Improving gas-burning efficiency with.......magnets!

Are you sure it isn't a KrisDel^TM product ?
Predictive Analysis aka 'Wishful Thinking' ?

Prdictive Analysis shows I can play a round of golf in about 85 . Chaos Theory usually contrives to add another 10 strokes....prrrr

Del

No, I had a look at some of the case studies and articles on the internet. Independently verified by ABB, Ford, etc. Seems to be legit, 5-6% fuel saving with it in place, payback in around a year (could find no info on product life expectency of the device to gauge overall system efficiency increase).

...sorry, just another "perpetual-motion" gas-saving "idea" that's been around for many, many years and is not true!

Really? The only reason I posted it here is that it appears to be a genuine, independently verified device. I suppose that all the case studies COULD have been faked, but it would be easy to verify it by calling up any of the real companies listed and asking them directly (such as ABB, ford, etc) (which I have not done admittedly). It has however been reported in major engineering publications, so I would have thought that if it was a fake it would have been picked up pretty quickly by the companies mentioned in it. I also found this on a reliable site

"The Fuel+ System, which guarantees customers a minimum 5% energy saving or a full refund, has been short listed for the Shell Energy Award at the 2007 IChemE Awards"

All comments I have found on the internet so far regarding this technology (including yours) immediately lump it into the Pseudoscience / Snake oil devices without actually bothering to look at it, which is really no help to anyone.

By the way I am not talking about this "fuel+saver" or similar rubbish which does not work in any shape or form.

Anyone able to offer a link(s) that can help verify Maxsys's claims?

Interesting article but it only really shows how flawed the carbon trust is in their appraisal of the technology. They don't understand it so that is the end of the story.

"Oooooh oooh thug hire (approved) monkeys to perform analysis. Thug get meaningful results and answers". See, even Thug the cave man can get the answers necessary to either prove or disprove this.

A half-assed approach is almost as bad as not bothering to review it at all. Grrr.

As for gas / gasoline, mention was made by Maxsys for streams of liquid fuel but as all the case studies I looked at were with regard to a gaseous gas and boiler applications I thought I would keep the analysis simple.

Ok, so the question then becomes, with a factory gas-fired boiler application is a 5-6% gain difference statistically significant or is it too small to be accurately measured over natural variations when trying to asses if putting this magnetic device in the fuel line actually does something. (more data on the actual tests and and analysis of the data is available on Maxsys's website in the case study section, including the tests conducted by ABB).

I read the link posted by Pantaz (#5) and the last paragraph seems to confirm that Maxsys has some serious questions to answer, which they apparently have not. Here is the last paragraph (for those who did not read the entire article):

"We have communicated with Maxsys on many occasions regarding their technology and what the Carbon Trust would require in order to make progress towards consideration for the Energy Technology List or for inclusion in an Energy-Efficiency Loan project. If they can provide answers to one or both of the questions we posed back in February 2007 [(i) a peer-reviewed academic paper explaining the causal relationship between inserting a magnet into a fuel line and downstream boiler efficiency gains; (ii) statistically significant performance data from a UK accredited boiler test house on a with/without the magnet device basis] then of course we would be happy to look into this technology again." [bolding mine].

So it appears to me that their claims cannot be taken seriously, at least not at this time.

-John

I know that magnets on a petrol supply pipe, if arranged carefully, do improve the car's fuel consumption figures - and that is fact based on work done in the late 70s at a R & D automotive company I worked at.

But you are talking of gaseous gas not petrol... If memory serves me correctly the gas won't hold the alignment of wotsits in the same way a liquid would, so I doubt if it has the same efficiency, it may well still improve combustion though??

John.

Do you have some of these magnets on your car?

No, because i remember that they didn't work with fuel injection engines or sommit like that...

John.

Large users of natural gas often have a calorimeter that charts the energy/m^3 over time (they pay for the Mj delivered, not the volume of gas) it compensates for changes in pressure temp etc.

I'm sure the "scientists" at this company could easily use such a device to clearly prove their gadget isn't just another fraud on a gullible public. Unfortunately testomonials don't mean much, think back to how many people still see Elvis wandering the streets.

I sincerely hope it does work, but I doubt it will. ffeJ

This "device" always seems to come back every five years. My first encounter with this "technology" was in the early nineties when some dutch inventor got some exposure on dutch national television.

