Fuel Test Data

Dramatically reducing vehicle pollution
while increasing fuel efficiency

The following pages contain various test reports of Magnetizer installations from around the world.  In most of these test reports the full Magnetizer EPM system was utilized, giving dramatic emissions reductions.  Exhaust emissions are a result of incomplete combustion as shown in the Mechanical handbook by Baumeiste where the stoichiometric chart shows the relationship between emissions and unburned fuel.  As more of the fuel is combusted, the emissions go down and efficiency goes up - fuel savings.  All of the following reports attest to Magnetizer's major role in reducing exhaust emissions and increasing efficiency saving the consumer fuel costs.

Magnetizer has been in research and development of magnetic fluid treatment for over 20 years.  Through the years we have refined and defined the techniques and the principles of how to treat fluid with magnets.

When a properly focused magnetic field is applied to a hydrogen-based fuel, the hydrogen is converted from the para (less volatile) to ortho state (more volatile).  This potentiates fuel so that the hydrogen attracts and bonds with more of the oxygen.  (Getting the oxygen to bond with the hydrogen is necessary for complete combustion).  When this happens, we burn more of the fuel and that reduces exhaust emissions and increases the fuels efficiency (Better fuel economy and power).
Magnetizer products are easy to install, and can be fitted to virtually all engines in just a few minutes.  If one was to try to make a comparison between Magnetizer and catalytic converters, it is easy to see the marked benefits of Magnetizer.

 
Mazda Official Pennsylvania Automotive Emissions Testing - December 2004
 
                Emissions Reduction = Mileage Increase

 

Hydrocarbons and Carbon Monoxide are the 2 essential gases that laboratories analyze reduction to formulate increased MPG.

Matter of fact, all engine mechanics are taught to watch the smog meter as they tune the engine. They tune it till the least amount of emissions is coming out which gives the engine the most efficient fuel mileage.

The following is an abstract of the following actual Pennsylvania tests.

The car did not pass on the first test. Then the Engine Performance Maximizer was put on and the car was run for 1 week only back and forth to work - approximately 125 miles maximum. Then it passed better than a new engine.

The Carbon Monoxide went down 100%. This is important as so many people [especially children] are getting asthma in the cities from Carbon Monoxide emissions.

The Hydrocarbons went down 98%. This is good because of the high carcinogenic content of Hydrocarbons emissions.

These figures stoiciometrically (scientific realtionship of emissions reduction to increased mileage) indicate an approximate 22-24% increase in mileage.

 

                                   TEST 

Location:   R&R Automotive Group

                  5 Atkins Drive

                  Doyelstown, PA 18901

                  215.348.9459

 

Date:         December 9, 2004

 

Inspector:  Kenneth L Williams

                  State Inspector ID 13085609

                  Analyzer UD 13503

 

Vehicle:    1990 Mazda RX-7 Rotary Engine  ( wankel)

                  VIN:  JM1FC3516J0101260

                  Mileage: 89294

                  1300 cc engine injected

 

Magnetizer Unit:

                   Magnetizer Fuel Energizer

 

                   ACE with Air Energizer

 

Results:    Before:                                             After Installation:

                 Carbon Monoxide: 8.36%                   0.00

                      100% CO reduction

 

                 Unburned Hydrocarbon  381ppm        8ppm

                        98% HC reduction 

 

Note: Magnetizer Units were installed on the engine

           One week prior to re-test

 

Original Document available upon request
Comparison of Magnetizers vs. Catalytic Converters (Gasoline & Light Duty Diesels)


MAGNETIZER
Catalytic converter
Price $110.00-150.00 & International Minimum $350.00
Warranty Lifetime None
Installation 5 minutes or less 45 minutes to 1 1/2 hours
Product Life Never wears out 20 to 50,00 miles depending on
the vehicle it is fitted on
Vehicle's Power Gets Improvement  Loses Power
Vehicle's Economy Gets Improvement  Loses economy
Customer
Acceptance		 Customer will love the benefits
and improved performance		 Poor acceptance due to loss
of economy and performance
and will need to be replaced
Maintenance None May need cleaning from time to time
Types of Fuel ALL Unleaded only or premature failure results
Patents:   RE: 35689, 5829420, Further Worldwide patents pending 
California Air Resource Board:    CARB#EOD-174-3 
US Military Stock Number:  NSN 2910-01390-0004

Magnetizer Fuel Efficiency/Emission Reduction Tests

All tests performed under Federal EPA Code 40 CFR, Sec. 51.351
These are before & after results with a Magnetizer installed showing reduced emissions.

