My gas company is expecting at least a 70% increase in natural gas
prices this winter.

I have magnets on the furnace and water heater gas lines.

Have done some other mods to the furnace involving keeping the fan
running longer.

Have verified some efficiency gains.

Very good info.

An example of the FIGURE 4 arrangement using cow magnets:

a quote....

"Alright you guys, I realize that I'm and old fart but I experimented
with magnets and carbureted engines 25 years ago. I got fantastic
results. I used a 1980 GMC 4X4. It had a 350CI with an auto trans.
Obviously not a gas saver. I hooked up a 1 quart container to the fuel
pump. I carefully measured the distance while trying to conserve fuel.
I added 1 cow magnet and increased the distance by 6 blocks. Added 2
magnets and added more distance. With 3 magnets all faced the same
direction I got an extra mile. I still don't know what
effected the gasoline but it works."

Assuming 15 mpg highway....this works out to 19 mpg ...or a 26% gain.

Cow magnets are a different type than the typical neo magnet.

.........

2 questions I have:

* wondering about any testing as far as using multiple magnets in
series and the effect of having the fuel enter and leave each flux
field and the effect of this

* I tend to use multiple magnets in series due to this testing:

http://tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/diy_magnet_use/photos/view/369a?b=4

From a patent involving a fuel oil furnace and the decreasing amount
of soot resulting from combustion.

I probably end up applying much more than 5000 gauss though....I'm
assuming the plot continues DOWN or at least levels out.

My "knowledge" is mostly limited to what I've read in the patents and
on various websites and anecdotal reports....a good way to get real
confused.

I did use magnets on both the fuel line (S) and air intake (N) with my
original testing.  Tried both ceramic and neos.



--- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, LElwell@... wrote:
>
> I use the word opposing as in opposite.  N and S are opposite and
therefore
> opposing forces.  Yes, they attract, but they are opposite and
opposing
> forces.
>
> Fuel molecules are self-affining and stick together; I use the
illustration
> of a cluster of grapes.  The ones on the outside get combusted while
the  ones
> on the inside just get singed, and are expelled as harmful emissions.
> Having the molecules "scatter" allows them to each be completely
combusted.
>
> I see the "marching soldiers" explanation frequently, but frankly
don't
> understand how it would help combustion any more than scattering.
>
> The gauss rating is only one component.  The projection of the power
  is
> another.  For example, ceramic magnets are weaker than neos, but
they  project
> farther, so if you have a large diameter pipe, ceramic can be more
effective
> than neos.
>
> As far as the statements of what type of magnet to use or the gauss
factor,
> again there are other factors.  What is the pipe/hose made of ?  A
solid
> steel pipe vs. a rubber hose?  The rigid part of a fuel line or the
  flexible part?
>
> And yes, there is a point at which the fuel (particularly diesel)
can be
> magnetized beyond its delta point and start to lose mileage rather
than gain
> mileage.
>
> Regards,
> Lou
> _www.vortexfuelsaver.com_ (http://www.vortexfuelsaver.com)
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/12/2008 5:49:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>
>
>
> Confusion. Here is what is confusing.
>
> LElwell, why do you say that  Figure 1 is opposing forces?
>
> Attracting forces are North and South  poles facing each other,
> right? See Figure 1 on magnet position.
> This  arrangement should make the gas very tightly arranged and
> orderly,  shouldn't it? See attractingmagnet.orde
>
> The South and South poles  facing each other are opposing forces.
> See Figure 2 on magnet  position.
> This arrangement should scatter the arrangement even more pushing
> the molecules away from each other. Don't you want the gas
> molecules  to look like marching soldiers as in the first statement?
>
> Statement 1  below says to use a powerful Neodymium magnet, and to
> stack them if  possible as in Figure 1.
>
> Statement 2 says to use a smaller less  powerful magnet, probably a
> ceramic magnet of 1000 to 3500 gauss, as  Neodymium magnets will
> cause a decrease in fuel mileage. Charging the gas  with like poles,
> as in South pole facing a South pole, makes the fuel  dispersal more
> efficient.
>
> Statement 3 shows a Neodymium magnet  with 13,200 gauss rating.
>
> Confusing? You betcha. What is right? More  gauss or less gauss,
> ceramic or neodymium?
> I am tending to agree that  Figure 2 is the best  arrangement.
> Steve
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Statement  1
> _http://www.bigclivehttp://www.bhtt_
(http://www.bigclive.com/magnet.htm)
> attracting  magnet.jpg
> The more powerful the magnet the better, so using a sizeable
> Neodymium Iron Boron magnet would be a much better option since
>
> it's currently one of the most powerful commercial magnetic
> materials.
> Magnetic power can be increased even further by stacking  magnets or
> seeking out the more powerful  types.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Statement  2
> _http://www.tinet.http://wwhttp://wwhtt_
> (http://www.tinet.org/~sje/mag_fuel.htm)
> In  general, the preferred range of magnetic flux density is from
> ***** 1000  to 3500 Gauss, *****
>
> and the most preferred range is from 1400 to 1800  Gauss when fuel
> oil is used in combination with conventional heat power
> boilers. The optimum range will be determined through experimental
> runs. The field strength is a function of the engine size
> based on  fuel consumption.
>
> The Ferrite magnets are the most cost effective for  treating
> fuel. When high energy Neodymium Iron Boron Magnets are
> applied, we can obtain a decrease in the fuel mileage and unburned
> hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.
>
> With a magnetic field we can  increase the internal energy of the
> fuel, to cause specific changes at a  molecular level.
>
> Increasing the internal energy to obtain more easier  combustion. The
> molecules fly apart easier, join with oxygen easier and
> ignite easier. 'Ionization' implies that the fuel acquires
> a 'charge'  and molecules of like charge repel each other, this
> makes fuel dispersal  more efficient.
>
> Then if you charge the air to the opposite polarity,  then the fuel
> and oxygen combine far quicker than 'normal'.
>
> The  resultant conditioned fuel/air mixture magnetized in
> opposite polarities  burns more completely, producing higher
> engine output, better fuel  economy, more power and most importantly
> reduces the amount of  hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and
> oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust.
>
> Another benefit if these devices is that magnetically charged fuel
> and air molecules with opposite polarities dissolve carbon
> build-up in  carburetor jets, fuel injectors, and combustion chambers
> help to clean up  the engine and maintain the clean
> condition.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Statement  3
> _http://www.magnet4shttp://www.magnehttp://www.maghttp:&cat=cat&page=p_
> (http://www.magnet4sale.com/product.php?productid=16494&cat=354&page=1)
>
> Volume  price as low as $1.84/pc
> Material: NdFeB, Grade N42
> Dimensions: 2" x  0.5" x 0.5"
> Magnetization: Through 1/2" thickness
>
> ***** Gauss:  13,200 *****
>
> Pulling Force: 50 lbs
> Plating:  Nickel-Copper-Plating:  Nickel-Copper-<WBR>Nickel t
> Details
> SKU  NB023-42NM
> Shipping Weight 0.14 lbs
> Material Neodymium
>
> Grade  N42
> Length (in.) 2.00
> Width (in.) 0.50
> Thickness (in.) 0.50
> Holding Force (lb.) 50.20
> Magnetization Through 1/2
> Coating  Ni+Cu+Ni
>
> Weight/Piece (oz.) 2.24
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find
your travel
> deal here.
> (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Well, I guess we are clear now.  Thanks.
Steve

--- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, LElwell@... wrote:
>
> I use the word opposing as in opposite.  N and S are opposite and
therefore
> opposing forces.  Yes, they attract, but they are opposite and
opposing
> forces.
>

I use the word opposing as in opposite.  N and S are opposite and  therefore
opposing forces.  Yes, they attract, but they are opposite and  opposing
forces.

Fuel molecules are self-affining and stick together; I use the illustration
of a cluster of grapes.  The ones on the outside get combusted while the  ones
on the inside just get singed, and are expelled as harmful emissions.
Having the molecules "scatter" allows them to each be completely  combusted.

I see the "marching soldiers" explanation frequently, but frankly don't
understand how it would help combustion any more than scattering.

The gauss rating is only one component.  The projection of the power  is
another.  For example, ceramic magnets are weaker than neos, but they  project
farther, so if you have a large diameter pipe, ceramic can be more  effective
than neos.

As far as the statements of what type of magnet to use or the gauss factor,
again there are other factors.  What is the pipe/hose made of ?  A  solid
steel pipe vs. a rubber hose?  The rigid part of a fuel line or the  flexible
part?

And yes, there is a point at which the fuel (particularly diesel) can be
magnetized beyond its delta point and start to lose mileage rather than gain
mileage.

Regards,
Lou
_www.vortexfuelsaver.com_ (http://www.vortexfuelsaver.com)




In a message dated 8/12/2008 5:49:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:




Confusion. Here is what is confusing.

LElwell, why do you say that  Figure 1 is opposing forces?

Attracting forces are North and South  poles facing each other,
right? See Figure 1 on magnet position.
This  arrangement should make the gas very tightly arranged and
orderly,  shouldn't it? See attractingmagnet.orde

The South and South poles  facing each other are opposing forces.
See Figure 2 on magnet  position.
This arrangement should scatter the arrangement even more pushing
the molecules away from each other. Don't you want the gas
molecules  to look like marching soldiers as in the first statement?

Statement 1  below says to use a powerful Neodymium magnet, and to
stack them if  possible as in Figure 1.

Statement 2 says to use a smaller less  powerful magnet, probably a
ceramic magnet of 1000 to 3500 gauss, as  Neodymium magnets will
cause a decrease in fuel mileage. Charging the gas  with like poles,
as in South pole facing a South pole, makes the fuel  dispersal more
efficient.

Statement 3 shows a Neodymium magnet  with 13,200 gauss rating.

Confusing? You betcha. What is right? More  gauss or less gauss,
ceramic or neodymium?
I am tending to agree that  Figure 2 is the best  arrangement.
Steve

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Statement  1
_http://www.bigclivehttp://www.bhtt_ (http://www.bigclive.com/magnet.htm)
attracting  magnet.jpg
The more powerful the magnet the better, so using a sizeable
Neodymium Iron Boron magnet would be a much better option since

it's currently one of the most powerful commercial magnetic
materials.
Magnetic power can be increased even further by stacking  magnets or
seeking out the more powerful  types.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Statement  2
_http://www.tinet.http://wwhttp://wwhtt_
(http://www.tinet.org/~sje/mag_fuel.htm)
In  general, the preferred range of magnetic flux density is from
***** 1000  to 3500 Gauss, *****

and the most preferred range is from 1400 to 1800  Gauss when fuel
oil is used in combination with conventional heat power
boilers. The optimum range will be determined through experimental
runs. The field strength is a function of the engine size
based on  fuel consumption.

The Ferrite magnets are the most cost effective for  treating
fuel. When high energy Neodymium Iron Boron Magnets are
applied, we can obtain a decrease in the fuel mileage and unburned
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.

With a magnetic field we can  increase the internal energy of the
fuel, to cause specific changes at a  molecular level.

Increasing the internal energy to obtain more easier  combustion. The
molecules fly apart easier, join with oxygen easier and
ignite easier. 'Ionization' implies that the fuel acquires
a 'charge'  and molecules of like charge repel each other, this
makes fuel dispersal  more efficient.

Then if you charge the air to the opposite polarity,  then the fuel
and oxygen combine far quicker than 'normal'.

The  resultant conditioned fuel/air mixture magnetized in
opposite polarities  burns more completely, producing higher
engine output, better fuel  economy, more power and most importantly
reduces the amount of  hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and
oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust.