A few years later my father got the opportunity to test the thing. It never worked.

This is a hoax that is going around for about 15 years. The problem is that the "inventors" sometimes really try to prove their right with test results, but tests can always easily be tampered, both deliberately as unaware.

Don't trash the idea without careful consideration...

Magnets on water pipes actually do reduce limescale in the pipes, magnets on the fuel lines of a petrol engine do increase the efficiency of combustion...

By how much is the question?

John.

It's been around at least 45 years. I'm 53, and remember seeing it in the back of my comic books as a budding 8 year old science geek. And, yep, I was always a geek. I even read the ads in the back of the comic books, and learned early on that if there isn't a good scientific explanation for something scientists have always said won't work, then there is far better reason for scepticism than belief.

If this was truly science, it could be repeated, but isn't it amazing how many of these so called gas saving inventions cannot be understood by anyone except the genius who thinks them up? (And the 100's of other scam artists, and dreamers, who don't understand that without an explanation of theory that actually applies known factors, it isn't science.) The best that something like this can be called, assuming SOMEONE,

SOMEWHERE has made it work, even once, is an art. Science is when it is repeatable, and understandable.

Didn't someone say it needs peer review? That goes a long way to verifying the underlying claims of scientific veracity.

And I have racked my brain trying to think of one reason why magnets should affect a non-ferrous fluid flow (since they don't, in any OTHER case I have ever heard of), in any way. Can't think of a one.

So, I don't believe it. "Independent" tests, or no.

As a Science Fair Judge (Virginia State competition) and a Science Fair tutor (middle and high school) for over 10 years, I only EXPECT to see an occasional student deliberately "push" the data to "Prove" the hypothesis. Unfortunately, anyone can. And when students do it, they get disqualified. When adults do it (or labs), they lose all respect, and no one who knows about it ever trusts them again. Bad spot to be in.

So, stay sceptical, and keep your "street cred" intact. Don't get taken for a ride!

It may be possible that this could work for a gas, but it does not work for petrol. They even tested 3 of them on mythbusters and they did not work at all.

Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me then...

But I do remember that we tested a number of engines back in the late 70s with magnets on the fuel lines and they either didn't work on carburetor engines or on fuel injection engines...

But I'm sure the results did show a slight improvement on one type... Believe me the guys we had at ERA knew their stuff alright...

John.

One of the first threads I ever started on CR4 was asking about electronic scale inhibitors... They (and the magnetic ones) were roundly slated... the wounds have healed now .

Del

Hmmmm maybe those combustion experts at ERA were pulling my leg then and only now 25 years later on I have fallen for it big time....

Ahh well, i reserve the right to keep my mind open LOL

John.

Back in 1990 I tryed a magnetic device in a geothermal plant and it worked, I promise to send pictures later . The matter here is somehow chemical companies make enougth preassure on engineers so they don´t buy it... pictures will come...

Seems to me that the efficiency of a gas fired boiler can be easily assessed by flue gas analysis. If there are unburned hydrocarbons, then something can be done with the fuel/air mixtures to fully burn the fuel. Flue gas temperature can be monitored to ensure maximum efficiency. I would implore the purveyors of this technology to explain to me how they get more energy out of the gas? Surely it can be explained by chemistry, physics, fluid dynamics, or thermodynamics. If they can't explain the science, then it is snake oil.

I don't know if a magnet on fuel line works or not but from the explanation with people/company selling it, I don't think so.

They say the magnet will line up the molecules like they're tiny magnets. Also the magnetization of the molecule will help them repeal each other result in better atomization.

Now someone please explain to me the following:

If they act as tiny magnet, why they don't stick to the steel pipe/valve/cylinder wall etc.

Also last time I try putting a bunch of magnet together, they don't fly away from each other. They stick together and is hard to separate. So how could that help fuel atomizing?

How does this thing works? What does the magnetic field do to the molecules?

I recall seeing ads in Popular Mechanix 'way back in the late '50s/early '60s for magnetic fuel economy enhancements for automobile engines. They didn't work then, so I doubt they work now. I don't even feel like reading the literature to be found at the provided links. If I'm wrong, this will be touted on CNN (Lou Dobbs, probably, in the Your Money segment) and I'll fork over the price of one. Unless it won't help on my home heating bill - but if it works for gas-fired industrial boilers (did I understand that part right?), it should help on any furnace, correct?

