Magnets on the fuel line intake

LHR, you continue to miss the point here. You claim that we should
accept scientific evidence about your claims on the magnets. You cite,
as part of your 'proof', the fact that many good ideas are never
accepted, and you use the FWD Citroen as an example. That's an invalid
example as FWD HAS been accepted for the benefits it brings. Your
second example, the use of magnets by the military in WWII, is also
invalid to your point, because it HASN'T been accepted as valid in
auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little
or no effect on gas mileage or performance. I'm not denying that they
MAY have had a beneficial impact on WWII aircraft; I'm simply saying
that you can't say 'because they work on WWII aircraft, they will work
on 21st Century cars'.

You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the
magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof
that you say we should accept.

So, I would suggest that until you can give us scientific proof, you
should not make claims about the efficacy of magnets.

Dan D
'04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
Central NJ USA

I do not think I miss the point here.
You seem to be able to tunr things upside down.

If you read what I have said, it is quite simple :
I have asked if anyone in this group did make some trials on these
magnets, that is all I did.
I have also said that I am trying them and will come back once I do
obtain a sufficient amount of concluding results.
I have driven the car and could clearly notice much more punch in the
low revs, I am not the only driver on that car and the other persone
alos notice a difference,
but I never said it was sufficient since I have not tested put the car
on the torque reader.

Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of
some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I
have not seen any results from the people here. The only responses I
read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would
have been done a long time". I have answered that are a lot of good
ideas which took a long time before they got applied and some are
still waiting to appear. It took more than 40 years to see FWD finding
its way to the everyday car in America and a little less in Europe.
There, you have missed the point I was making.



On Sep 3, 4:20 pm, Dano58 > wrote:
> LHR, you continue to miss the point here. You claim that we should
> accept scientific evidence about your claims on the magnets. You cite,
> as part of your 'proof', the fact that many good ideas are never
> accepted, and you use the FWD Citroen as an example. That's an invalid
> example as FWD HAS been accepted for the benefits it brings. Your
> second example, the use of magnets by the military in WWII, is also
> invalid to your point, because it HASN'T been accepted as valid in
> auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little
> or no effect on gas mileage or performance.

Well prove it.
You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have
little or no effect on gas mileage or performance.

> I'm not denying that they
> MAY have had a beneficial impact on WWII aircraft; I'm simply saying
> that you can't say 'because they work on WWII aircraft, they will work
> on 21st Century cars'.
>

I completely disagree with your argument here.
They both run on fuel powered piston driven engines and therefore what
can improve fuel punch or economy on WWII airplanes will have an
impact on any other vehicles may they be cars, boats or even your
house boiler.

> You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the
> magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof
> that you say we should accept.
>

Indeed, your feeling while you drive your car may not be considered
scientific facts but this is what will determine if your car has
improved or not. In this cas, I am telling that it did improve but now
you do whatever you want with this information. Knowing how cheap
these magnets are, I think this is worth trying so and knowing that
Audi drivers are not poor people, then if more people try them, we
could gather more information.

> So, I would suggest that until you can give us scientific proof, you
> should not make claims about the efficacy of magnets.
>

I have driven 4500 km throughout Europe and Turkey with a heavy car
fully loaded including a 450 L roof box and it did 6.5 L / 100 km and
this includes crossing several mountain ranges and driving nervously
in italian and Turkish cities as well. I am now waiting for the box to
get removed and see how the car makes when it is empty to compare.
Beforehand, in the UK, the car was doing 7 l / 100 km on motorways.
Draw your conclusions.

But, I still wait to tell you the final results.

LHR

> Dan D
> '04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6
> Central NJ USA

On Sep 3, 12:41*pm, laurentien > wrote:
>
> Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of
> some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I
> have not seen any results from the people here.

What more do you want? That link is much more credible than your
claim.

Using simple LOGIC actually defeats your claim.

> The only responses I
> read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would
> have been done a long time".

Your logic fails here. Carmakers would LOVE to have a device that
saves fuel or adds power for almost no additional weight or research
spending. It make huge monetary sense. What possible reason would
carmakers have for NOT adding such a device?


> On Sep 3, 4:20 pm, Dano58 > wrote:
>
> > ... because [use of magnets] HASN'T been accepted as valid in
> > auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little
> > or no effect on gas mileage or performance.
>
> Well prove it.

Actually, you have it backwards. You are making a claim that,
contrary to logic and published data, magnets do something. It is up
to *you* to prove it. With hard data, not "my car feels faster."

> You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have
> little or no effect on gas mileage or performance.

