On Jan 30, 5:17�pm, Ian Malcolm
wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message
.. .

All good points. *In addition the US government would surely have
discovered these magical powers by now and specified them for use on
the extensive fleet of military diesels. *This has not happened.

Meanwhile, the people who have shelled out their hard earned cash for
these gadgets have an emotional commitment to believing that they
spent the money wisely. *It's the placebo effect.

The History Channel's "Modern Marvels" recently aired a show on magnetic
forces.
In it, the properties of diamagnetic materials (usually considered
"non-magnetic" and of organic origins) were demonstrated.

Although very weak, they do have magnetic properties, when subjected to a
custom, multi-million *dollar, cryogenically cooled, high powered "super
magnet" with a *field density of a million times that of the earth's.

So, although the physics may have a remote link to accuracy, I rather doubt
a passive device the size of a salt shaker and available on the Internet
would have any measurable effect.

Eisboch

In all that gabble about ortho and para hydrogen did anyone mention they
are nuclear spin isomers of a H2 molecule? *Para-hydrogen has the spins
in opposite directions, Ortho-hydrogen has the spins in the same
direction. *However Diesel and Gasolene dont contain free Hydrogen
molecules! *It is possible for certain hydrocarbon molecules to have
different spin isomers, but the bigger the molecule, the more readily it
can 'flop' from one state to another and the more similar are the
physical and chemical properties of the many different states. *In any
case, the effects cannot persist for long outside the extremely strong
magnetic field required to noticably influence nuclear spin. By the time
the fuel has left the device, any possible effect is OVER. For a quick
sanity check on the claims, look at the miniscule side effects to the
patient of NMR imaging, in which an intense magnetic field is used to
align the spin of a proportion of the atoms in the patient so their
distribution and element can be determined. *If *any* of the claimed
long term effects on diesel bacteria were true, either *every* patient
would be given NMR treatment instead of antibiotics or NMR would only be
useful for autopsies as it would kill all the patients.

If Chuck wants to perform a useful service, he should perform a
double-blind trial. *He will need a twin engine boat with advanced *fuel
system and engine monitoring. *Ideally the engines would be new,
otherwise they should be the same age and hours and recently serviced.
He will also need two of the 'magnetic devices', some fuel line, 4
bulkhead fittings, 2 identical opaque enclosures large enough to house
the devices and some tamper-proof warrenty labels. *Each enclosure
should be assembled with two bulkhead fittings and a device mounted
inside it. The external appearance *must* be identical. *In one of them
the device should be connected to the fittings, in the other the same
length of fuel line should be used to conect the two fittings bypassing
the device. *Have a *stranger shuffle the two boxes while you are out of
the room and then return and seal the two boxes with the warrenty seals
and label them A and B. *Have boxes A and B fitted in identical sections
of the fuel lines to the port and starboard engines and run the boat
next season. Keep detailed signed records of fuel consumption and all
engine performance data available and which box is on which engine. *At
every service interval, swap boxes A & B. * When you lay the boat up for
the winter, get a witness and open the boxes to determine which of A & B
was the dummy and which was 'active'. *Post the raw results and give us
a link here. *Write an article for the magazine.

I would expect any *genuine* fuel conditioning device manufacturer
(filtration, additives or whatever) to co-operate with a proper double
blind trial conduted by a boating magazine , even to the extent of
providing the two devices free. *I doubt the magnetic widget suppliers
will even let chuck buy a pair if he lets slip he wants to do proper
tests on them. *If Chuck is willing to attempt the trial but finds the
manufacturer un-cooperative, we must assume the devices are pure snake oil.