Well, I bought a few ones for resale a few years ago, and two friends who really checked their gas consumption reported 10% savings. This were from Fuelmax from the US. They and other manufacturers support their technique with Faradays law, assume the fuerl flow is a flow of electrons, passing at 90° to a magnetic fuel and 90° to them.. there is a reaction, in this case: electron exitation of your fuel wich derives infaster burning, or said in another way the fuel becomes less dense and the spray in your combustion chamber makes smaller drops wich leads to higher contact area and better burning...

Now that's new, magnetic field reduce fuel density. So with the fuel pump pushing same amount of fuel into the pipe, the tiny magnet will put enough energy into the fuel passing through it to increase its volume. Same mass, less dense equal to increase volume equal to increased pressure. I believe its a very simple experiment to test. If it works on fuel it'll work on any fluid.

Now this probably a new way to reduce weight. Put someone in a strong magnetic field and they come out a few pounds lighter.

Of course they reported savings. They don't want to look like buffoons in the eyes of their bosses. Fuel flow is not a flow of electrons. What difference does faster burning make? Either your flue gas contains unburned hydrocarbons or it doesn't. Where does the extra energy come from? What chemical reaction occurs that didn't before? Or maybe there is cold fusion going on the boiler with the magnetically aligned fuel molecules? Have you ever checked the conductivity of your fuel? If there is a flow of electrons, surely you can measure its conductance.

Do not under-estimate the placebo effect when testing these devices. I can easily change my gas consumption by 10% on my commute to work simply by being more or less aggressive. To really test these, you need a double blind study like the ones they use for drugs. Once you do a double blind study, many of the claims that had been verified by reputed doctors are proven false.

Concur - anecdotal evidence is suspect. Gasoline (or diesel fuel) is not magnetic, so should not 'see' any effects from magnetism. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) works on a different principle from the relatively small and weak magnets that would be in any such 'fuel saving' device.

Anyone who believes elsewise, I need to talk with them about investing in my new perpetual motion machine - 1,000 miles on a quart of snake-oil, exhaust is pure O₂, may have anti-gravity effects, hence the need for R&D funding...

Hi,

Magnets were used on spitfires in WW11 to increase fuel efficiency and therefore effective range of operations, very useful in war. After the war the technology was suppressed by the fuel industry, (this happened to several useful ideas).

I now have a 'carbon clamp' magnet attached to the fuel line on my car, which gives me a more efficient fuel use, and these types of devices are widely available and proven.

You can also treat fuel in storage, but like many an idea that saves consumers money, it costs manufacturers money so it ain't going to get pushed out there.

Other ideas suppressed include cheap ways to produce Browns Gas from water and using industrial hemp to create a sustainable economy, and Tesla's ionospheric power generation technology.

These ideas are often labelled as crackpot or pseudo science to put mainstream scientists, engineers etc off. For instance, cold fusion has been successfully replicated dozens of times but has been so damaged as a concept in the eyes of scientists that no-one will touch it.

You may find that this stuff will be rolled out when every last penny has been extracted from the ridiculous practice of burning our precious oil reserves, which we need for other uses.

I hope this opens someone's eyes, we are buggered if we don't start using the technologies that can be permanently sustained, whether they cost big busness money or not.

I am interested to read the research confirming the cold fusion. Do you have names? What I had read was that the teams that tried didn't succeed. The vast majority of these "energy improvements" are caused by bad data recording and inconsistent experiments. We have to keep an open mind but remember that there are more "snake oil" producers than miracle repressors...

Did you know there are a number of pharmaceutical products derived from snake venom?

Miracle repressors have far more to lose than snake oil producers have to gain. They can afford to fund people to go through sites like this and pooh pooh any ideas that are threatening.

Google cold fusion to find out more, the studies paid for by industries threatened by cold fusion, strangely enough, failed to replicate it - I wonder why that was...hmmm.

Many other studies were successful but were not published because science now operates like religion used to, he who pays the piper - or funds the research - calls the tune, i.e. big business.

Timothy Leary famously said: 'Don't take anybody's word for it' We are in serious shit, so we have to take another look at what is working or not working, who says it is or isn't, and why.