Such information exists in abundance. A 30-second Google search gives
quite a long list of articles. Use "fuel" and "magnets" as your
search parameters. Enjoy.


> > You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the
> > magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof
> > that you say we should accept.
>
> Indeed, your feeling while you drive your car may not be considered
> scientific facts but this is what will determine if your car has
> improved or not.

Actually, no. Your "feeling" is irrelevant. Hard data is the only
thing that can be used as proof. And, since there exists a body of
data that already says that there is no effect, your experiment must
not only produce statistically positive results, it must be
repeatable.


> In this cas, I am telling that it did improve but now
> you do whatever you want with this information.

I can say that grass is red, but that does not make it true.

You may believe what you want, but *this* chemist is willing to bet
that any positive results you get will not be repeatable by anyone
else.

Would you like to make a wager? Like 10000 Euros?

E.P.

On Sep 5, 7:03*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Sep 3, 12:41*pm, laurentien > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of
> > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I
> > have not seen any results from the people here.
>
> What more do you want? *That link is much more credible than your
> claim.
>
> Using simple LOGIC actually defeats your claim.
>

It ýs not a questýon of logic here (leave where it applies please) but
a question of facts

> > The only responses I
> > read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would
> > have been done a long time".
>
> Your logic fails here. *Carmakers would LOVE to have a device that
> saves fuel or adds power for almost no additional weight or research
> spending. *It make huge monetary sense. *What possible reason would
> carmakers have for NOT adding such a device?
>

Many reasons would lead to that observation and especially the ones of
being very conservative and therefore your point is not an educated
one.
Who are you to say what carmakers think and would like to do ? Are you
one of them ? Do you do research for BMW or VAG or PSA ? Do you have
access to carmaker data which proves your point ?

> > On Sep 3, 4:20 pm, Dano58 > wrote:
>
> > > ... because [use of magnets] HASN'T been accepted as valid in
> > > auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little
> > > or no effect on gas mileage or performance.
>
> > Well prove it.
>
> Actually, you have it backwards. *You are making a claim that,
> contrary to logic and published data, magnets do something. *It is up
> to *you* to prove it. *With hard data, not "my car feels faster."
>

In a serious groupm it goes both ways. There are explanations for
saving energy wýth magnets. Are you ready to hear it ?

> > You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have
> > little or no effect on gas mileage or performance.
>
> Such information exists in abundance. *A 30-second Google search gives
> quite a long list of articles. *Use "fuel" and "magnets" as your
> search parameters. *Enjoy.
>

I was not satisfied with what I have seen.

> > > You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the
> > > magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof
> > > that you say we should accept.
>
> > Indeed, your feeling while you drive your car may not be considered
> > scientific facts but this is what will determine if your car has
> > improved or not.
>
> Actually, no. *Your "feeling" is irrelevant. *Hard data is the only
> thing that can be used as proof. *And, since there exists a body of
> data that already says that there is no effect, your experiment must
> not only produce statistically positive results, it must be
> repeatable.
>

This is you opinion but it is good enough for me to spend 30 euros on
these and obtain a car that drives better. Now it is up to you to
accept it or not.

I do not have access to the proper facilities to make proper tests on
two Audi A4 1.9 TDi and see the results. But you do not as well so we
are both stuck with our Audis (if you have the chance to own one).

> > In this case, I am telling that it did improve but now
> > you do whatever you want with this information.
>
> I can say that grass is red, but that does not make it true.
>

Come to Cyprus and I will show some. The same can be said the other
way.

> You may believe what you want, but *this* chemist is willing to bet
> that any positive results you get will not be repeatable by anyone
> else.
>

Irrelevant remark here. Have you trierd them or not. If not then you
are waisting our time because you point of view will only be relevant
if you did try some tests on them.

> Would you like to make a wager? *Like 10000 Euros?
>
> E.P.

No gýve me two identical Audis and I will produce the tests within the
University labs here and if you are right I will buy you a new Audi
and if I am right you buy me a new one.

LHR

laurentien knastet i vei:
> On Sep 5, 7:03 am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 12:41 pm, laurentien > wrote:

>> Actually, you have it backwards. You are making a claim that,
>> contrary to logic and published data, magnets do something. It is up
>> to *you* to prove it. With hard data, not "my car feels faster."
>>
>
> In a serious groupm it goes both ways. There are explanations for
> saving energy wýth magnets. Are you ready to hear it ?

We are ready to hear proof of the claim, which can be
reproduced by others. If validated by others, you may
tell us where to buy this (up-to-now) snake-oil.