--
Ian Malcolm. * London, ENGLAND. *(NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED)
ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk
[at]=@, [dash]=- & [dot]=. *Warning* HTML & 32K emails -- NUL:
'Stingo' Albacore #1554 - 15' Early 60's, Uffa Fox designed,
All varnished hot moulded wooden racing dinghy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here's something that might be of interest to many rec.boats old-
timers:

http://www.algae-x.net/Endorsements/.../snake_oil.pdf

What are the odds that the "Denninger" who ran a test (not entirely
dissimilar from what Ian describes above) with a 45-foot Hatteras and
reported the results in a blog called "Snake Oil Chronicles" couldn't
be the Karl Denninger who at one time was a regular poster here?

*If* this were the same Denninger (don't know that it is) would his
detailed report of testing a magnetic fuel conditioner be more
acceptable to the group than comments from an unknown person?

Once again, I would not want to say absolutely that this is the same
person- but it's a rather unusual last name, and the universe of
people named Denninger who are interested in boating and likely to own
a Hatteras or similar quality vessel has to be extremely small. I do
not mean to imply that this person is or absolutely has to be Karl
Denninger, ex-denizen of this newsgroup, and if an apology is in order
for merely wondering whether it might be, I'll extend it in advance.

Chuck Gould wrote:

On Jan 30, 5:17�pm, Ian Malcolm
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...

All good points. �In addition the US government would surely have
discovered these magical powers by now and specified them for use on
the extensive fleet of military diesels. �This has not happened.

Meanwhile, the people who have shelled out their hard earned cash for
these gadgets have an emotional commitment to believing that they
spent the money wisely. �It's the placebo effect.

The History Channel's "Modern Marvels" recently aired a show on magnetic
forces.
In it, the properties of diamagnetic materials (usually considered
"non-magnetic" and of organic origins) were demonstrated.

Although very weak, they do have magnetic properties, when subjected to a
custom, multi-million �dollar, cryogenically cooled, high powered "super
magnet" with a �field density of a million times that of the earth's.

So, although the physics may have a remote link to accuracy, I rather doubt
a passive device the size of a salt shaker and available on the Internet
would have any measurable effect.

Eisboch

In all that gabble about ortho and para hydrogen did anyone mention they
are nuclear spin isomers of a H2 molecule? �Para-hydrogen has the spins
in opposite directions, Ortho-hydrogen has the spins in the same
direction. �However Diesel and Gasolene dont contain free Hydrogen
molecules! �It is possible for certain hydrocarbon molecules to have
different spin isomers, but the bigger the molecule, the more readily it
can 'flop' from one state to another and the more similar are the
physical and chemical properties of the many different states. �In any
case, the effects cannot persist for long outside the extremely strong
magnetic field required to noticably influence nuclear spin. By the time
the fuel has left the device, any possible effect is OVER. For a quick
sanity check on the claims, look at the miniscule side effects to the
patient of NMR imaging, in which an intense magnetic field is used to
align the spin of a proportion of the atoms in the patient so their
distribution and element can be determined. �If *any* of the claimed
long term effects on diesel bacteria were true, either *every* patient
would be given NMR treatment instead of antibiotics or NMR would only be
useful for autopsies as it would kill all the patients.

If Chuck wants to perform a useful service, he should perform a
double-blind trial. �He will need a twin engine boat with advanced �fuel
system and engine monitoring. �Ideally the engines would be new,
otherwise they should be the same age and hours and recently serviced.
He will also need two of the 'magnetic devices', some fuel line, 4
bulkhead fittings, 2 identical opaque enclosures large enough to house
the devices and some tamper-proof warrenty labels. �Each enclosure
should be assembled with two bulkhead fittings and a device mounted
inside it. The external appearance *must* be identical. �In one of them
the device should be connected to the fittings, in the other the same
length of fuel line should be used to conect the two fittings bypassing
the device. �Have a �stranger shuffle the two boxes while you are out of
the room and then return and seal the two boxes with the warrenty seals
and label them A and B. �Have boxes A and B fitted in identical sections
of the fuel lines to the port and starboard engines and run the boat
next season. Keep detailed signed records of fuel consumption and all
engine performance data available and which box is on which engine. �At
every service interval, swap boxes A & B. � When you lay the boat up for
the winter, get a witness and open the boxes to determine which of A & B
was the dummy and which was 'active'. �Post the raw results and give us
a link here. �Write an article for the magazine.