People lose careers over backing a sound idea that threatens established thinking or entrenched wealth, don't be suckers, find out, do research, don't tell people though, or you will get shot down like the originator of this thread.

If you really want to help in the big fight to maintain an environment we can actually occupy, think for yourself!

I am personally involved in selling a good technology to help reduce pollution (acid rain) and another one to increase energy efficiency of diesel electrical power generation (large units). While we are doing OK, we are not becoming a multi-billion dollars company. Why is that? Are these technologies being repressed? No, it simply takes time for customers to become informed, evaluate the savings and the risks, find the financing, install the technology, solve the new problems that come up because of the new hardware, train the staff to maintain the whole thing and hopefully reap the benefits over many years. Once a technology has proven itself through these steps, it will become accepted and used. Most technologies that show promising results during the development end-up costing more to operate when the overall costs are included. I am not saying that nothing has ever been repressed but in general, when something is very good, it finds its way to the light.

Regarding this fuel improvement magnets, one has to consider that if it was that good, people would sell magnets that just happen to fit on the gas line even if it was protected by a patent. Anyway, the Chinese don't care about patents. If it worked and didn't cause any other problems such as injector clogging etc.. it would be used.

Hi Marcot,

I accept that there is a sense of apathy to new ideas in general, and proving and establishing a new technology or approach can be a long and arduous affair. I sympathise with your struggle to wake people up to your ideas. Have you tried putting them on youtube?

Having said that, your work does not sound like the kind of thing likely to ring alarm bells down at corporate central or invite a visit from the men in black. If you were trying to replace diesel with a new cheaper and more widely available fuel source, then you might feel different about miracle repressors.

I have high hopes that the chinese, who really have resource issues, will indeed mass market some of the technologies I have personally witnessed in my search for the truth. I predict that at least one of the major technological breakthroughs currently labelled 'impossible' will be realised before 2020, not that that is worth much, but it will anyway!

Good luck with your business.

No, more likely the case is that snake oil producers pay people to talk up their illegitimate claims, not the other way around. Every time I hear someone say that big oil (whoever that is) bought the patent and then buried it, my eyes just roll all the way to the back of my head. If the so called patent was so good, why wouldn't a business not want to capitalize on the patent and become even richer? It just doesn't pass the smell test. The conspiracy folks are great at taking something and twisting it all around to explain what they can't understand in a manner that appeals to people's distrust of business/government etc. 90 MPG carburetor anyone? Turbinator in your engine intake? Burn water in your engine? We could go on for pages with all the cockamamied crap that has come out of someone's basement or garage. Sure Hewlett and Packard worked out of a garage, but not for long.

Robin:

I'm in absolute agreement with you on the suppression of technologies. I doubt it, big time.

Got you on one of your points, though. And this is a VERY common misconception, so I think it does help to clarify it.

The Spitfire (and P-51 Mustang, same engine) along with a couple of purely American designs (I think the P-47 Thunderbolt, sometimes called the Jug) also, DID use water injection in their engines, to produce more heat/power. The problem, though, is that the amount of power produced was marginal, while the heating was anything but, and engines were rightly toasted after running for no more than seconds on what was then called "war-emergency power" settings.

The reason it worked, which will also explain why it destroyed engines in a short time, was that the heat of normal Avgas combustion broke the water vapor down to Oxygen and Hydrogen, both of which are very flammable, but also more expansive than pure Avgas, and thus capable of delivering MORE POWER, along with MORE HEAT, which further continued the water breakdown process. Of course, shut the water down, and the fuel would continue to combust, albeit, back at the heat/power output levels normally experienced. But the momentary power/heat output rise was so rapid as to kill nearly every engine (maybe all, does someone have more detail?) that every experienced it.

Seems from what I've read in my military histories to have saved a few allied pilots from shoot-downs, or worse, though, so all-in-all, probably worth using in extenuating circumstances. But I doubt anyone had to suppress this technology very hard to keep it out of our passenger car, or cargo truck, or bus, or Lorry, or whatever have you, engines.

Here's a litle info from Wiki on water injection:

[Water injection] "Use in aircraft

Water injection has been used in both reciprocating and turbine aircraft engines.