>> Such information exists in abundance. A 30-second Google search gives
>> quite a long list of articles. Use "fuel" and "magnets" as your
>> search parameters. Enjoy.
>>
>
> I was not satisfied with what I have seen.

You are the one to present facts to support the claim. If
you can't, the claim is unfounded.


>> Actually, no. Your "feeling" is irrelevant. Hard data is the only
>> thing that can be used as proof. And, since there exists a body of
>> data that already says that there is no effect, your experiment must
>> not only produce statistically positive results, it must be
>> repeatable.
>>
>
> This is you opinion but it is good enough for me to spend 30 euros on
> these and obtain a car that drives better. Now it is up to you to
> accept it or not.

You may spend 300+ euros on this, it doesn't bother us. We're
waiting for the facts.


>> You may believe what you want, but *this* chemist is willing to bet
>> that any positive results you get will not be repeatable by anyone
>> else.
>>
>
> Irrelevant remark here. Have you trierd them or not. If not then you
> are waisting our time because you point of view will only be relevant
> if you did try some tests on them.

You are about to make yourself irrelevant. Present some
scientific evidence of your claim. If not, we've to
consider the magnets as another bottle of snake oil.

On Sep 5, 7:26*am, laurentien > wrote:
> On Sep 5, 7:03*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 3, 12:41*pm, laurentien > wrote:
>
> > > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of
> > > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I
> > > have not seen any results from the people here.
>
> > What more do you want? *That link is much more credible than your
> > claim.
>
> > Using simple LOGIC actually defeats your claim.
>
> It ýs not a questýon of logic here (leave where it applies please) but
> a question of facts

Well, since you have present zero facts, then logic is what is to be
used. It worked for Aristotle, so it can work for you, too.

> > > The only responses I
> > > read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would
> > > have been done a long time".
>
> > Your logic fails here. *Carmakers would LOVE to have a device that
> > saves fuel or adds power for almost no additional weight or research
> > spending. *It make huge monetary sense. *What possible reason would
> > carmakers have for NOT adding such a device?
>
> Many reasons would lead to that observation and especially the ones of
> being very conservative and therefore your point is not an educated
> one.

That is not a logical refutation, but a red herring ad hominem. Both
of those things are called "logical fallacies", which you may look up
at your leisure.

> Who are you to say what carmakers think and would like to do ?

A person that understands simple economics. So simple, that a college
freshman could understand them. An item to help meet government
mileage and emissions requirements, with very little capital outlay,
and very little space used.

Again, simple logic. Basic logic.

Again, I ask you: why *wouldn't* ALL of the carmakers use such a
thing if they could to produce better results? Especially considering
the cost:benefit ratio?

> > > On Sep 3, 4:20 pm, Dano58 > wrote:
>
> > > > ... because [use of magnets] HASN'T been accepted as valid in
> > > > auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little
> > > > or no effect on gas mileage or performance.
>
> > > Well prove it.
>
> > Actually, you have it backwards. *You are making a claim that,
> > contrary to logic and published data, magnets do something. *It is up
> > to *you* to prove it. *With hard data, not "my car feels faster."
>
> In a serious groupm it goes both ways.

Actually, it doesn't. Folks who make unproven claims get to prove
them. The original data stands as proof of the contrary claim.

> There are explanations for
> saving energy wýth magnets. Are you ready to hear it ?

The changes brought about in organic compounds by magnetism are so
small that it takes fields in excess of 5 Tesla to gain molecular
data. Tell me more about NMR spectroscopy, if you will.

> > > You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have
> > > little or no effect on gas mileage or performance.
>
> > Such information exists in abundance. *A 30-second Google search gives
> > quite a long list of articles. *Use "fuel" and "magnets" as your
> > search parameters. *Enjoy.
>
> I was not satisfied with what I have seen.

So? Your satisfaction is immaterial. Either the material you read
has flaws in experiment or conclusion, or they don't. Point out these
errors, and why they are errors.

> > > > You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the
> > > > magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof
> > > > that you say we should accept.
>
> > > Indeed, your feeling while you drive your car may not be considered
> > > scientific facts but this is what will determine if your car has
> > > improved or not.
>
> > Actually, no. *Your "feeling" is irrelevant. *Hard data is the only
> > thing that can be used as proof. *And, since there exists a body of
> > data that already says that there is no effect, your experiment must
> > not only produce statistically positive results, it must be
> > repeatable.
>
> This is you opinion...

No, this is what's known as "The Scientific Method".

Not opinion, but a way of life for everyone who does research in a
hard science.

> I do not have access to the proper facilities to make proper tests on
> two Audi A4 1.9 TDi and see the results.

Ah. So you do not even know *how* to design a conclusive experiment.
I thought as much.