Another benefit if these devices is that magnetically charged fuel
and air molecules with opposite polarities dissolve carbon
build-up in  carburetor jets, fuel injectors, and combustion chambers
help to clean up  the engine and maintain the clean
condition.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Statement  3
_http://www.magnet4shttp://www.magnehttp://www.maghttp:&cat=cat&page=p_
(http://www.magnet4sale.com/product.php?productid=16494&cat=354&page=1)

Volume  price as low as $1.84/pc
Material: NdFeB, Grade N42
Dimensions: 2" x  0.5" x 0.5"
Magnetization: Through 1/2" thickness

***** Gauss:  13,200 *****

Pulling Force: 50 lbs
Plating:  Nickel-Copper-Plating:  Nickel-Copper-<WBR>Nickel t
Details
SKU  NB023-42NM
Shipping Weight 0.14 lbs
Material Neodymium

Grade  N42
Length (in.) 2.00
Width (in.) 0.50
Thickness (in.) 0.50
Holding Force (lb.) 50.20
Magnetization Through 1/2
Coating  Ni+Cu+Ni

Weight/Piece (oz.) 2.24

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++







**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Confusion.  Here is what is confusing.

LElwell, why do you say that Figure 1 is opposing forces?

Attracting forces are North and South poles facing each other,
right?  See Figure 1 on magnet position.
This arrangement should make the gas very tightly arranged and
orderly, shouldn't it?  See attractingmagnet.jpg.

The South and South poles facing each other are opposing forces.
See Figure 2 on magnet position.
This arrangement should scatter the arrangement even more pushing
the molecules away from each other.  Don't you want the gas
molecules to look like marching soldiers as in the first statement?

Statement 1 below says to use a powerful Neodymium magnet, and to
stack them if possible as in Figure 1.

Statement 2 says to use a smaller less powerful magnet, probably a
ceramic magnet of 1000 to 3500 gauss, as Neodymium magnets will
cause a decrease in fuel mileage.  Charging the gas with like poles,
as in South pole facing a South pole, makes the fuel dispersal more
efficient.

Statement 3 shows a Neodymium magnet with 13,200 gauss rating.

Confusing?  You betcha.  What is right?  More gauss or less gauss,
ceramic or neodymium?
I am tending to agree that Figure 2 is the best arrangement.
Steve

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Statement 1
http://www.bigclive.com/magnet.htm
attracting magnet.jpg
The more powerful the magnet the better, so using a sizeable
Neodymium Iron Boron magnet would be a much better option since

it's currently one of the most powerful commercial magnetic
materials.
Magnetic power can be increased even further by stacking magnets or
seeking out the more powerful types.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Statement 2
http://www.tinet.org/~sje/mag_fuel.htm
In general, the preferred range of magnetic flux density is from
***** 1000 to 3500 Gauss, *****

and the most preferred range is from 1400 to 1800 Gauss when fuel
oil is used in combination with conventional heat power
boilers. The optimum range will be determined through experimental
runs.  The field strength is a function of the engine size
based on fuel consumption.

     The Ferrite magnets are the most cost effective for treating
fuel. When high energy Neodymium Iron Boron Magnets are
applied, we can obtain a decrease in the fuel mileage and unburned
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.

With a magnetic field we can increase the internal energy of the
fuel, to cause specific changes at a molecular level.

Increasing the internal energy to obtain more easier combustion. The
molecules fly apart easier, join with oxygen easier and
ignite easier. 'Ionization' implies that the fuel acquires
a 'charge' and molecules of like charge repel each other, this
makes fuel dispersal more efficient.

Then if you charge the air to the opposite polarity, then the fuel
and oxygen combine far quicker than 'normal'.

     The resultant conditioned fuel/air mixture magnetized in
opposite polarities burns more completely, producing higher
engine output, better fuel economy, more power and most importantly
reduces the amount of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and
oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust.

Another benefit if these devices is that magnetically charged fuel
and air molecules with opposite polarities dissolve carbon
build-up in carburetor jets, fuel injectors, and combustion chambers
help to clean up the engine and maintain the clean
condition.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Statement 3
http://www.magnet4sale.com/product.php?productid=16494&cat=354&page=1

Volume price as low as $1.84/pc
Material: NdFeB, Grade N42
Dimensions: 2" x 0.5" x 0.5"
Magnetization: Through 1/2" thickness

***** Gauss: 13,200 *****

Pulling Force: 50 lbs
Plating: Nickel-Copper-Nickel triple-layer, the best available
Details
SKU NB023-42NM
Shipping Weight 0.14 lbs
Material Neodymium

Grade N42
Length (in.) 2.00
Width (in.) 0.50
Thickness (in.) 0.50
Holding Force (lb.) 50.20
Magnetization Through 1/2
Coating Ni+Cu+Ni

Weight/Piece (oz.) 2.24

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1.  If the fuel positive, the air must be negative.

2.  Older cars that are carboned up and running inefficiently get  higher
apparent savings.  If a car is supposed to get 20 MPG, but is only  getting 15
MPG due to carbon buildup, and goes to 25 MPG, did it get a 10 MPG  increase or
a 5 MPG increase?  I can agree with either number, but for the  customer
getting 15 and going to 25, the effect on their wallet is a 10 MPG  increase. 
So,
the highest reported savings was a car that was so carboned  up it failed its
emissions testing.  With a Vortex Fuel Saver on, it passed  the emissions test
(without even getting a new air filter or oil change), and  showed weekly
improvement in emissions reduction and mileage increase for at  least 6 or 7
weeks.

For brand new cars off the dealer's lot, the expected savings would be more
like 20%.

3.  Anyone can contact me personally at any time.  At present,  the system is
sold in the US, Canada, Mexico and Australia.