Emissions = Unburned Fuel / Reduction of Emissions = Fuel Savings


Emissions = Unburned Fuel / Reduction of Emissions = Fuel Savings
Make/Model
HC

Before
HC

After
% HC Decrease
CO

Before
CO

After
% CO Decrease
Chevy 307, V8
774
580
25%
.06
.00
100%
Chevy 400, V8
141
37
73%
1.78
.21
88%
Chevy 2.8L, V6
46
11
76%
.31
.00
100%
 Pontiac 6000
227
42
81%
.33
.04
89%
Escort 4 Cyl.1
259
54
79%
5.9
.25
96%
Ford Pick-Up V8
158
16
90%
.21
.21
57%
Nissan V6 3.0 4x42
130
30
77%
1.7
.00
100%
Chevy V8
12
0
100%
.00
.00
---
Chevy V6, (C)2
72
0
100%
.64
.01
98%
Olds 280 V6 (C)2
348
65
81%
.04
.01
75%
Lincoln 302 V8 (C)2
13
4
69%
.05
.00
100%
Ford 2.3L (F.I.)2
193
20
90%
.80
.01
98%
Dodge 318 V8 (C)2
125
15
88%
1.24
.02
98%
Jeep 4.0L V62
18
8
55%
.09
.04
55%
Buick 350 V8 (C)2,3
128
95
26%
4.21
4.04
4%
Pontiac
125
0
100%
.04
.00
100%
Chevy Van V8
190
125
65%
1.8
.30
81%
Jeep
38
7
81%
.16
.05
68%
Hyundai 4 Cyl.4
18
14
22%
5.69
.02
99%
Suzuki, 4 cyl.a
170
100
41%
1.6
.15
91%
Nissan SXa
70
90
+29%
0.3
0.2
33%
Volkswagen, 4 cyl.a
320
270
15%
6.2
3.6
42%
Mitsubishi, 4 cyl.a
390
330
15%
3.8
2.8
26%
Chevy, 4 cyl.a
320
180
44%
3.6
1.0
72%
Oldsmobile
63
0
100%
.06
.00
100%
Corvette 350 CID
383
197
48%
7.85
1.98
74%
Olds 6 Cyl.
60
48
20%
.32
.23
31%
Chevy 305
230
163
20%
9.83
8.60
12%
Chevy Luv 1600 cc
3.96
3.20
19.2%
57.3
53.7
6.3%
Fiat 126 Polska
N/A
N/A
20%
N/A
N/A
45%
Chevy 350 CID
366
38
90%
2.77
.16
94%
Chevy V6, 2.8L
19
12.5
65%
.02
.00
100%
Chevy 350 (C)
79
21
73%
.14
.01
93%
BMW 6 Cyl.
64
39
39%
.60
.05
90%
Make/Model
HC Before
HC After
% HC Decrease
CO Before
CO After
% CO Decrease
VW Quantum 4 cyl (Fuel Savings of 17%)b
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.5
0.5
66%
Proton 1.5L (Power increase fr/ 58 kw to 59 kw)c
130
100
23%
2.0
1.4
30%
Maruti (India Vehicle)
100
60
40%
2.6
1.6
30%

 
 
 
Make/Model
HC Before
HC After
%HC Decrease
CO Before
CO After
%CO Decrease
Mileage (+)
Chevy Suburban
56.0
6.0
89%
.10
.00
100%
+ 27%
Ford Bronco
69.0
10.0
86%
.19
.00
100%
+ 28.9%
Nissan
43.0
4.0
91%
.00
.00
0%
+10.3%
Blazer
--
--
36%
--
--
13%
+ 50.8%
D Truck/V6 Duetz
--
--
--
40 ppm
10 ppm
75% diesel ppm
  

 
 