Hint: you do not need two cars.

> But you do not as well ...

I wouldn't need two. I could use one. I doesn't even matter what
kind of car.

> > You may believe what you want, but *this* chemist is willing to bet
> > that any positive results you get will not be repeatable by anyone
> > else.
>
> Irrelevant remark here.

Wrong. It is the cornerstone. If the results cannot be repeated by
someone else, then your results have no value. This is just the way
science works.


> ... because you point of view will only be relevant
> if you did try some tests on them.

Why would I bother? Only very strong, supercooled electromagnets have
the slightest effect on organic molecules found in motor fuels.

Those things weigh tons, and are extremely expensive. And yes, I have
done NMR spectroscopy.

> > Would you like to make a wager? *Like 10000 Euros?
>
> > E.P.
>
> No [...]


I thought not. LOL.

E.P.

On Sep 7, 6:31Â*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Sep 5, 7:26Â*am, laurentien > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 5, 7:03Â*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 3, 12:41Â*pm, laurentien > wrote:
>
> > > > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of
> > > > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I
> > > > have not seen any results from the people here.
>
> > > What more do you want? Â*That link is much more credible than your
> > > claim.
>
> > > Using simple LOGIC actually defeats your claim.
>
> > It ýs not a questýon of logic here (leave where it applies please) but
> > a question of facts
>
> Well, since you have present zero facts, then logic is what is to be
> used. Â*It worked for Aristotle, so it can work for you, too.
>

OK ıf you read my posts you will fınd that I did present this group
some facts that I have obtained.
But the initial point here was me asking the people on this forum with
their own facts on magnets.
Nobody could produce facts that are as you say repeatable.
Only one person did point to sone news report about R+D done by some
research groups.

That is all.

The rest is just YOUR pure speculation that companies would absolutely
apply them if they were functionnal.
I repeat that you can say that if you cannot prove your point. Nobody
can bring data that actually Renault or Toyota or VAG did try them and
produced resports which I can read and judge by myself.

This argument may be logical but is not worth anything since this is
what your naive mind wants to believe.
This what a lot of people want to believe. Things can prove
differently in the world where economics rule. As the philosopher John
Saul explains in hıs book "The *******s of Voltaire" we do not lıve ın
a world beiıng rational but everything is done so that we can
believe.

> > > > The only responses I
> > > > read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would
> > > > have been done a long time".
>
> > > Your logic fails here. Â*Carmakers would LOVE to have a device that
> > > saves fuel or adds power for almost no additional weight or research
> > > spending. Â*It make huge monetary sense. Â*What possible reason would
> > > carmakers have for NOT adding such a device?
>
> > Many reasons would lead to that observation and especially the ones of
> > being very conservative and therefore your point is not an educated
> > one.
>
> That is not a logical refutation, but a red herring ad hominem. Â*Both
> of those things are called "logical fallacies", which you may look up
> at your leisure.
>

It is not a question of logic but a question of being rational ın a
world which is not.
I do not think that you know what logic is and where it application
commences and finishes.

> > Who are you to say what carmakers think and would like to do ?
>
> A person that understands simple economics. Â*So simple, that a college
> freshman could understand them. Â*An item to help meet government
> mileage and emissions requirements, with very little capital outlay,
> and very little space used.
>

Naive again.
I though that some time ago until I had these companies as clients.
Well continue to believe in this religion of yours and it will lead to
the disasters that we now live more and more.

> Again, simple logic. Â*Basic logic.
>

It is not a question of logic but a question of being rational ın a
world which is not.
I do not think that you know what logic is and where it application
commences and finishes.

> Again, I ask you: Â*why *wouldn't* ALL of the carmakers use such a
> thing if they could to produce better results? Â*Especially considering
> the cost:benefit ratio?
>

Since I do not see you or anyone else bringing me reports from the car
makers showing that they do not work.
Then I have to judge them severly and you believiıng without seing
makes you a simple propagandist of the good news of economics.
Has Audi worked on these magnets ?

> > > > On Sep 3, 4:20 pm, Dano58 > wrote:
>
> > > > > ... because [use of magnets] HASN'T been accepted as valid in
> > > > > auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little
> > > > > or no effect on gas mileage or performance.
>
> > > > Well prove it.
>
> > > Actually, you have it backwards. Â*You are making a claim that,
> > > contrary to logic and published data, magnets do something. Â*It is up
> > > to *you* to prove it. Â*With hard data, not "my car feels faster."
>
> > In a serious group it goes both ways.
>
> Actually, it doesn't. Â*Folks who make unproven claims get to prove
> them. Â*The original data stands as proof of the contrary claim.
>

Sorry as far as I am concerned IT DOES.
You are making an unproven claim yourself.