Regards,
Lou


In a message dated 8/12/2008 12:28:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
paolo_sassetti@... writes:




--- In _diy_magnet_use@diy_magnet_udiy_
(mailto:diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com) ,  LElwell@... wrote:
>
> Thank you for the compliment on our EPA/FTC  rebuttal article.
>
> As to your questions, our chief scientist  has over 28 years
experience with
> magnetic fuel savings devices  and is one of the world's foremost
experts on
> monopole, or more  accurately, homopole, magnetic force fields (for
which Vortex
>  Fluid Optimizer Corp. holds the patents), so maybe he is
predisposed to
> preferring applications that use the same polarity rather than
opposing
> polarities. As he likes to say, "If you want hot water,  why add
cold?"
>
> I can tell you that the Vortex Fuel Saver  is designed like figure 2
and we
> have tens of thousands of  installations, around the world, over a
period of
> years, on  carburetor and fuel injection engines, in a variety of
engines used
> for myriad purposes from irrigation pumps and generators, to cars
and trucks
> (including heavy duty, and diesel), home heating  (including oil,
propane and
> natural gas), buses, construction and  farm equipment, railroad
locomotives,
> boats, and industrial  process equipment. I have not personally
tested all the
> other  configurations, though our technical people may have.
>
>  Furthermore, I can tell you again that energizing the fuel without
>  energizing the air is like building one-half of a bridge; it
doesn't get  you very far.
> While almost all of our competitors focus on the fuel  line,
without doing
> the air, particularly on fuel injection  engines, will not get you
anything
> close to the maximum savings.  To be effective energizing the air,
it must be
> the _opposite_  charge of the fuel.

In other words, if fuel is South, air must be  North. Is it right?

I have found another application which SHOULD be  similar to this
principle:

_http://www.moletechhttp://www_ (http://www.moletech.us/mtech/)

BUT  they say the do not use magnets but a ceramic component which
SHOULD emit  infrared rays.

I can not say anything about the theoretical  principle.

>With figure 1, there is no opposite charge
>  possible, so I don't believe that will do anything more than
atomize the
> fuel, which will only have a minor benefit.
>
> We  average around 20% savings in our auto/light truck applications,
with one
> independent laboratory reporting a 26% savings and individual
users
> reporting as high as 80% savings.

May I ask you  under which conditions he was able to reach such a huge
results?

I  will contact you privately for commercial  information.

Thanx

Paolo

>
> I have met the  patent holder for figure 3, who admitted that he was
trying
> to  get around the monopole patents that we have. It will put a
monopole
> charge in the fuel, but at a far lower power than figure 2.
Figure 4 is similar
> to figure 3, except that the two extra  magnets are wasted and
without an
> opposing magnet (or at least a  back plate) to draw the power
through the fuel
> line, as opposed  to _along_ the fuel line), should produce even
lower results.
>
> Installing the magnets inside the fuel line, besides being
dangerous, time
> consuming and more expensive, will likely put  both a positive and
negative
> charge into the fuel, which is not  desirable. I can't speak for
all inside the
> fuel line  applications, so maybe there is something out there that
can put a
> monopole charge in the fuel from inside the fuel line, but I
haven't seen it.
>
> Hope that answers your questions  adequately.
>
> Regards,
> Lou







**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017
)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, LElwell@... wrote:
>
> Thank you for the compliment on our EPA/FTC rebuttal article.
>
> As to your questions, our chief scientist has over 28 years
experience with
> magnetic fuel savings devices and is one of the world's foremost
experts on
> monopole, or more accurately, homopole, magnetic force fields (for
which Vortex
>  Fluid Optimizer Corp. holds the patents), so maybe he is
predisposed to
> preferring applications that use the same polarity rather than
opposing
> polarities.  As he likes to say, "If you want hot water, why add
cold?"
>
> I can tell you that the Vortex Fuel Saver is designed like figure 2
and we
> have tens of thousands of installations, around the world, over a
period of
> years, on carburetor and fuel injection engines, in a variety of
engines used
> for myriad purposes from irrigation pumps and generators, to cars
and trucks
> (including heavy duty, and diesel), home heating (including oil,
propane and
> natural gas), buses, construction and farm equipment, railroad
locomotives,
> boats, and industrial process equipment.  I have not personally
tested all the
> other configurations, though our technical people may have.
>
> Furthermore, I can tell you again that energizing the fuel without
> energizing the air is like building one-half of a bridge; it
doesn't get you  very far.
>  While almost all of our competitors focus on the fuel line,
without doing
> the air, particularly on fuel injection engines, will not get you
anything
> close to the maximum savings.  To be effective energizing the air,
it must be
> the _opposite_ charge of the fuel.

In other words, if fuel is South, air must be North. Is it right?

I have found another application which SHOULD be similar to this
principle:

http://www.moletech.us/mtech/

BUT they say the do not use magnets but a ceramic component which
SHOULD emit infrared rays.

I can not say anything about the theoretical principle.

>With figure 1, there is no  opposite charge
> possible, so I don't believe that will do anything more than
atomize the
> fuel, which will only have a minor benefit.
>
> We average around 20% savings in our auto/light truck applications,
with  one
> independent laboratory reporting a 26% savings and individual
users
> reporting as high as 80% savings.

May I ask you under which conditions he was able to reach such a huge
results?

I will contact you privately for commercial information.

Thanx

Paolo

>
> I have met the patent holder for figure 3, who admitted that he was
trying
> to get around the monopole patents that we have.  It will put a
monopole
> charge in the fuel, but at a far lower power than figure 2.
Figure 4 is similar
> to figure 3, except that the two extra magnets are wasted  and
without an
> opposing magnet (or at least a back plate) to draw the power
through the fuel
> line, as opposed to _along_ the fuel line), should produce even
lower results.
>
> Installing the magnets inside the fuel line, besides being
dangerous, time
> consuming and more expensive, will likely put both a positive and
negative
> charge into the fuel, which is not desirable.  I can't speak for
all inside  the
> fuel line applications, so maybe there is something out there that
can put a
> monopole charge in the fuel from inside the fuel line, but I
haven't seen  it.
>
> Hope that answers your questions adequately.
>
> Regards,
> Lou

Thank you for the compliment on our EPA/FTC rebuttal article.

As to your questions, our chief scientist has over 28 years experience with
magnetic fuel savings devices and is one of the world's foremost experts on
monopole, or more accurately, homopole, magnetic force fields (for which Vortex
  Fluid Optimizer Corp. holds the patents), so maybe he is predisposed to
preferring applications that use the same polarity rather than opposing
polarities.  As he likes to say, "If you want hot water, why add  cold?"