Piston engines in military aircraft utilized water injection technology prior to World War II in order to increase takeoff power. This was used so that heavily-laden fighters could take off from shorter runways, climb faster, and quickly reach high altitudes to intercept enemy bomber formations. The extra weight and complexity added by a water injection system was considered worthwhile for this purpose, while it is usually not considered worthwhile for civil use. The one exception is racing aircraft, which are focused on making a tremendous amount of power for a short time; in this case the disadvantages of a water injection system are less important.

The use of water injection in turbine engines has been limited, again, mostly to military aircraft. Many pictures are available of Boeing B-52 takeoffs which clearly show the black smoke emitted by turbine engines running with water injection. For early B-52s, water injection was seen as a vital part of take-off procedures. For later versions of the B-52 as well as later turbine-powered bombers, the solution to the problem of taking off heavily loaded from short runways was simply to build larger engines."

-John

FWIW -- the U.S. Marine Corp's "vertical-takeoff" AV8 Harrier has 300 gallons of water for take-off and landings during very hot weather conditions.

You are right. I made the mistake of not specifying water injection for improvements of efficiency. You don't get extra energy from the water. You get extra energy because you are able to load more fuel into the engine when you use water injection. Point taken.

Cheers!

Keeping an open mind has nothing to do with believing in something...

I keep an open mind because one day maybe, someone WILL show how to produce a repeatable cold fusion experiment...

The scientists who all jumped on the band waggon in the early 90s after the results of the first cold fusion tests were made public may well have believed the results, but it doesn't mean the majority of people did... if like me they were just waiting to see if the experiment was repeatable and explainable - it wasn't.... and so it became a hoax or a mistake - It doesn't mean that the next time someone claims to have produced cold fusion I won't believe them and I hope it is the same with others.

John.

I'm with you, on the meaning of "open mind", but too open means "no input filter", and while I long/hope for the day of cold fusion at my house, and I will be one of the first to risk the possible catastrophic consequences, I don't, like you, I'm sure, believe EVERYTHING that comes along.

In fact, I suspect that it is possible that some day we WILL find some weird property of magnets (for but one example) which will cause them to be useful in some of the more (today) far-fetched uses attributed to them. But if that happens, I also expect I'll be fully able to understand the science which explains their workings (shoot, I understand how Calculus works. I hurt my head getting it, but I can use it with the best, and even know why. Nothing is beyond me, now!), but until that happens, "the big boys are suppressing it" just won't cut it as an argument.

I meant you absolutely NO disrespect with my statements about an open mind and a brain falling out. I meant that in specific for those who want to believe everything, without any shred of "peer review" understanding, and, patently, with no input filter, and not enough knowledge of hard science to even see their own naivety.

So, my apologies, for any slight offered. None was intended, Brave (and no doubt Kind) Sir Robin.

Micah

No apology is necessary micah02, I didn't take the comments personally at all....

I'm used to internet forums where the words of a post can easily be mis-interpreted - So no offence was taken.

John

Look up UCLA COLD FUSION REPEATABLE.

The references to "cold fusion" are interesting. Although drummed out of the sacred halls of science years ago, it apparently was not quite as void of merit as previously believed. Look it up(google, Wiki). Some of the accepted statements and beliefs above are really on the same level as true snake oil. Statements to the effect that "if no one understands it, or can't explain it, it doesn't work" come to mind.

Cold Fusion rebirth....or....Keep the Faith!

From Google search...CHECK..IT...OUT!

Bench Top Cold Fusion Reported at UCLA Makes Worldwide Splash - MILESTONE: The prestigious Nature journal today has published a report of table top cold ...
freeenergynews.com/Directory/ColdFusion/index.html - 92k - Cached - Similar pages

Again, I challenge anyone with magnets, carbon clamps, etc to explain scientifically why these devices work based on physics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, chemistry whatever. Aligning molecules just doesn't cut it. When I sample the exhaust gas and there are no unburned hydrocarbons, where are we going to get additional energy? Cosmic alignment of molecules along the earth's magnetic axis to provide additional force along the line of effort?

Wow, some of you guys are scary!

Just because you cannot "explain scientifically why these devices work based on physics, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, chemistry whatever." does not mean they cannot work.