I would expect any *genuine* fuel conditioning device manufacturer
(filtration, additives or whatever) to co-operate with a proper double
blind trial conduted by a boating magazine , even to the extent of
providing the two devices free. �I doubt the magnetic widget suppliers
will even let chuck buy a pair if he lets slip he wants to do proper
tests on them. �If Chuck is willing to attempt the trial but finds the
manufacturer un-cooperative, we must assume the devices are pure snake oil.

--
Ian Malcolm. � London, ENGLAND. �(NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED)
ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk
[at]=@, [dash]=- & [dot]=. *Warning* HTML & 32K emails -- NUL:
'Stingo' Albacore #1554 - 15' Early 60's, Uffa Fox designed,
All varnished hot moulded wooden racing dinghy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Here's something that might be of interest to many rec.boats old-
timers:

http://www.algae-x.net/Endorsements/.../snake_oil.pdf

What are the odds that the "Denninger" who ran a test (not entirely
dissimilar from what Ian describes above) with a 45-foot Hatteras and
reported the results in a blog called "Snake Oil Chronicles" couldn't
be the Karl Denninger who at one time was a regular poster here?

*If* this were the same Denninger (don't know that it is) would his
detailed report of testing a magnetic fuel conditioner be more
acceptable to the group than comments from an unknown person?

Once again, I would not want to say absolutely that this is the same
person- but it's a rather unusual last name, and the universe of
people named Denninger who are interested in boating and likely to own
a Hatteras or similar quality vessel has to be extremely small. I do
not mean to imply that this person is or absolutely has to be Karl
Denninger, ex-denizen of this newsgroup, and if an apology is in order
for merely wondering whether it might be, I'll extend it in advance.


It would seem to be the same Karl. I cant comment on his credibility here.

To be a valid trial, both the boat operator and the experimenter must
have no idea which box contains the active device and which is the dummy
until all the data is in. Otherwise you cant eliminate subconscious
differences in operating habits and fuel system hygiene.

I can think of a number of ways of rigging a test unit that is only
going to be used for a few hours or tens of hours (e.g. a slow
dissolving fuel additive packed into it) to get results in a short
trial. Buying the device retail at a random location would vastly
reduce the risk of such tampering. OTOH its possible that *all* the
devices contain such an additive as the operator is unlikely to
attribute a gradual decline in performance to the device being used up.

Sampling the fuel before and after the device after a couple of hours
running and getting it analysed could eliminate the slow release
additive possibility.

The effect of magnetism on clean bulk fuel seems unlikely to cause
differences in combustion efficiency. Its possible there *IS* a subtle
biological effect to bacteria not seen in larger organisms, such as the
possibility that it may reduce the clumping leading to smaller particles
that can pass the filters and injector and get burnt with the fuel but
my comments on the claim it kills them stand.

If there was a lethal effect on any bacteria, not affecting larger
organisms I would expect that anyone that has been NMR imaged would have
a week or two of severe digestive discomfort and unpleasant symptoms
until a normal population of gut bacteria has been restored. Anyone who
has ever had a course of oral broad spectrum antibiotics will know what
I mean . . .

Since *all* diesel fuel will have been in a steel tank at some time
during the production and supply chain and it is being fed to an engine
fuel system with many steel parts , the requirement that the boat's
tank isn't steel is *interesting*. It does depend on the reason claimed
for its unsuitability for steel tanks. Their main website claims that
the unit will trap particles from corroded steel tanks and that this is
beneficial.

In any case the psuedoscientific 'bafflegab' used to describe its
operation does little to inspire confidence in the product or the
principles behind it.

It would be interesting to dissect one and see what's actually in there!

IMHO the jury is still out but its not looking good for the defendant . . .