I can tell you that the Vortex Fuel Saver is designed like figure 2 and we
have tens of thousands of installations, around the world, over a period of
years, on carburetor and fuel injection engines, in a variety of engines used
for myriad purposes from irrigation pumps and generators, to cars and trucks
(including heavy duty, and diesel), home heating (including oil, propane and
natural gas), buses, construction and farm equipment, railroad locomotives,
boats, and industrial process equipment.  I have not personally  tested all the
other configurations, though our technical people may have.

Furthermore, I can tell you again that energizing the fuel without
energizing the air is like building one-half of a bridge; it doesn't get you 
very far.
  While almost all of our competitors focus on the fuel line,  without doing
the air, particularly on fuel injection engines, will not get you  anything
close to the maximum savings.  To be effective energizing the air,  it must be
the _opposite_ charge of the fuel.  With figure 1, there is no  opposite charge
possible, so I don't believe that will do anything more than  atomize the
fuel, which will only have a minor benefit.

We average around 20% savings in our auto/light truck applications, with  one
independent laboratory reporting a 26% savings and individual users
reporting as high as 80% savings.

I have met the patent holder for figure 3, who admitted that he was trying
to get around the monopole patents that we have.  It will put a monopole
charge in the fuel, but at a far lower power than figure 2.     Figure 4 is
similar
to figure 3, except that the two extra magnets are wasted  and without an
opposing magnet (or at least a back plate) to draw the power  through the fuel
line, as opposed to _along_ the fuel line), should produce even  lower results.

Installing the magnets inside the fuel line, besides being dangerous, time
consuming and more expensive, will likely put both a positive and negative
charge into the fuel, which is not desirable.  I can't speak for all inside  the
fuel line applications, so maybe there is something out there that can put a
monopole charge in the fuel from inside the fuel line, but I haven't seen  it.

Hope that answers your questions adequately.

Regards,
Lou





In a message dated 8/12/2008 4:01:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
paolo_sassetti@... writes:




Lou,

I believe that you a very clever person, after reading  this

_http://vortexfuelsahttp://vortexhttp://_
(http://vortexfuelsaver.com/page_27.html)

writing  of yours. After many readings and investigations I had come
to the same  conclusion about EPA.

But, here , the question is: do you say that  solution 2 is the the
right one because it is the more logical or because  you tested all
the alternative?

And in this case you apply the  magnets out of the fuel pipe. What
shoud be the positioning in fuel savers  which are installed inside
the fuel pipe?

Thanx, Paolo

>  Figure 2 is the correct one.
>
> Figures 1 makes no sense at all.  Why would you want opposing
forces?
>
> Figures 3 and 4  could possibly work (though the extra two magnets
in figure
> 4 are  worthless), at least on a carburetor engine, but you don't
have a
>  directional arrow on the fuel line. Going left would get better
results  than
> going right.
>
> Regards,
> Lou
>  www.vortexfuelsaver
>
>
> In a message dated  8/10/2008 2:06:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> _no_reply@yahoogroupno_re_ (mailto:no_reply@yahoogroups.com)   writes:
>
>
>
>
> I have added a graphic in  the Photos section on this topic.
> I have seen recommendations for all  positions. Which figure is the
> best way? See Magnet Position  folder.
>
>
__http://tech.http://tech.<WBhttp://techttp://techttp://techhttp://tech_
(http://tech.http//techttp://techttp://techttp://techhttp://tech.http)
:_
>
(_http://tech.http://techttp://techttp://techttp://techhttp://tech.http_
(http://tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/diy_magnet_use/photos/view/ebc2)
?)
> b=1
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ************ ************<WBR>**Looking for a  car that's sporty, fun
budget?
> Read reviews on  AOL Autos.
> (_http://autos.http://autos.http://autos.http://autos._
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?)
ncid=aolaut00050000ncid=aolaut0
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]
>







**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017
)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steve, you mention some readings you have read.

Are they available in the Internet?

Regards,

Paolo

> I made this graphic to help clear up any confusion by referring to
> the different positions of the magnets.
> These are my opinions only, and could be wrong.
>
> Figure 1 shows attracting forces, N and S attract. I have seen an
> illustration that shows that this aligns the gas ions by the
> attracting force of the magnets passing through the gas.
>
> Figure 2 shows opposing or repelling forces, like ends repel.  IMO
> this should push the gas ions away from each other making them more
> scattered.
>
> Figure 3 is similar to Figure 2 with opposing forces.
>
> Figure 4.  I have read that 3 magnets arranged like this give
> greater gauss power to the gas than just one or two magnets.  More
> than 3 is a waste.
>
> Am I off base?  I will find and post that illustration for Fig 1.
> Steve
>
>
>
> --- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, LElwell@ wrote:
> >
> > Figure 2 is the correct one.
> >
> > Figures 1 makes no sense at all.  Why would you want opposing
> forces?
> >
> > Figures 3  and 4 could possibly work (though the extra two
magnets
> in  figure
> > 4 are worthless), at least on a carburetor engine, but you don't
> have a
> > directional arrow on the fuel line.  Going left would get better
> results  than
> > going right.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lou
> > www.vortexfuelsaver.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 8/10/2008 2:06:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> > no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have added a graphic in the Photos section on this topic.
> > I have seen  recommendations for all positions. Which figure is
> the
> > best way? See  Magnet Position folder.
> >
> >
>
_http://tech.http://techttp://techttp://techttp://techhttp://tech.htt
> p:_
> >
>
(http://tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/diy_magnet_use/photos/view/ebc
> 2?)
> > b=1
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in
> your budget?
> > Read reviews on AOL Autos.
> > (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?
> ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Lou,

I believe that you a very clever person, after reading this

http://vortexfuelsaver.com/page_27.html

writing of yours. After many readings and investigations I had come
to the same conclusion about EPA.

But, here , the question is: do you say that solution 2 is the the
right one because it is the more logical or because you tested all
the alternative?

And in this case you apply the magnets out of the fuel pipe. What
shoud be the positioning in fuel savers which are installed inside
the fuel pipe?