As for "where are we going to get additional energy? Cosmic alignment of molecules along the earth's magnetic axis to provide additional force along the line of effort?"

1) Who cares where it comes from or if we can currently explain it! Let's find out if there is any extra energy then worry about explanations later!

2) Sarcasm and ridicule have no place in the discovery of or explanation for new phenomena - they are however widely used where existing worldviews are threatened

3) 'I don't understand this so it cannot be happening because my understanding of the Universe is infallible!' is not a view often expressed by those who have made any valuable contribution to forwarding human understanding of the Universe.

Heisenberg pointed out that we can never know an objective Universe because we alter everything we observe just by observing it. Double blind experimentation, designed to minimise the 'experimenter effect,' is widely used because the evidence backs Heisenberg up!

Therefore, someone creating a show called 'mythbusters,' setting out to disprove something that is not generally accepted, is likely to succeed.

This is partly because people are defending their worldview, something we humans are rather attached to, generally speaking.

Has it occurred to you, reading this, that if we do, interact with reality (the 'quantum' worldview), rather than simply react to objective, discrete phenomena (the Copernican/Newtonian 'mechanistic' worldview), observable phenomena do not settle into a behaviour pattern until we have decided - and accepted it is so collectively (the hundredth monkey syndrome/morphic resonance concepts should be carefully examined here).

People demand cold, hard evidence, when cold hard evidence is not possible, in the Heisenbergian sense, unless you subscribe to the mechanistic worldview, in which case, if the quantum worldview is correct, you will experience the universe as though it is mechanistic, even though it is not!

Very few new ideas, particularly ones which challenge conventional thinking or for which there is no existing theory to 'explain' them, are easily accepted, even though they often later are 'proven,' or accepted.

This is particularly likely to be so with hard to measure effects based on molecular/atomic phenomena.

There are countless examples of people suggesting new explanations for existing phenomena or discovering a new insight or theory that better fits the evidence, only to be shot down in flames by established thinking.

I realise that those who do not want to be active, creative participants in the reality they experience will simply ignore this, convince themselves I am a crackpot, and move on. See ya later!

I am hoping that there might be one or two out there who do want to be 'co-creators' of their Universe, and will be inspired to suspend disbelief long enough to explore the impossible, which has often turned out to be entirely possible with a little time, independent thinking, self belief (very important in the quantum worldview) and effort.

Let's face one thing: The likelihood that we have discovered the nature of reality and will experience no further adjustments to our collective worldview is extremely remote. That means that there are likely to be lots of new ways to understand things and lots of new things to be discovered. The most likely place to find those new things will be in contentious areas where words like 'snake oil' and 'perpetual motion pah!' etc. are likely to be used simply because the majority of people require an existing explanation they find acceptable before they will accept something.

There is no problem with perpetual motion if you have a perpetual source of energy to drive it. Should you create a perpetual motion device, before you discover the source fo energy driving it, it will still work. However, the great majority of people will ignore or deny it because they believe 'perpetual motion' is impossible.

It has been shown that genius rarely accepts any phenomena at face value, or accepts an explanation because some authoritative person gave it. I encourage you to dare to be a genius, don't be afraid of the cat calls and heckling of those who feel threatened or need an immediate explanation, and make a real go of expanding the human understanding of the Universe.

Find out for yourself and don't be put off by the reactions of others. If the great scientists had pooh pooh'd new ideas that were not popular, we would never have got out of the caves. History is littered with examples of ideas that have been suppressed by vested religious, political or financial interests, so the idea that there are no contemporary suppressions is completely ludicrous!

Unless you have personally explored all the (often conflicting) evidence, the motivations of those who presented the evidence, and explored the concept yourself to you complete satisfaction, it is not that brilliant an idea to discount something entirely.

So, if you have got this far, may I suggest that humanity is in the process of a paradigm shift which will bring major new discoveries and new explanations for phenomena widely observed but little understood (like experimenter effect).

We are moving away from the mechanistic worldview and it's need to explain everything as though it is always so and would be even if we were not observing it, into the quantum worldview which accepts that we are affecting the reality we observe and all the powerful new possibilities that brings.

Yes friends! Reality is not fixed and discrete any more than the world is flat or the Earth revolves around the Sun! A new worldview is upon us, like it or not, so adapt and enjoy the new power of that - or defend the indefensible!