--
Ian Malcolm. London, ENGLAND. (NEWSGROUP REPLY PREFERRED)
ianm[at]the[dash]malcolms[dot]freeserve[dot]co[dot]uk
[at]=@, [dash]=- & [dot]=. *Warning* HTML & 32K emails -- NUL:
'Stingo' Albacore #1554 - 15' Early 60's, Uffa Fox designed,
All varnished hot moulded wooden racing dinghy.

Chuck Gould wrote:
ntirely
dissimilar from what Ian describes above) with a 45-foot Hatteras and
reported the results in a blog called "Snake Oil Chronicles" couldn't
be the Karl Denninger who at one time was a regular poster here?

*If* this were the same Denninger (don't know that it is) would his
detailed report of testing a magnetic fuel conditioner be more
acceptable to the group than comments from an unknown person?

Once again, I would not want to say absolutely that this is the same
person- but it's a rather unusual last name, and the universe of
people named Denninger who are interested in boating and likely to own
a Hatteras or similar quality vessel has to be extremely small. I do
not mean to imply that this person is or absolutely has to be Karl
Denninger, ex-denizen of this newsgroup, and if an apology is in order
for merely wondering whether it might be, I'll extend it in advance.


Chuck,
Why can't the FTC and EPA duplicate these results? Even more amazing is
if Diesel-Tex DTX is not a scam, why don't they provide the EPA with the
test results, so they can conduct the tests, and the EPA can remove this
product from it's list of useless products? It not only would be good
for business, but it would be good for the environment. Why don't you
ask the mfg'er why he has not provided this independent data to the FTC
and EPA? This would not only be a more interesting article, but also
provide a true service to your readers. I understand that your magazine
relies on advertisement dollars to make money, but the magazine
creditability is what makes your "reviews" worthwhile to the readers.
If they believe your "reviews" are nothing more than unpaid ads, they
will discount all of your "reviews".

On Jan 31, 4:35�am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:

ntirely





dissimilar from what Ian describes above) with a 45-foot Hatteras and
reported the results in a blog called "Snake Oil Chronicles" couldn't
be the Karl Denninger who at one time was a regular poster here?

*If* this were the same Denninger (don't know that it is) would his
detailed report of testing a magnetic fuel conditioner be more
acceptable to the group than comments from an unknown person?

Once again, I would not want to say absolutely that this is the same
person- but it's a rather unusual last name, and the universe of
people named Denninger who are interested in boating and likely to own
a Hatteras or similar quality vessel has to be extremely small. I do
not mean to imply that this person is or absolutely has to be Karl
Denninger, ex-denizen of this newsgroup, and if an apology is in order
for merely wondering whether it might be, I'll extend it in advance.

Chuck,
Why can't the FTC and EPA duplicate these results? *Even more amazing is
if Diesel-Tex DTX is not a scam, why don't they provide the EPA with the
test results, so they can conduct the tests, and the EPA can remove this
product from it's list of useless products? *It not only would be good
for business, but it would be good for the environment. *Why don't you
ask the mfg'er why he has not provided this independent data to the FTC
and EPA? *This would not only be a more interesting article, but also
provide a true service to your readers. *I understand that your magazine
relies on advertisement dollars to make money, but the magazine
creditability is what makes your "reviews" worthwhile to the readers.
If they believe your "reviews" are nothing more than unpaid ads, they
will discount all of your "reviews".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What "review"?

I pose a question regarding whether or not such a device could work,
and explore how it might work if it does.

Hardly a review, and certainly not an endorsement.

On Jan 31, 4:35�am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:


Chuck,
Why can't the FTC and EPA duplicate these results? *Even more amazing is
if Diesel-Tex DTX is not a scam, why don't they provide the EPA with the
test results, so they can conduct the tests, and the EPA can remove this
product from it's list of useless products?