((C) = Carburetor                          (F.I.) = Fuel Injection                                 * = Accuracy within +/- .04
a = Guatemalan Report                b = Argentinean Test                               c = Malaysian OEM Test
1 = Boston Gas Company           2 = On file with Magnexx Corporation
3 = Buick has heavy deposits, must go through stabilization period to attain full results.
4 Stabilization period only, final not available

 
 
Magnetizer Fuel Energizer Certified Fuel Savings & Horsepower Increase Tests
  • VTEC Laboratories – test – 26% drop in fuel consumption.
  • Preliminary Emissions test by Institute of Aeronautics (Poland) – 40% CO reduction, 20% HC reduction.
  • RV Power Group – Gulf Stream high rise from 5.34 mpg to 8.08 mpg.
  • Bacon Equipment Company – 33% horsepower increase (farm tractor).
  • J.P. Bethlehem, PA – 12.5% faster ¼ mile race time (Corvette).
  • Manner Automotive Tech – 10% horsepower increase (Chevrolet).
  • Penske Racing – 4.8% average horsepower gain (full race engine).
  • Tom McCall, Petrochemical Engineer – de-carbonizing of fuel injection system and engine.
  • Chile EPA – 18% Fuel savings.
  • Chinese test on early prototype Auto Fuel Energizer – 7-10% Fuel savings.
  • Tomei Industrial Furnace, Taiwan – reduction of 11.7% of heavy oil used.
  • Northern California Diagnostic Laboratories reported a 5% increase in horsepower during testing.
  • US Border Patrol Test (8/10/95) – 94 Chevy Suburban 27.0%, 90 Ford Bronco, 29.8%, 91 Nissan 4 x 4, 10.3%, 86 6.9L Diesel, 50.8%.
  • Electrometal Ltd. (7/31/95) – Genset (Motor/Generator) – Saved 25% on Diesel Fuel.
  • Wheels Ltd. (11/04/95) – Two Ambassador’s Vehicles, increased mileage of rental cars by 17.46% and 18.0% respectively.
  • City of Berkeley CA – Fuel Economy change: 95 Ford Crown V8, 14.13%, 95 Ford Crown V8 (2.46%), 90 E-350 Ford Van V8, 7.06%.
Fuel Certified test copies available upon request. (10/22/93).

Certified Tests

Beijing Railroad Locomotive average fuel savings - 4.88-5.91%. 60% reduction smog & elimination of carbon buildup in the Combustion chambers. Elimination of boiler scale.
United States Air Force 80% reduction in smoke, +50% reduction in carbon monoxides, +50% reduction in hydrocarbons.  Petrol vehicles fitted WITH catalytic converters.
US Postal Service, CA Fuel Savings of + 8%, Reduction of Hydrocarbons by + 15%, Reduction of Carbon Monoxide by + 11%.
US Federal Border Patrol +10% increases in fuel savings, +50% reductions in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.
VTEC Fuel savings of 26% under laboratory conditions on equipment calibrated to the United States equivalent of NAMAS.
Sirim/Malaysia Average of 5% Fuel Savings, 40% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions.
City of Berkeley, California Recommendation was made to install on the balance of the fleet and 4 of the waste huller trucks.
Environmental Protection Agency (Latin America) 18.8% reduction in fuel consumption. CVS-75 Standard Motor Industry Test.
EPA/Sri Lanka (Ceylon) Diesel Smoke Opacity Emission Test, 60% reduction in Diesel Emissions
Mercedes Benz Well over 50% reduction in smoke, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide.
Nissan  Tests on 5 vehicles all showed dramatic reductions in hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
Proton Significant reduction in carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons.

Field Test

Various Field Tests from the US and around the world.

Penske Racing 4.8% increase in horsepower on some of the most finely tuned and engineered vehicles in the world.
Ford/Volkswagen In excess of 50% reduction in carbon monoxide emissions
Quality Automotive Report shows long-term positive effects of Magnetizer EPM Systems
United States Department of the Air Force
Air Force Material Command
Management & Equipment Evaluation Program (MEEP)
Background:  Three vehicles, two petrol and one diesel, at Hurlburt Field, Florida, were removed from service, exhaust gas emissions were tested for pollutants, and MONO-POLE (single pole) magnetic units were fitted.  The vehicles were allowed to run for 10 minutes, then gas emissions were tested again.  Dramatic improvements in harmful emissions were noted.  To ensure continuity in testing, the same mechanic performed all emission tests using the Bear 2000 series diagnostic analyzer, EPA approved and calibrated equipment.  All tests were carried out with engines at operating temperature.