Even all the Heisenburg Principles, quantum mechanics and so on have a real basis in mathematics. And these were things that people of the time couldn't comprehend, but the math and science were there to back them up. 'Nuf said.

Well it looks like Fuel+ is just another example of bad science and poor lab work. I have not decided if it is a scam or if it really is just a case of dodgy test methods and results. The main reason that I posted it here is that it was quite unique in the way that it marketed itself and attempted to validate its results thru actual provable scientific tests by independent third parties (rather than most of the other free energy devices out there which we all know and love).

I must admit I was intrigued by this device as (like Steorn's free energy generator) a lot of effort was placed in marketing the attempt to prove it works (very rare). However, although I couldn't completely prove or disprove the Fuel+ system (which is why I wanted some assistance from people a little more experienced with gas-fired boilers), Steorn was obviously a scam (but for those that have been following it for the past few years, what a ride it was).

The only question I still have is -

"With a factory gas-fired boiler application is a 5-6% gain difference statistically significant or is it too small to be accurately measured over natural variations when trying to asses if putting this magnetic device in the fuel line actually does something."

"...is a 5-6% gain difference statistically significant..."

It probably would be IF it is repeatable with comparable results on several units in different locations but having similar operating parameters. For a one-time analysis of one unit, it is doubtful. Not having more data than that, I will not comment further.

Any car will lose MPG in winter and gain it back in summer. To test and proof anything that improve MPG, take before data in winter and after in summer. With test like this you can proof any shit in the tank improve MPG.

I'll say similar result for the gas boiler. In cold days it use more fuel, in hot days less.

Non of those testes are done in a controlled environment, ie same temp, pressure for engine/boiler fuel, water.

I went to visit Maxsys and they took me to one of their installations. The engineer there said that yes it did work, but when I started asking for data, there was absolutely nothing convincing about it. There was a distinct lack of metering on the boilers in order to demonstrate that this would work.

They claim that if a boiler is at maximum output and unable to meet demand, their system will give improved efficiency and hence increase the steam output of that boiler - thus be definition, the efficiency of that boiler must increase.

It's a simple heat balance.

Maxsys claim the magnets give a "hotter, more efficient burn in the early part of the boiler". The old chestnut of energy in = energy out springs to mind.

The biggest loss in a boiler is the flue gas. With all other losses the same (blow-down + radiant heat), and with no changes to boiler feedwater flow or temp, the only possible thing that can change in order to give this extra increase in efficiency is a significant drop in flue gas temperature. When I asked the Maxsys "engineer" about this, he had no idea what I was talking about. He was a mere salesman and tried to throw all these "study papers" in front of me in order to try and sell it.

I said to him that he'd need to find me an installation that could clearly demonstrate a drop in flue gas temperature before and after installation of this system. I told him that my company has over 40 sites worldwide with a large number of industrial boilers, and if he could convince me, I'd buy one, trial it myself, independently of ABB or anyone else, and then if it worked, I'd be placing an order for 40+ of them. Surely he would have been rubbing his hands........?? I have now been waiting over a year for the exact piece of data I require, the last thing I received was a graph of a site's gas consumption going down by around 5%, but anyone could have knocked this up.

One other thing, I said to him that if he "trialled one" at one of our plants, and I was there to oversee the whole process, measuring everything that could possibly move on that boiler, and was able to be convinced, I'd place an order for 40 right there and then. Why wouldn't a company stand behind their claims do this?? He just blabbed on about his CEO saying we definitely do not do free trials, and the money back gaurantee thing if not satisfied.

I'm sorry, but if this really did work, and the smart engineers amongst us were convinved, then this thing would be installed on every boiler around the globe.

And on that note, why haven't the boiler companies teamed up with this company or bought them over???

If you decide to go for, make sure you measure every single variable on that boiler before they go anywhere near it, watch them like hawks as they install it to make sure they don't touch anything else on the boiler, and do the same exercise afterwards.

Let me know if you have any success....... but I won't be holding my breath....!

"...I won't be holding my breath..."

I suspect you'd turn several rather interesting shades of blue if you did, though!

I must have missed this.

Who did the "scientifically and independently verified" investigation?

Dick Hourigan

Analytical Chemist

www.RichardHouriganInc.com