According to the site your furnished, the EPA has never tested the two
most popular devices used for marine application. Neither of the two
most popular marine devices appear on the FTC's list of "useless
products" in the sub sections where various brands are listed. I don't
think the EPA is likely to accept test results provided by anybody
else as valid. It is interesting to note that at the state level a
laboaratory in California that is certified to conduct testing for
California Air Resource Board compliance purposes measured some
differences in combustion with vs. without a device installed. (And
yes, the lab could have made an error).


�It not only would be good
for business, but it would be good for the environment. *Why don't you
ask the mfg'er why he has not provided this independent data to the FTC
and EPA? *This would not only be a more interesting article, but also
provide a true service to your readers. *I understand that your magazine
relies on advertisement dollars to make money, but the magazine
creditability is what makes your "reviews" worthwhile to the readers.
If they believe your "reviews" are nothing more than unpaid ads, they
will discount all of your "reviews".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Jan 31, 4:35�am, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Chuck,
Why can't the FTC and EPA duplicate these results? �Even more amazing is
if Diesel-Tex DTX is not a scam, why don't they provide the EPA with the
test results, so they can conduct the tests, and the EPA can remove this
product from it's list of useless products?

According to the site your furnished, the EPA has never tested the two
most popular devices used for marine application. Neither of the two
most popular marine devices appear on the FTC's list of "useless
products" in the sub sections where various brands are listed. I don't
think the EPA is likely to accept test results provided by anybody
else as valid. It is interesting to note that at the state level a
laboaratory in California that is certified to conduct testing for
California Air Resource Board compliance purposes measured some
differences in combustion with vs. without a device installed. (And
yes, the lab could have made an error).


�It not only would be good
for business, but it would be good for the environment. �Why don't you
ask the mfg'er why he has not provided this independent data to the FTC
and EPA? �This would not only be a more interesting article, but also
provide a true service to your readers. �I understand that your magazine
relies on advertisement dollars to make money, but the magazine
creditability is what makes your "reviews" worthwhile to the readers.
If they believe your "reviews" are nothing more than unpaid ads, they
will discount all of your "reviews".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



Why hasn't the mfg'er request a testing by the EPA? This is almost as
good as a perpetual motion machine. Trust me, if it works, the EPA
will want to endorse it as another method to reduce pollution and
decrease consumption.

As an X saleman, wouldn't you think this product would be as easy as
selling sliced bread, if it worked?

Chuck Gould wrote:

:else as valid. It is interesting to note that at the state level a
:laboaratory in California that is certified to conduct testing for
:California Air Resource Board compliance purposes measured some
:differences in combustion with vs. without a device installed. (And
:yes, the lab could have made an error).

CARB compliance means that it doesn't increase emissions, not that it
improves them. That's the only thing you can conclude from the study.
There's not enough data to draw a stronger conclusion. You don't know
what the normal variance in exhaust emissions for that engine is.
That can be surprisingly large, particularly since they're not
controling for engine operating temperature.

On 30 Jan 2007 22:41:41 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

Once again, I would not want to say absolutely that this is the same
person- but it's a rather unusual last name, and the universe of
people named Denninger who are interested in boating and likely to own
a Hatteras or similar quality vessel has to be extremely small.

It's the same Karl. He posted about it in this group at the time and
drew quite a bit of flack for his subjective assessment of the
product.

As others have said, if magnetic fuel treatment really worked, the
manufacturers and big fleet operators would be falling all over
themselves to install the product. They are not doing that.

Other than pride of ownership, the most likely reason for some of
these glowing reports is that people upgrade their entire filtration
system and start using a good fuel treatment additive at the same
time that they install the magnet. Those steps *are* proven to be
beneficial.

On Jan 31, 6:39�am, Wayne.B wrote:
On 30 Jan 2007 22:41:41 -0800, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
Once again, I would not want to say absolutely that this is the same
person- but it's a rather unusual last name, and the universe of
people named Denninger who are interested in boating and likely to own
a Hatteras or similar quality vessel has to be extremely small.

