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.
 

• 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%.

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.
 
 

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

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

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 flowmeter 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 flowmeter 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%.

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 percent.  It should be noted that maximum wattage occurred when the generator was equipped with a MAGNETIZER.  During this run, the carbon monoxide was at its lowest level.  This is to be expected since carbon monoxide is oxidized to carbon dioxide.  With any internal combustion engine, maximum output will occur when carbon monoxide is minimized and carbon dioxide is maximized which is in accordance with stoichiometric principles.

In using a gasoline driven generator, the electrical load can be matched to the output very closely, as indicated above.  Vehicular testing with friction and mechanical transmission difficulties could not have generated such precise results.

The MAGNETIZER unit was mounted on a 12” length of steel tubing.  It is possible that the slight improvement in fuel economy in the fourth run after the MAGNETIZER was due to residual magnetism.  However, the variation between MAGNETIZER equipped runs and non-MAGNETIZER runs were so large as to make the results of residual magnetization inconsequential.  Future runs should be conducted utilizing a non-ferrous gas line.  Since the lines of magnetic force penetrate these materials easier, the results will be higher than the 26% results that we have already achieved.

Results were conducted on test equipment calibrated to the National Institute for Standards testing requirement, formerly The National Bureau of Standards.

•     Fuel Consumption decreased by 3.29%.

•     Exhaust Emissions at idling Carbon Monoxide (CO) decreased by 10.4% and Hydrocarbon 
      (HC) decreased by 4.3%.
•     Exhaust Emissions at 90 km/h Carbon Monoxide (CO) decreased by 29.2% and Hydrocarbon 
      (HC) decreased by 22.4%.
•     Power output increased by 6.6%.

TEST SUMMARY:

•   Fuel Consumption decreased by 6.62%.

•   Exhaust Emissions at idling Carbon Monoxide (CO) decreased by 14.3% and Hydrocarbon 
    (HC) decreased by 16.6%.

•   Exhaust Emissions at 90 km/h Carbon Monoxide (CO) decreased by 22.7% and Hydrocarbon 
    (HC) decreased by 22.6%.
 

 TEST SUMMARY:

•   Fuel Consumption decreased by 6.11%.

•   Exhaust Emissions at idling Carbon Monoxide (CO) decreased by 100% and Hydrocarbon 
    (HC) decreased by 67%.

•   Exhaust Emissions at 90 km/h Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Hydrocarbon (HC) remain the 
    same. 

•   Power output increased by 2.3%.

Vehicle One

     Date:            May 17, 1999

     Model:          Isuzu Pick Up Truck 
                         (Owned by Managing Director of Department of Transportation, Sri Lanka (Ceylon))

Lucas Hartridge Free Acceleration Test EEC72/306

Before Magnetizer EES:            30.1 HSU (opacity) Average

After Magnetizer EES:                11.8 HSU (opacity) Average

Diesel Emission Reduction: 60.7%

Vehicle Two

Date:                May 17, 1999

Model:              Toyota Pick Up Truck
   (Owned by Director of Sri Lankan (Ceylon) EPA)

Lucas Hartridge Free Acceleration Test EEC72/306

Before Magnetizer EES:           56.4 HSU (Opacity) Average

After Magnetizer EES:              21.7 HSU (Opacity) Average

Diesel Emission Reduction:     61.2%

Date:                                            April/May 1999

Magnetizer                                   Intercraft Pvt., Ltd.
Representative:                           Kathmandu, Nepal

Test Equipment:                          Nepal – EPA – Protocol

Presented Technical Men:         Commissioner Motor Traffic – Nepal