18Z")
I know this is a load of poo, just can’t figure it out. Anyone? [http://216.142.45.12/fuelsaver/index.html](http://216.142.45.12/fuelsaver/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/2 "2001-06-28T16:47:22Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/3 "2001-06-28T16:56:22Z")
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](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. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Lao](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/2bfe46/32.png) [@Dr.Lao](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Lao)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/4 "2001-06-28T17:02:38Z")
> [@](#): > > By way of its patented Neodymium super conductors it generates the specific resonance frequency that when installed over the fuel line, will fracture the hydrocarbon chains in the passing fuel providing accelerated combustion. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Homer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df788c/32.png) [@Homer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homer)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/5 "2001-06-28T17:03:24Z")
Okay. > [@](#): > > By way of its patented Neodymium Neodymium is a rare earth magnet. You cannot patent a magnet, AFAIK. > [@](#): > > super conductors If it were really a superconductor, they’d be doing more with it than selling fuel line magnets. > [@](#): > > it generates the specific resonance frequency Or just a magnetic field. If you’re an idiot I guess you could call it a “specific resonance frequency” > [@](#): > > that when installed over the fuel line, will fracture the hydrocarbon chains in the passing fuel providing accelerated combustion. 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 ---
**Author:** ![xizor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xizor/32/102_2.png) [@xizor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xizor)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/6 "2001-06-28T18:29:15Z")
[Here](http://skepdic.com/inset.html) is the debunking of a very similar device that uses the same BS psuedo-scientific “how-it-works” explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/7 "2001-06-28T23:16:38Z")
Homer said: > [@](#): > > Neodymium is a rare earth magnet. You cannot patent a magnet, AFAIK. 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. > [@](#): > > If it were really a superconductor, they’d be doing more with it than selling fuel line magnets. 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: > [@](#): > > What is it made from? > It is a MATCHED PAIR of tuned custom sealed Neodymium Super inductors that generate a frequency resonance between its two faces. > [@](#): > > What makes the FUEL SAVER unique? > Operates on the principle of RESONANCE, utilizing a double chamber frequency with phased frequency modulation. 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. > [@](#): > > What are hydrocarbon chains? > Hydrocarbon molecules that cluster and grow causing molecules to be trapped from air during the combustion. 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? 😉 (Yeah, like they’d want the masses to actually understand.) > [@](#): > > Why can’t the oil companies provide this boost? > Because the fracturing of hydrocarbon chains occurs only when the fuel is passed through the FUEL SAVER booster .When the engine is turned off, the fracturing of hydrocarbon chains stops. The phenomena of fracturing the hydrocarbon chains only can be induced by the FUEL SAVER. Although it sounds funny, I do believe that fracturing is the correct word for breaking down polymers. My chemistry is pretty rusty. > [@](#): > > What kind of fuel line can Fuel Saver be installed on? > All types of line, metal, plastic or rubber, but optimum results are achieved on metal line, so if the fuel line is a combination of metal and rubber, then install it on the metal section. It is most important for Fuel Saver to be as close as possible to your Fuel Injection System or Carburetor. Homer said: > [@](#): > > 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. Question: if the fuel pump is a rare-earth magnet, how does that work? (I tried looking it up - no dice.) elfkin477 said: > [@](#): > > IANAM ( I am not a mechanic) but as I understand it, fuels in modern engines are burned almost all the way to begin with. 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](http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/ES/TA/pasttech2.html) > [@](#): > > On your car, the catalytic converter is mounted somewhere on the exhaust pipe of the car, and all exhaust gases pass through it. It filters these gases through a dense honeycomb structure coated with such precious metals as platinum, palladium, and rhodium. Chemical reactions occur on this surface that convert the three main pollutants into less harmful gases. These gases that are converted include oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, and **unburned hydrocarbons**. (emphasis mine) > **[What is a catalytic converter and how does it work?](https://auto.howstuffworks.com/question66.htm)** > > If you have a vehicle that needs to be tested for emissions, you might want to check on the condition of your catalytic converter. So what is it and what does it do? > [@](#): > > A catalytic converter is a device that uses a catalyst to convert three harmful compounds in car exhaust into harmless compounds. > > The three harmful compounds are: 1. Hydrocarbons (in the form of unburned gasoline) 2. Carbon monoxide (formed by the combustion of gasoline) 3. Nitrogen oxides (created when the heat in the engine forces nitrogen in the air to combine with oxygen) > **[Why doesn't gasoline burn cleanly?](https://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-consumption/question407.htm)** > > I have read the question about crude oil and the different types of fuel. I was wondering: if gasoline is an aliphatic hydrocarbon why doesn't it burn cleanly forming just CO2 and H2O? 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.) ---
**Author:** ![Homer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df788c/32.png) [@Homer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homer)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2001, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/8 "2001-06-28T23:21:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Question: if the fuel pump is a rare-earth magnet, how does that work? (I tried looking it up - no dice.) Just like the magnets in any other electric motor. 🙂 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 ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2001, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/9 "2001-06-29T01:34:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by enolancooper \* > **The only real methods of reducing fuel consumption are to reduce throttle and lean out the fuel mixture.** What about reducing friction? Increasing combustion temperature? Lowering wind resistance? Rolling resistance? If you are talking about fuel consumption of automobiles… > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by elfkin477_ > \*\*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](http://theserviceadvisor.com/octane.htm)) > \*\* 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]) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Child](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@Mr.Child](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Child)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2001, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/10 "2001-06-29T03:16:28Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![SouprChckn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@SouprChckn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SouprChckn)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2001, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/11 "2001-06-29T03:20:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2001, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/12 "2001-06-29T03:46:58Z")
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](http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm) yourself.) It’s beyond me how magnets can “fracture the hydrocarbon chains in the passing fuel providing accelerated combustion.” ---
**Author:** ![Homer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df788c/32.png) [@Homer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homer)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2001, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/13 "2001-06-29T03:52:59Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2001, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/14 "2001-07-11T18:38:06Z")
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/](http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part1/) ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2001, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/um-please-debunk-this-fuel-saver/70481/15 "2001-07-11T22:02:46Z")
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.