The Effect of Magnets on Fuel Consumption on Small Gas Engines Tanner Blakemore and Shelby Harman Division IV, 10

The Effect of Magnets on Fuel Consumption on Small Gas Engines

Tanner Blakemore and Shelby Harman

Division IV,

10

Grade

Walnut Grove High School 300 College St

PO Box 187

Walnut Grove, MO 65770

Abstract

Many companies sell products that claim to increase the fuel efficiency of gasoline engines through the use of magnets. This experiment was conducted to test the effects of

magnets on the fuel consumption of small gasoline engines. It was believed that magnets would not significantly improve the fuel efficiency of engines at idle and under a working load.

For this study, 115 mL of premium unleaded fuel was measured and poured into a bottle that was attached to the fuel line feeding the carburetor of an eight horse power Briggs and Stratton electric generator. To keep accurate time, the generator powered and analog clock that stopped when the engine ran out of fuel. Three pairs of magnets were fastened to the fuel line feeding the engine so the fuel would become charged as it fed into the engine. The polarity of the magnets was also reversed to compare the effects. After the engine’s running time was tested at idle, an electric heater was powered to test the effects of the magnet on an engine working under a load.

Results confirmed the hypotheses that the magnets would have no significant effect on the running time of the engine. The results confirmed that the average engine running time was 5:26 minutes with no magnets and no load as well as with attracting magnets and no load. When the engine was put under a working load, it had a running time of 3:46 minutes both with

attracting magnets and without. Similar results were also found when the polarity of the magnets was reversed. Although no significant changes in engine running time was found, it was

discovered that the engine ran more efficiently after it had warmed. More research would need

to be conducted in the future to improve the accuracy of the study.

Introduction

Today there is an increasing concern for the environment and a shrinking supply of energy. As would be expected, vehicles and other engines are playing a significant role of these things. Combined with the fact of the increasing fuel prices, it is only logical people try to change this by improving fuel efficiency.

A well-known scientific principle about magnetic fields caught some people’s attention.

They believed they could make fuel more efficient by magnetically charging it. Others (some also in the science field) believe it would not work. Either way products have already been created.

This experiment will be testing if magnets actually reduce fuel consumption. By attaching magnets to a fuel line and timing the results on an analog clock plugged into the generator, it should give very accurate results.

Research Questions

1. Do magnets attached to the fuel line pulling together (positive to negative attracting) without a work load increase fuel efficiency?

2. Do magnets attached to the fuel line pushing away (positive to positive or negative to negative) without a work load increase fuel efficiency?

3. Do magnets attached to the fuel line pulling together (positive to negative) with a

work load increase the fuel efficiency?

4. Do magnets attached to the fuel line pushing apart (positive to positive or negative to negative) with a work load increase the fuel efficiency?

Hypothesis

1. If attracting magnets are attached to the fuel line of an eight horse power Briggs and Stratton engine without a work load then, the engine running time will not increase.

2. If repelling magnets are attached to the fuel line of an eight horse power Briggs and Stratton engine without a work load then, the engine running time will not increase.

3. If attracting magnets are attached to the fuel line of an eight horse power Briggs and Stratton engine with a work load then, the engine running time will not increase.

4. If repelling magnets are attached to the fuel line of an eight horse power Briggs and

Stratton engine with a work load then, the engine running time will not increase.

Literature Review

It seems as though, whenever someone comes out with an invention, someone else claims they have a way to make it better. This is no different in the engine industry. One of the main things innovators of today are trying to figure out is how to make things more fuel efficient (particularly in the automobile industry). One of the latest trends is using magnets to attach to the fuel line of engines.

Many places swear it works. The concept is that the magnets pull the fuel partials apart when attached to the fuel line. Doing so makes the fuel’s explosion, which runs the engine, more spread out, henceforth making the engine more efficient. Many people have come up with products to sell based on the idea of magnets improving fuel mileage. Places like K&J Magnets (online) claim it may improve mileage, but may take up to two months to notice improvements.

Many other websites and forums claim that magnets can help.

Other places, however, believe it is not scientifically possible for them to improve mileage. According to popularmechanics.com, gas is not magnetic. The magnets couldn’t pull apart the particles. Both sides agree that there is no way it will work if a metal fuel line is used.

The magnetism would just follow the outside of the tube.

As this experiment was planned, many variables were considered. Internet sites claim it

takes time for the engine to grow accustom to the magnets and start working. Some claim even

up to two months. That however, may be a marketing excuse for the product not working. This

experiment was designed to test these claims and clarify the truth.