It's the same Karl. *He posted about it in this group at the time and
drew quite a bit of flack for his subjective assessment of the
product.

He tired it out on one of his two engines (each with a dedicated fuel
tank), made careful notes about the engine hours, took photographs of
filter changes, etc. What sort of assessment could he make, based on
his own personal experience, except subjective? Why would it be wrong
to report his personal experience? I remember Karl as a pretty sharp,
analytical sort of guy. Wasn't he a software engineer (or similar) who
started an ISP and got bought out during the dot.bomb craze for
something north of $10mm? I hope he got cash, not stock. Not exactly
some hillbillie who clipped an ad out of National Enquirer, sent away
mail order for a miracle device, and then pronounced it "workin' like
a charm" 30 seconds after installing it.

I'm still not claiming that these devices work, but this is an
interesting discussion.

Two of the reasons advanced so far by folks who claim they cannot work
have been lack of an independent test and no reports from an actual
user known to the group. When an independent test was discovered, it
was dismissed under the premise that if the results supported any
assumption that the devices worked then the sample had to be too small
or the methodology must be flawed. (Another dismissal of the test was
based upon the fact that the "government" didn't conduct it). When an
actual user known to the group was discovered, it was pointed out that
at one time he reported the same results in this NG and had to take
flak over it. I'm not sure how the response from the NG changes the
nature of the results he reported. One needs to accept the results at
face value, find a specific flaw in his methodology, or impugn his
character and motivations. Back in the days of
The Rec.boats Wars of the Eternal Flame, Karl and I probably had some
disagreements but I wouldn't characterize him as dishonest or
deceptive.

I think Karl's experience should be noted as a that of a known person
who has tried magnetic fuel treatment and based on his personal
observations and experiences genuinely believes that it works.

Still doesn't "prove" they work, just a bit of evidence on the side
that they might.




As others have said, if magnetic fuel treatment really worked, the
manufacturers and big fleet operators would be falling all over
themselves to install the product. *They are not doing that.

Other than pride of ownership, the most likely reason for some of
these glowing reports is that people upgrade their entire filtration
system *and start using a good fuel treatment additive at the same
time that they install the magnet. *Those steps *are* proven to be
beneficial. *

I'll go back and look at Karl's site again. I didn't notice that he
had upgraded any portion of his filtration system- but it could well
be that he did and I missed it. I recall seeing photos of two
identical filters- one downstream from a magnetic treatment device and
the other simply downstream from its fuel tank.

On 31 Jan 2007 08:07:59 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

He tired it out on one of his two engines (each with a dedicated fuel
tank), made careful notes about the engine hours, took photographs of
filter changes, etc. What sort of assessment could he make, based on
his own personal experience, except subjective? Why would it be wrong
to report his personal experience? I remember Karl as a pretty sharp,
analytical sort of guy. Wasn't he a software engineer (or similar) who
started an ISP and got bought out during the dot.bomb craze for
something north of $10mm? I hope he got cash, not stock. Not exactly
some hillbillie who clipped an ad out of National Enquirer, sent away
mail order for a miracle device, and then pronounced it "workin' like
a charm" 30 seconds after installing it.

No question Karl was (is) an intelligent guy who knew a few things
about diesels but that was not his primary forte, nor was molecular
biology or nuclear magnetics. In all fairness, they are not my
profession either.

Fact is though, Karl's observation is only one data point in a very
non-quantative analysis, not exactly the sort of thing that great
science is made of. I'm sure he knows what he saw but given the lack
of controls, lack of independant repeated results and lack of
measurable data, there is nothing there to hang your hat on.

On the other hand there are lots and lots of well funded people who
can, and probably have, done a well thought out analysis. Other than
the FTC there is no incentive for them to report negative results,
only potential lawsuits. If they had gotten positive results
however, you can bet that these things would be on every commercial
diesel vehicle in the country. As far as I know, virtually no one is
doing that.