The magnet fuel mileage myth spreads

[rmw]

Since you guys that lurk here have to debunk this snake oil myth from time to time (the fuel line magnet that is) I thought you would get a kick out of this in another forum.

thread798-226392

rmw

 

[ivymike]

oh, there've been plenty of helpers in spreading it - and not just the usual suspects. Heavy Trucking magazine did a fuel economy comparison with various gizmos added to trucks - they concluded that fuel line magnets were worth 3%. They estimated that the difference was beyond the margin of error for their test. My conclusion was that nothing presented in the article could be believed.

 

[evelrod]

I think I may have said this before...for the regulars, just pretend I know of what I speak, hard as that may be!

When I retired, I went to work for my ex-crew chief's wife's industrial air compressor sales and service company. One of the sales reps/service techs put a fuel saving magnet on his Dodge Dakota V8. After a few days of giving him a double ration, Matt and I decided a little "fuel test" was in order. For a week or so we added a gallon of gas to his truck each day....Well, you gotta know how that all turned out. It's fun to pick on the gullible, sometimes.

This is not original thought, a guy sold his old Caddy to his brother back in '64 in Hereford, TX. Each day he added five gallons of gas and a couple quarts of oil. Boy it was fun to watch those two when the truth came out.

Rod

 

[Bribyk]

I have yet to see one of these gizmos tested with any kind of science or statistical analysis yet.

Check out this one:

http://www.thegreenpetropill.com/

"almost 90% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions"
"Increased Fuel Efficiency – by up to 15% or more" (real specific)
"supported by scientific data and tested by independent, leading automotive experts." (not included)

There's emissions testing (except the two emissions slips don't indicate the same vehicle), an MSDS (with NO manufacturer info) and even diesel engine oil analysis "showing" it didn't do anything.

I spent a good hour on the site trying to debunk it 'cause my dad was trying them. I couldn't prove they didn't work (they didn't prove they did) but atleast from the MSDS I could tell him that the pills were basically wax and probably wouldn't hurt his car either.

 

[SomptingGuy]

In US patent 4,572,145 for real or in this web site:

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/4572145.html

bogus?

- Steve

 

[ivymike]

that's one of the obnoxious patent search sites that has popped up in recent years. I assume the patent is real.

 

[SomptingGuy]

I got the URL from a direct search on that patent number, from one of the links in the boiler thread.

Why does the US patent office grant patents to obvious snake oils?

Disappointing...

- Steve

 

[SomptingGuy]

... actually, I retract the word "disappointing". The patent office is simply taking money from some sucker who thinks his snake oil will sell in buckets. A voluntary tax on stupidity.


- Steve

 

[dgallup]

When I worked for a major truck manufacturer, one of the big fleet owners insisted that we test the "Moleculator" for them or they would never buy another truck from us. This thing was a piece on engine turned aluminum that went in the fuel supply line before the injection pump. Once it was plumbed in you were supposed to hit it with a brass hammer. This "lined up" the molecules in the "Moleculator" which was supposed to then "line up" the fuel molecules for improved combustion & reduced fuel consumption. After initially refusing to waste valuable dyno time on testing such an obviously worthless device, the lab finally agreed to run the test. Naturally, it did nothing. We kidded the test engineer that he didn't hit it properly with the brass hammer. He offered to hit us with the hammer. We thought it was done & over but the next month in the trucking magazines the snake oil company was now touting the "Moleculator as tested by **** Trucks"! These people have no shame.

 

[drwebb]

I don't believe patents have to prove utility to be granted- the thinking being that there's no public harm in granting exclusive rights to practice inferior/ineffectual technology for 18 years. And reading some contemporary patents I suspect the USPTO has set the bar for 'nonobviousness' pretty low and left that up to the courts to decide in cases where there is utility enough for someone to challenge the patent. So that mainly leaves prior art, and inventions that don't work are almost never covered by this.

The public may mistakenly believe that a patent implies some kind of official endorsement, so there are marketing advantages to patenting useless inventions. Buyer beware.

 

[Bribyk]

I know they won't grant patents on perpetual motion or devices that claim not to follow the First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Other than that you don't have to show it works at all.

 

[izzmus]

What I like is, half of the time, the magnet is zip-tied to the vacuum hose on the fuel pressure regulator, or a brake line, and the owners still claim economy benefit.

Placebo effect in full force here.

 

[RossABQ]

From the patent description:
"Although the theoretical basis by which the inventive device operates is not well understood at the present time successful results have been achieved with the inventive device."

I'll bet, they sold a bunch of them to suckers. That's success in the modern world...