Materials:

 Analog clock

 Space heater

 Plastic or Rubber Fuel line

 Bottle or container for fuel

 Premium Unleaded Fuel

 Gas powered generator (Lincoln Power Arc 4000)

 Apron

 Safety glasses

 Digital Scale to weigh grams

Methods:

Methods have two categories, one for engine preparation and the other for the experiment.

Engine Preparation:

1. Check spark plug

2. Drain oil from the motor and fuel from the carburetor 3. Refill oil properly.

4. Disconnect fuel tank and fuel line.

5. Connect new fuel line to motor and bottle.

6. Run 100mL of fuel through engine as a warm up session Experiment Methods:

1. Reset clock

2. Fill 100mL beaker with fuel

3. For accuracy, make sure beaker and fuel weighs 115g 4. Pour fuel in bottle that is connected to the motor.

5. Start engine after warm up.

6. Set stopwatch

7. Raise bottle above carburetor to let the fuel drain.

8. Engine will quit because it ran out of fuel.

9. Read clock 10. Record data

11. Repeat trial at least three times for accuracy

Results:

Test Trial Fuel Volume

(milliliters)

Fuel Weight (grams)

Time (minutes)

No Magnets / No Load 1 100 ml 115 g 5:28

2 100 ml 115 g 5:20

3 100 ml 115 g 5:31

average 5:26

No Magnets /Working Load 1 100 ml 115 g 3:46

2 100 ml 115 g 3:48

3 100 ml 115 g 3:46

average 3:46

Magnets(+/-) / No Load 1 100 ml 115 g 5:22

2 100 ml 115 g 5:26

3 100 ml 115 g 5:30

average 5:26

Magnets(+/-) / Working Load 1 100 ml 115 g 3:41

2 100 ml 115 g 3:48

3 100 ml 115 g 3:51

average 3:46

Magnets(+/+) / No Load 1 100 ml 115 g 5:17

2 100 ml 115 g 5:17

3 100 ml 115 g 5:20

average 5:18

Magnets(+/+) / Working Load 1 100 ml 115 g 3:43

2 100 ml 115 g 3:49

3 100 ml 115 g 3:51

average 3:47

31 trials were attempted during the experiment. Throughout the 31 trials, 18 were chosen to be used as the test trials. In the other trials, things happened to make the trials inefficient and not reliable such as fuel leaks, spills, and timing issues. The times that were chosen above were selected based on the notes kept in the journal determined if something happened during the experiment. Before each trial was started, 100mL of fuel was run through the generator to act as a warm up session. In each test, 100mL of fuel was measured and weighed to ensure accuracy in the experiment. 100mL of fuel weighed in at 115g. The results of the experiment varied, but each time was close to the trials in the test category.

No mag/

no load

mag/ no load

mag (+/- )/ load

no mag (+/-)/

load

mag reverse (+/+)/ no

load

mag reverse

(+/+)/

load Test

0:00 1:12 2:24 3:36 4:48 6:00

Time (minutes)

Engine Running Times

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Average

In the above bar graph, each trial of each test remained similar with no major differences.

In the first test, no magnets were applied to the fuel line and no electric load was added to the

generator. The times ranged from 5:28 to 5:31 with an average of 5:26.

In the second test, three magnets were applied with opposite polarity (attracted to each other) to the fuel line and no load was added to the generator. The trials consistently increased from a low of 5:22 to a high of 5:30 with an average time of 5:26.

In the third test, three magnets were applied with opposite polarity to the fuel line with a large electric load put on the engine provided by a 1500 watt heater. The trials steadily increased with a low of 3:46 and a high of 3:51 with an average of 3:46.

In the fourth test, no magnets were applied to the fuel lines and a large electric load was provided by a 1500 watt heater. The trials ranged from a low of 3:46 to a high of 3:48 with an average of 3:46.

In the fifth test, three magnets were applied to the fuel line with reverse polarity (opposing force) and no electric load was added to the generator. The trials steadily increased from a low of 5:17 on the first trial to a high of 5:20 on the third trial with an average of 5:18.

In the sixth and final test, three magnets were applied to the fuel line with reverse polarity (opposing force) and an electric load was provided by a 1500 watt heater to the generator. The three trials steadily increased with a beginning time of 3:43 an ending time of 3:51. The average of the three trials was 3:47.

