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.

Wayne.B wrote:
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.


A large fleet could save millions each year if this product actually
worked. Once one fleet installed it, it would be included in the
"testimonials" instead of some individuals who purchased the product at
local boat or auto show. We would also expect all other fleet to
quickly follow suite.

It seems so simple, I can not figure out why anyone would believe in
thier claims. That being said, the "Split Fire" sparkplugs have been
around for years, and they have been proven to be a waste of money.
http://www.ftc.gov/os/1997/05/c3737cmp.htm,

So I guess it is reasonable to expect people to buy useless products,
and their will always be someone there to sell it to them.

Wayne, I wonder if Chuck is being swayed by this logic.