Thanx, Paolo



> Figure 2 is the correct one.
>
> Figures 1 makes no sense at all.  Why would you want opposing
forces?
>
> Figures 3  and 4 could possibly work (though the extra two magnets
in  figure
> 4 are worthless), at least on a carburetor engine, but you don't
have a
> directional arrow on the fuel line.  Going left would get better
results  than
> going right.
>
> Regards,
> Lou
> www.vortexfuelsaver.com
>
>
> In a message dated 8/10/2008 2:06:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>
>
>
> I have added a graphic in the Photos section on this topic.
> I have seen  recommendations for all positions. Which figure is the
> best way? See  Magnet Position folder.
>
>
_http://tech.http://techttp://techttp://techttp://techhttp://tech.http
:_
>
(http://tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/diy_magnet_use/photos/view/ebc2
?)
> b=1
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your
budget?
> Read reviews on AOL Autos.
> (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?
ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I made this graphic to help clear up any confusion by referring to
the different positions of the magnets.
These are my opinions only, and could be wrong.

Figure 1 shows attracting forces, N and S attract. I have seen an
illustration that shows that this aligns the gas ions by the
attracting force of the magnets passing through the gas.

Figure 2 shows opposing or repelling forces, like ends repel.  IMO
this should push the gas ions away from each other making them more
scattered.

Figure 3 is similar to Figure 2 with opposing forces.

Figure 4.  I have read that 3 magnets arranged like this give
greater gauss power to the gas than just one or two magnets.  More
than 3 is a waste.

Am I off base?  I will find and post that illustration for Fig 1.
Steve



--- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, LElwell@... wrote:
>
> Figure 2 is the correct one.
>
> Figures 1 makes no sense at all.  Why would you want opposing
forces?
>
> Figures 3  and 4 could possibly work (though the extra two magnets
in  figure
> 4 are worthless), at least on a carburetor engine, but you don't
have a
> directional arrow on the fuel line.  Going left would get better
results  than
> going right.
>
> Regards,
> Lou
> www.vortexfuelsaver.com
>
>
> In a message dated 8/10/2008 2:06:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>
>
>
> I have added a graphic in the Photos section on this topic.
> I have seen  recommendations for all positions. Which figure is
the
> best way? See  Magnet Position folder.
>
>
_http://tech.http://techttp://techttp://techttp://techhttp://tech.htt
p:_
>
(http://tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/diy_magnet_use/photos/view/ebc
2?)
> b=1
>
> Thanks,
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in
your budget?
> Read reviews on AOL Autos.
> (http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?
ncid=aolaut00050000000017 )
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Figure 2 is the correct one.

Figures 1 makes no sense at all.  Why would you want opposing  forces?

Figures 3  and 4 could possibly work (though the extra two magnets in  figure
4 are worthless), at least on a carburetor engine, but you don't have a
directional arrow on the fuel line.  Going left would get better results  than
going right.

Regards,
Lou
www.vortexfuelsaver.com


In a message dated 8/10/2008 2:06:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:




I have added a graphic in the Photos section on this topic.
I have seen  recommendations for all positions. Which figure is the
best way? See  Magnet Position folder.

_http://tech.http://techttp://techttp://techttp://techhttp://tech.http:_
(http://tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/diy_magnet_use/photos/view/ebc2?)
b=1

Thanks,
Steve







**************Looking for a car that's sporty, fun and fits in your budget?
Read reviews on AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/cars-BMW-128-2008/expert-review?ncid=aolaut00050000000017
)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have added a graphic in the Photos section on this topic.
I have seen recommendations for all positions.  Which figure is the
best way?  See Magnet Position folder.

http://tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/diy_magnet_use/photos/view/ebc2?
b=1

Thanks,
Steve

File        : The REAL EASY button - revised.doc
Description : most recent update

The same pole facing each other.  Or as we like to say, if you want  hot
water, why add cold?  We use two sets of two magnets with a backing  _and side_
plate, for a total of 4 magnets and two plates.

Regards,
Lou


In a message dated 7/20/2008 4:55:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:

So are  you recommending opposite poles facing or similar poles?

I've seen  both types of orientation in the patents. And some with 3
or 4 magnets  around the fuel line with a metal backing  plate/holder.






**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, LElwell@... wrote:
>
> The backing plate is better than nothing, but a lot of the magnetic
force  is
> still escaping off to the sides -- which can interfere with engine
sensors.
> I frequently give a demonstration by having someone pull a magnet
off a
> metal plate -- it is very easy.  However, when you place additional
  metal plates
> on both sides (leaving only one direction uncovered by the metal
plates), it
> is impossible for almost all to be able to pull the magnet directly
  off the
> plate -- don't cheat by sliding!
>
> Putting a plate on the other side of the of the fuel line does help
  draw the
> power through the fuel line, as opposed to having the magnetic
force move
> laterally along the fuel line, and increase the power.  Say  magnet
by itself is
> 1X, and magnet with an opposing plate is now 1.5X.
>
> However, if you oppose two 1X magnets, the power is now about  5X.
Not being
> scientific here, as power can be measured at  multiple points with
different
> results, just illustrative.
>
> Regards,
> Lou
>
>


So are you recommending opposite poles facing or similar poles?

I've seen both types of orientation in the patents.  And some with 3
or 4 magnets around the fuel line with a metal backing plate/holder.

This is a 1.5 L Toyota with feedback carb and no functioning O2.

I'm testing iso with an EFI/O2 type engine now...but it might work
best with carbed vehicles.

Currently testing ~10 oz acetone per 10 gallons (+ top oil) in the 1.5L.

Will eventually test the same amount of iso.

Have tested an HHO generator.

I see about the same 10-11% gain using iso or HHO or iso and HHO.




--- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, LElwell@... wrote:
>
> You didn't mention what type of vehicle this is, however, when
changing the
> fuel (or air for that matter), especially for newer cars with on board
> computers, it is a good idea to reset the car's computer as they
tend to "hang"  at
> the same air/fuel ratio.
>
> You can reset the easy way with a OBD computer reader, or without
equipment
> disconnect the battery long enough (couple of minutes) for the
electrons to
> drain, though this way you may have to reset the car's clock, or in
some cases
> the radio as well.
>
> Regards,
> Lou
>
>

If you are interested in using magnets for health purposes, I strongly
recommend the web site:

_www.biomagscience.com_ (http://www.biomagscience.com)

Regards,
Lou


In a message dated 7/1/2008 12:39:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
johnsohn63@... writes:




In my reserch for Albert Roy Davis.He menetioned and in his books too.
That the SOUTH mamagntoc pole sould stilulate a heart beat and the
NORTH magnetic pole decreses heart beat rates anyone do any research on
this? Remeber too Jly 10th is the birth ann. of the great Nikola  Tesla
(1856-1943) and Glbal Energy Independence Day ! Thanks!Dr. Edson  Andre'
Johnson D.D.ILC. Huntington Beach, Calif.







**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars.     
(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In my reserch for Albert Roy Davis.He menetioned and in his books too.
That the SOUTH mamagntoc pole sould stilulate a heart beat and the
NORTH magnetic pole decreses heart beat rates anyone do any research on
this? Remeber too Jly 10th is the birth ann. of the great Nikola Tesla
(1856-1943) and Glbal Energy Independence Day ! Thanks!Dr. Edson Andre'
Johnson D.D.ILC. Huntington Beach, Calif.

File        : The REAL EASY button - revised.doc
Description : most recent update

>
> How do you compensate for the oxygen sensor when we make changes?
>


There are 3 methods I know of to do this in order of expense...can't say about
effectiveness:


1)  wrap the O2 in alum foil

2)  use an spark plug extender to place the O2 out of the exhaust stream

3)  use an EFIE

You should read some of the files and look at the photos?


--- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, contacteeconnector <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen a noticeable increase in their mpg by placing more
> than one rare earth neodium (spelling?) magnet on the fuel line?  I
> understand some put as many as 3 magnets side by side on the line to
> get an increase.
>
> Any comments appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil
>

The backing plate is better than nothing, but a lot of the magnetic force  is
still escaping off to the sides -- which can interfere with engine  sensors.
I frequently give a demonstration by having someone pull a magnet  off a
metal plate -- it is very easy.  However, when you place additional  metal
plates
on both sides (leaving only one direction uncovered by the metal  plates), it
is impossible for almost all to be able to pull the magnet directly  off the
plate -- don't cheat by sliding!

Putting a plate on the other side of the of the fuel line does help  draw the
power through the fuel line, as opposed to having the magnetic  force move
laterally along the fuel line, and increase the power.  Say  magnet by itself is
1X, and magnet with an opposing plate is now 1.5X.

However, if you oppose two 1X magnets, the power is now about  5X.  Not being
scientific here, as power can be measured at  multiple points with different
results, just illustrative.

Regards,
Lou


In a message dated 6/26/2008 4:14:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:




I always use an iron backing plate which focuses the flux towards  the
fuel line. One patent uses a focus rod on the other side of the  line
from the magnet to apparently bring the flux field farther over.
Another uses a steel sheet metal cover which was supposed to  help
contain the flux.

--- In _diy_magnet_use@diy_magnet_udiy_
(mailto:diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com) ,  LElwell@... wrote:
>
> It is best to use a Monopole Technique  magnet, which is one that
negates the
> one polarity while focusing  the energy to the other polarity. If
you want
> hot water, why add  cold? This way you have essentially all of the
desired
> magnetic  force field going into the fuel over a wider band of coverage.
>
> Regards,
> Lou
>
>
> In a message dated  5/26/2008 11:01:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>  paolo_sassetti@  paolo_
>
>
>
>
>  Hi, all,
>
> I have found this interesting NG.
>
>  I have been studying the influence of magnets on engine combustions
for
> some years and recently I have started some tests on trucks, with
> interesting empirical results. I have been engaged more in  consumption
> measurement methodology, so far.
>
> I have  a technical question.
>
> If you install a magnetic fuel saver on  the fuel line is there a
> recommended orientation for the  magnets?
>
> In other words, the which pole should be closer to  the engine
> (South/North) and which one to the tank?
>
>  Thank you,
>
> Paolo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ************ ************<WBR>**Gas prices getting you down?  Sea
> fuel-efficient used cars.
(_http://autos.http://autos.http://autos.<WBhttp://au_
(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) )
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]
>







**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars.     
(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You didn't mention what type of vehicle this is, however, when changing the
fuel (or air for that matter), especially for newer cars with on board
computers, it is a good idea to reset the car's computer as they tend to "hang" 
at
the same air/fuel ratio.

You can reset the easy way with a OBD computer reader, or without equipment
disconnect the battery long enough (couple of minutes) for the electrons to
drain, though this way you may have to reset the car's clock, or in some cases
the radio as well.

Regards,
Lou



In a message dated 6/26/2008 4:10:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
no_reply@yahoogroups.com writes:




Don't have the MSDS for Heet products...but I believe Iso-HEET is
isopropylene and a lubricating oil.

While HEET is methanol...methyl  alcohol...with maybe some oil?

This link shows the  difference:

_http://www.goldeaglhttp://www.http://www.http://www_
(http://www.goldeagle.com/heet/year_round_usages.htm)

Looks  like Iso-HEET can be used in 2 cycle and diesel engines. So the same
mpg gains  might be seen with these type engines.

I'm using a 5 to 1 mix of 91%  iso rubbing alcohol to MMoil in a carbed
engine....at a rate of approx 2.3 oz  of this mix per 10 gallons...where they
recommend 5 oz per 10 gallons of their  "mix".

I can buy 32 oz of 91% iso at Walmart for the same price as 12  oz of
Iso-HEET...though it does contain 9% water and I have to add a top  oil...and it
needs to be SHAKEN before adding to the gas.

The mix I'm  using costs around $.30 per 10 gallons to use.

Might be that using 4-5  oz per 10 gallons might show even better mpg
gains...but it would also cost  more. I tried a tank of 4-5 oz mix and saw more
power
but less mpg....you do  need to drive reasonably easy to see the gains.

If you use the 91% iso  with a fuel injected engine...be SURE to add more top
oil...maybe 2 oz per 10  gallons of MMoil or a good 2 cycle oil? Shake first.