 

Method:
   (a)    Three vehicles were selected for testing over a six month
            period   in order to fully assess the effect of MAGNETIZING.
            Two vehicles were petrol, one diesel bus.
   (b)    The same mechanic conducted all emission tests for all 
            vehicles 
            prior to the installation of the system.
   (c)    The system was installed to the fuel lines on all vehicles using 
            only plastic cable ties.  A large “cooling system” magnetic unit 
            was fitted to the vehicle's cooling system. 
          No lines, fuel or water,  were cut or disturbed.
   (d)    An emission test was conducted after the units had been 
            fitted, having allowed the vehicles to run for 10 minutes.  A 
            notable change in emission out put, up or down, confirmed 
            correct installation.

Advantages:
    (a)   The system reduced harmful emissions from the petrol 
            engines  almost immediately after installation and continued  
            to  maintain the reduction throughout the six month period
            (see  charts A & B).
    (b)   The diesel engine showed an immediate reduction of visible 
            smoke. Prior to the installation, the 1985 bus was a very 
            heavy smoker, putting out clouds of thick black smoke. 
           After installation, the smoke could BARELY BE SEEN 
           WITH THE NAKED EYE (see Chart C).

Disadvantages:              NONE NOTED
 

Safety:                              NO SAFETY HAZARDS ENCOUNTERED

Savings:
      (a)   Tangible savings:  With such reductions in emission output, 
              clearly better combustion is being realized.  With correct 
              carburetion/fuel pump adjustment, this increased efficiency 
              can easily be converted into substantial FUEL SAVINGS.
       (b)  Intangible savings:  Less pollution in the atmosphere

Project Results:
       (a)  Conclusions:  The MAGNETIZER fuel treatment system 
              demonstrated the ability to reduce harmful emissions in both 
              petrol and diesel engines.

        (b)  Recommendations:  We are RECOMMENDING the 
               MAGNETIZER fuel system be APPROVED for AIR FORCE 
               USE.  Further recommend that a NATIONAL stock number 
               be assigned.
(As a result of testing, a stock number was assigned, and this product is now available for military use)
 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(Latin America)

Magnetizer CVS-75 Test Summary
Location: Comision De Des Contaminacion De La Cividad
De Santiago De Chile (Chilean EPA)
Date: January 6, 1992
Vehicle: 1600 cc 1990 Chevy Luv
Test Identification: Gasoline:  93 Octane
Constant Volume Sampling (CVS)
Cycle FTP-75, Stabilized Phase
Results: Average fuel efficiency {KM/Liter} without MAGNETIZER 8.50

Average fuel efficiency WITH MAGNETIZER 10.10

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN FUEL EFFICIENCY 18.8%
1.1              Vehicle Identification.  Make:  Chevrolet

Model: LUV 1600

Year:  1990

Type: Pick-Up, simple cabin

Weight: 1410 Kg

Tag: D1-2492
1.2              Test Identification. Fuel: Gasoline, 93 Octane, Leaded

Method:  CVS (Constant Volume Sampling)

Cycle:  FTP-75, Stabilized phase
              Measurement units.
 Carbon monoxide:   [g/km]

Carbon dioxide:  [g/km]
  Nitroxide:  [g/km]

Hydrocarbons   [g/km]

Fuel consumption: [Liter]

Traveled distance:   [Km]

Fuel efficiency: [km/l]

Ambient temperature:  [°C]

Ambient pressure:  [mmHs]

Ambient relative humidity: [%]

Duration of test:   [min]
1.3              Type of analyzing instruments used.
Carbon monoxide: Infrared non-dispersive
Carbon dioxide: Infrared non-dispersive
Nitroxide Chemioluminscent
Hydrocarbons: Detection through flame ionization