All of the tests were very similar in their results, it was noted, however, that as the trials

using the magnets progressed, the time steadily increased. Trial one of the attracting magnets had

a running time of 3:41 and trial three had a time of 3:51. Trial one of the opposing magnets had

a running time of 3:43 and trial three hand a running time of 3:51. Trial one and trial three with

no magnets had an unchanged running time of 3:46.

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Test

3:36 3:38 3:41 3:44 3:47 3:50 3:53

Time (minutes)

Engine Run Time with Load

No Magnets Attracting Magnets Opposing Magnets

The chart above represents the tests with a load. None of the times were very high because a

heater was plugged in that used a lot of energy, making the generator work harder. No magnets

(+/-) was the test that remained the most constant. Trial two and trial three in all the tests were

closely related. Neither trial one nor trial three was as steady as trial two. Trial two increased,

while trial one and trial three were moving back and forth.

Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Test

5:08 5:11 5:13 5:16 5:19 5:22 5:25 5:28 5:31 5:34

Time (minutes)

Engine Run Time without Load

No Magnets Attracting Magnets Opposing Magnets

In the chart above, the tests were conducted with no load. The times of the no load tests

were higher because nothing was pulling energy from the generator. Trial one had a steady

increase across the graph, while trial two and three were not constant. In the second test,

magnets and no load was highest in all the trials except in trial one. Trial one was the highest in

the no magnets and no load test and the lowest was the magnets with reverse polarity. Trial two’s

lowest time was with the magnets reverse polarity and no load, followed by no magnets and no

load. The highest test was magnets with no load.

Discussion and Conclusion

1. The magnets had little to no effect on the results. The average results are as follows. The engine ran for 5:26 seconds with no magnets and no load (control).

With attracting magnets and no load it also ran for an average of 5:26. Repelling magnets with no load had an average of 5:18. No magnets with a load was 3:46 (control), with attracting magnets with a load it was 3:46 and repelling magnets with a load ran for 3:47.

2. The Efficiency of the engine improved from the first trial to the third trial when magnets were used. All of the tests were very similar in their results, it was noted,

however, that as the trials using the magnets progressed, the time steadily increased.

Trial one of the attracting magnets under a load had a running time of 3:41 and trial three improved to 3:51. Trial one of the opposing magnets under a load had a running time of 3:43 and improved in trial three to 3:51. Trial one and trial three with no magnets had an unchanged running time of 3:46. It is believed that this is due to the warmth of the engine. As the engine heats up, so does the fuel. When items (including fuel) heat up, they expand. When fuel expands the particles get further apart so when the particles explode, they are having more spread explosions.

If warmer fuel is more efficient, this may be a good project extension for future

research.

Literature Cited

1. Debunking Mainstream Pseudoscience (2011, February 12). In Magnetic Fuel Saver.

Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://aaronmurakami.com/blog/2011/02/12/magnetic-fuel- saver-debunking-mainstream-pseudoscience

2. (n.d.). In Directory:Fuel Efficiency Retrofits. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Fuel_Efficiency_Retrofits

3. Fuel Efficiency Boosters (n.d.). In NATURAL ENERGY WORKS. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://www.orgonelab.org/cart/ymagnets.htm

4. n.d.). In How can magnets be used to increase fuel efficiency? Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/magnets-used-increase-fuel-efficiency

5. Burkhalter, S. K. (2006, April 7). In Increase fuel efficiency with magnets! . Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://grist.org/article/the-wheel-deal-magnets/

6. Looking For A Miracle: We Test Automotive 'Fuel Savers'. (2005). Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/1802932

7. MSU profs debunk gas savers (n.d.). In Minnisota State University Mankato. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from https://www.mnsu.edu/news/read/?id=old-1086498001&paper=topstories 8. (n.d.). In Our View on Saving Fuel with Magnets. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from

http://www.kjmagnetics.com/fuelmagnet.asp

9. (n.d.). In Petrol and Diesel Saver Magnets (Magnofuel). Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Petrol-and-Diesel-Saver-Magnets-Magnofuel-

/10000000006324687/g.html

10. (n.d.). In Scams: Magnetic Fuel Savers. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from

http://mileages.org/scams-magnetic-fuel-savers/

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our FFA advisor, Mr. Bruce Blakemore for supplying us with the

scale, engine, and other materials for our project and helping with our experiment. We would

also like to thank our science teacher, Miss Halbohm for providing us with materials. We would

also like to thank all the teachers who showed tolerance for us during our testing, especially

during their hours.