Last tank I got a  6-7% gain...but was seeing headwinds and so forth...so I'm
thinking a  consistent 10% gain in good summer weather.

--- In _diy_magnet_use@diy_magnet_udiy_
(mailto:diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com) ,  contacteeconnector <no_reply@..n>
wrote:
>
> A guy told  me a couple of years ago that Heet is all he uses to get
> better  mileage. I put a bottle in my last tank and am try a couple of
>  bottles, 2 tanks in a row and see if it helps.
>
> Have you  increased your mileage using Heet alone? I understand it
> dries up all  the water that comes with each new tank of gas.
>
>  Thanks,
>
> Phil
>







**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars.     
(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I always use an iron backing plate which focuses the flux towards the
fuel line.  One patent uses a focus rod on the other side of the line
from the magnet to apparently bring the flux field farther over.
Another uses a steel sheet metal cover which was supposed to help
contain the flux.

--- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, LElwell@... wrote:
>
> It is best to use a Monopole Technique magnet, which is one that
negates  the
> one polarity while focusing the energy to the other polarity.  If
you  want
> hot water, why add cold?  This way you have essentially all of the
desired
> magnetic force field going into the fuel over a wider band of  coverage.
>
> Regards,
> Lou
>
>
> In a message dated 5/26/2008 11:01:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> paolo_sassetti@... writes:
>
>
>
>
> Hi, all,
>
> I have found this interesting NG.
>
> I have been  studying the influence of magnets on engine combustions
for
> some years and  recently I have started some tests on trucks, with
> interesting empirical  results. I have been engaged more in consumption
> measurement methodology,  so far.
>
> I have a technical question.
>
> If you install a magnetic  fuel saver on the fuel line is there a
> recommended orientation for the  magnets?
>
> In other words, the which pole should be closer to the engine
> (South/North) and which one to the tank?
>
> Thank  you,
>
> Paolo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
> fuel-efficient used cars.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Don't have the MSDS for Heet products...but I believe Iso-HEET is isopropylene
and a lubricating oil.

While HEET is methanol...methyl alcohol...with maybe some oil?

This link shows the difference:

http://www.goldeagle.com/heet/year_round_usages.htm

Looks like Iso-HEET can be used in 2 cycle and diesel engines.  So the same mpg
gains might be seen with these type engines.

I'm using a 5 to 1 mix of 91% iso rubbing alcohol to MMoil in a carbed
engine....at a rate of approx 2.3 oz of this mix per 10 gallons...where they
recommend 5 oz per 10 gallons of their "mix".

I can buy 32 oz of 91% iso at Walmart for the same price as 12 oz of
Iso-HEET...though it does contain 9% water and I have to add a top oil...and it
needs to be SHAKEN before adding to the gas.

The mix I'm using costs around $.30 per 10 gallons to use.

Might be that using 4-5 oz per 10 gallons might show even better mpg gains...but
it would also cost more.  I tried a tank of 4-5 oz mix and saw more power but
less mpg....you do need to drive reasonably easy to see the gains.

If you use the 91% iso with a fuel injected engine...be SURE to add more top
oil...maybe 2 oz per 10 gallons of MMoil or a good 2 cycle oil?  Shake first.

Last tank I got a 6-7% gain...but was seeing headwinds and so forth...so I'm
thinking a consistent 10% gain in good summer weather.


--- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, contacteeconnector <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> A guy told me a couple of years ago that Heet is all he uses to get
> better mileage.  I put a bottle in my last tank and am try a couple of
> bottles, 2 tanks in a row and see if it helps.
>
> Have you increased your mileage using Heet alone?  I understand it
> dries up all the water that comes with each new tank of gas.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil
>

It is best to use a Monopole Technique magnet, which is one that negates  the
one polarity while focusing the energy to the other polarity.  If you  want
hot water, why add cold?  This way you have essentially all of the  desired
magnetic force field going into the fuel over a wider band of  coverage.

Regards,
Lou


In a message dated 5/26/2008 11:01:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
paolo_sassetti@... writes:




Hi, all,

I have found this interesting NG.

I have been  studying the influence of magnets on engine combustions for
some years and  recently I have started some tests on trucks, with
interesting empirical  results. I have been engaged more in consumption
measurement methodology,  so far.

I have a technical question.

If you install a magnetic  fuel saver on the fuel line is there a
recommended orientation for the  magnets?

In other words, the which pole should be closer to the engine
(South/North) and which one to the tank?

Thank  you,

Paolo







**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for
fuel-efficient used cars.     
(http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Has anyone seen a noticeable increase in their mpg by placing more
than one rare earth neodium (spelling?) magnet on the fuel line?  I
understand some put as many as 3 magnets side by side on the line to
get an increase.

Any comments appreciated.

Thanks,

Phil

A guy told me a couple of years ago that Heet is all he uses to get
better mileage.  I put a bottle in my last tank and am try a couple of
bottles, 2 tanks in a row and see if it helps.

Have you increased your mileage using Heet alone?  I understand it
dries up all the water that comes with each new tank of gas.

Thanks,

Phil

--- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, nozgzi <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Last tank I saw a 10% gain using a 5 to 1 ratio of Walmart 91% iso to
> 1 part MMoil (Marvel Mystery Oil).
>
> This = 2.3 oz of this mix to each 10 gallons....3 oz to a full 13 G
tank.
>
> I use the 91 % iso because it is cheaper than Heet. When put together
> they will separate...so you need to shake the bottle before use.
>
> If running an electric fuel pump I'd change the ratio to maybe 3 oz
> iso to 2 oz MMoil. Or around 4 oz of this mix per each 10 gallons.
>
> Previous tests using acetone did not increase mpg with this carbed
> gasoline 1.5L car.
>

--- In diy_magnet_use@yahoogroups.com, nozgzi <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Interesting that you saw gains from just putting the magnets in the
> tanks...and that the neos did a little better.
>

Yes, frankly I have created a product on this concept, but I am not
here for adverting ...

The magnets were not alone: I also put some disks made of an alloy
based mainly on tin ...

I am going to do new experiments.

Suggestions on possible experiments are welcome.

Regards,

Paolo