TABLE 3.3.  AVERAGE COMPARATIVE VALUES


Units of Measurement  Test 1 Test 2 Test 3




Fuel Consumption [L]  0.64 0.60 0.60
Fuel Density [g/l]  738.00 738.00 738.00
Distance for test [km] 6.20 6.20 6.20
Time for test  14.70 14.70 14.70
Ambient Temp [°C] 30.00 31.00 32.00
Barometric Pres [mmHg] 721.00 719.00 719.00
Relative Humidity [%] 35.00 25.00 23.50
 Calculated Values 


Carbon Monoxide [g/km] 52.50 52.70 55.90
Carbon Dioxide [g/km] 356.80 369.40 373.40
Hydrocarbons [g/km] 3.40  3.00 3.20
Nitroxides [g/km] 1.20 0.90 1.40
Fuel Efficiency [km/l] 9.70 10.30 10.30




Units of Measurement
Base Line
Without Magnetizer
Base Line
With Magnetizer
Carbon Monoxide [g/km] 57.4  53.7
Carbon Dioxide {g/km]  366.7 366.5
Hydrocarbons [g/km]  4 3.2
Nitroxides [g/km] 0.6 1.2
Fuel Efficiency [km/l] 8.5 10.1
Conclusion: Test averages show that MAGNETIZER reduced fuel consumption by 18.8%
Comments: The determined indexes of emissions correspond to the ones obtained with the cycle test FTP-75 in the stabilized phase (II), tests between 505 and 1371 seconds.  In this test (velocity v/s time), the vehicle travels on rollers which simulate the rotational power and inertia of the vehicle.

 The measuring process used is the one established by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, USA).

Emissions Testing by Mercedes Benz - Argentina S.A.

Dated: November 10th, 1993
Location:  Buenos Aires
Representative:  Dr. Marcelo Breitman
Vehicle:  Diesel Engine Bus

 
CO @ 600 rpm
CO @ 2800 rpm
HC @ 600 rpm
HC @ 2800 rpm

WITHOUT
MAGNETIZER
0.09
0.14
30.00
46.00

WITH 
MAGNETIZER
0.04
0.06
12.00
16.00
I'm pleased to inform you that MERCEDES BENZ has performed the above test on a diesel engine bus equipped with sets of DFE-6 plus TCE (Magnetizer diesel fuel energizer, truck coolant energizer).  Even though it was a perfectly tuned engine, the results were very good, as you can see.

 A reduction in the consumption was not tested, but stoichimetrically, there must be a substantial reduction in consumption.

Guatemalan Magnetizer Report - Nissan (Dicorsa Plant)


Date April 13, 1991
Location: Dicorsa (Nissan)
 Emission Analyzer:  Sun EPA 75

          BFR = Before fitting Magnetizer

Vehicle
 Idle CO
Idle HC
CO @ 2500 rpm
HC @ 2500 rpm
Suzuki Swift 1991, 1298 cc BFR 
3.00
295.00
1.60
170.00

Suzuki Swift 1991, 1298cc AFT 
1.60
170.00
0.15
100.00
Nissan 200 SX Turbo BFR 
0.3
210
0.3
70
Nissan 200 SX Turbo AFT 
0.2
165
0.2
90
Mitsubishi L300 1400cc BFR
  6.2
390
4.2
180
Mitsubishi L300 1400cc AFT
3.6
330
1.8
90
Chevrolet LUV 1800 BFR
1.1
240
3.6
320
 Chevrolet LUV 1800 AFT 
0.8
250
1
180
Volkswagen 1600cc BFR
3.8
320
7
320
Volkswagen 1600cc AFT
2.8
270
6.8
250

          ATF:  After fitting Magnetizer

  OEM Malaysian Saga Automobile Factory - Emission Tests


location:                           Vehicle Testing Laboratory – SIRIM, 
                          Malaysia
Date:                          June 1993
Vehicle:                           Proton 1.5S Megavalve
Engine:                          4 Cylinder, carbureted, gasoline powered
Miles:                          New vehicle
 

Hydrocarbons
Carbon Monoxide
Power [Kw]
BEFORE
MAGNETIZER
130
2
2 58 Kw
AFTER
MAGNETIZER
100
1.4
1.4 59 Kw

PENSKE Dyno Testing - Race Car Engine - February 17, 1989


Without Magnetizer
Torque – Ft/Lbs
Horsepower
320
534
327
560
331
599
336
640
358
656
318
666
Average                   328.3
609.2


With Magnetizer
Torque – Ft/Lbs.
Horsepower


334
541
330
656
332
600
337
642
332
664
321
672


Average:                 331                                        614

 
Comments:
Through the use of the MAGNETIZER Fuel Energizer, the Dyno-tested Penske race car engine developed an average of 4.8% Horsepower gain.  It should be noted that the Penske Engine represents the highest state of the art design in combustion engineering technology.  Consequently, it was amazing that the attachment of a MAGNETIZER unit could provide a meaningful increase in power.

VTEC LABORATORIES, Inc. - Germany & USA
Fuel Efficiency Tests of the Magnetizer Fuel Energizer

1.0           Test Description

The described test was conducted inside a large facility under controlled conditions.  The exhaust gasses were vented outside the building.  All the parameters of the test were kept constant throughout the program.

1.1          Test Set Up

A Kohler generator was connected to an external graduated fuel tank that was kept at approximately the same height as the carburetor of the generator.  A calibrated flow meter was inserted between the fuel tank and the generator.  A load bank consisting of lights and heater was attached to the generator.  The generator was placed on a small table approximately 30 inches above the floor.

1.2           The Generator

An electric portable Kohler generator with the following specifications was used for this project:

Model 3.5 mm65
S/N 260058
KVA 3.5
3600 RP
Watts 3500

The load bank consisted of five 300 watt light bulbs and a 900 watt heater which was approximately at 70% load.  Each load source had an electrical plug at the end of the wire which was plugged into the generator.

The generator had two receptacles rated at 120 Volt, 15 Amp maximum.  Each receptacle had a load bank plugged into it.

No adjustments were made to the generator prior to the start of the test program.

1.3             Flowmeter

A separate line was run from the remote fuel tank directly to the carburetor with a flow meter and a 12 inch steel line that ran in between to make the attachment of the MAGNETIZER unit.  The fuel pump was by-passed.  The flow meter was manufactured by Brooks Instruments with the following specifications:

S/N   99223
Tube Number  R-215-A
Metering viscosity 0.640 cS
Date of Calibration 6.28.90
Flow Range   0.011 to 1.025 (liq) gal/hrs

The gasoline used was CITGO unleaded 87 octane.

1.4           Exhaust Gas Analyzer

The exhaust gas from the generator was analyzed for oxygen and carbon monoxide.  A stainless steel tube was inserted in the exhaust pipe of the generator.  The gas analysis was through a system that had a pump to draw the gasses and a cold trap/drierite system to remove the water.

Gasses were continually drawn through the system with continuous display readings.  The following gas analysis equipment was used:

Servomex Oxygen Analyzer Model 540A
Horiba Carbon Monoxide Analyzer Model PIR-2000

2.0           Results

The generator was operated for three days before the described test results were obtained.  This was done in an effort to “break-in” the engine and work out any problems that could result prior to testing.  Readings were taken as required when the MAGNETIZER was installed and then removed.  The generator was run continuously.  The results are for two sets of runs.
 

Time of Reading Flow Range Peak Flow Amps Volts  O2 CO
W-W/O
14.45
65-70
70
21
117.5
12.9
12
W
15.56
100-110
110
21.2
117.6
14.1
7
W/O
16.08
65-70
70
21.4
117.5
14.1
5
W
16.48
95-100
100
21.2
117.5
14.1
6.5
W/O

 W-W/O     W - indicates with magnet installed                   W/O - indicates without magnet installed
 

Each time the MAGNETIZER was removed or added, it was necessary to re-adjust the carburetor.

Based on the above information, the MAGNETIZER device for this test reduced the fuel consumption by approximately 26%.

Summary

At MAGNETIZER, we are quite pleased with the V-TEC Laboratories test resulting in a 26% drop in fuel consumption achieved through the use of our Fuel Energizer.

What is truly amazing is the reduction in gasoline consumption while the electrical output of the gasoline driven generator remained almost perfectly constant.  The wattage, a product of amps time volts, varied from the average of 2491 watts by less than one