And also I never made claim that they work.
I just saıd that I tried them as anyone with an open mind should do if
they do not see proper reports.
I dıd post some results but it is up to you to decide for yourself
(not for the others) if they are worth something.

> > There are explanations for
> > saving energy wýth magnets. Are you ready to hear it ?
>
> The changes brought about in organic compounds by magnetism are so
> small that it takes fields in excess of 5 Tesla to gain molecular
> data. Â*Tell me more about NMR spectroscopy, if you will.
>

Well maybe but through a magnetic field you can untwist those
parafines and this means less energy consummed to do the combustion.

> > > > You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have
> > > > little or no effect on gas mileage or performance.
>
> > > Such information exists in abundance. Â*A 30-second Google search gives
> > > quite a long list of articles. Â*Use "fuel" and "magnets" as your
> > > search parameters. Â*Enjoy.
>
> > I was not satisfied with what I have seen.
>
> So? Â*Your satisfaction is immaterial. Â*Either the material you read
> has flaws in experiment or conclusion, or they don't. Â*Point out these
> errors, and why they are errors.
>

Show me something serious that came out of your Google search.
We will see about that later.

> > > > > You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the
> > > > > magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof
> > > > > that you say we should accept.
>
> > > > Indeed, your feeling while you drive your car may not be considered
> > > > scientific facts but this is what will determine if your car has
> > > > improved or not.
>
> > > Actually, no. Â*Your "feeling" is irrelevant. Â*Hard data is the only
> > > thing that can be used as proof. Â*And, since there exists a body of
> > > data that already says that there is no effect, your experiment must
> > > not only produce statistically positive results, it must be
> > > repeatable.
>
> > This is you opinion...
>
> No, this is what's known as "The Scientific Method".
>

What do you know about it ?
I am not using one of my labs to do this can of ınvestigation since I
work on other issues.
I cannot justify funding requests for this can of tests.

I have to do it by myself with only one car.
If you are waiting for scientific results then wait until someone else
does it.
Myself I am gathering as much as I can with the resources available
and I will tell this group about them.
Lets be honest with each other : if my car gets more punch (meaning
more HP) or does save even 10 % I will be satisfied.

> Not opinion, but a way of life for everyone who does research in a
> hard science.
>

Who are you to lecture me about science ?
What are your credentials ?
Myself I have three scientific journal articles and one book chapter
in robotics kinematics a domain where everybody thought that if
improvements were being possible they would have been done but it
proved false and I am working on issues that people do not want me to
publish because I show the flaws of the accepted methods.

> > I do not have access to the proper facilities to make proper tests on
> > two Audi A4 1.9 TDi and see the results.
>
> Ah. Â*So you do not even know *how* to design a conclusive experiment..
> I thought as much.
>
> Hint: Â*you do not need two cars.
>

Is this an attempt to make a joke ?
Do you read what I wrote ?
I know exactly how to design one serious experiment but I do not have
access to the resources to do it. This what you should have read ıf
you would understand plain English.

> > But you do not as well ...
>
> I wouldn't need two. Â*I could use one. Â*I doesn't even matter what
> kind of car.
>

No ! The weather changes the condition changes ...
Same test protocole on two identical cars.

> > > You may believe what you want, but *this* chemist is willing to bet
> > > that any positive results you get will not be repeatable by anyone
> > > else.
>
> > Irrelevant remark here.
>
> Wrong. Â*It is the cornerstone. Â*If the results cannot be repeated by
> someone else, then your results have no value. Â*This is just the way
> science works.
>

It is irrelevant since you are telling me what you feel about my
results.
To bet is very far from being rational.

> > ... because your point of view will only be relevant
> > if you did try some tests on them.
>
> Why would I bother? Â*Only very strong, supercooled electromagnets have
> the slightest effect on organic molecules found in motor fuels.
>

Can you explain a little bit for the neophyte that I am ?
Ok interesting point here do you know a scientific paper showing
that ?

> Those things weigh tons, and are extremely expensive. Â*And yes, I have
> done NMR spectroscopy.
>
> > > Would you like to make a wager? Â*Like 10000 Euros?
>
> > > E.P.
>
> > No [...]
>
> I thought not. Â*LOL.
>
> E.P.

Luc

On Sep 8, 12:08Â*am, laurentien > wrote:
> On Sep 7, 6:31Â*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 5, 7:26Â*am, laurentien > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 5, 7:03Â*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 3, 12:41Â*pm, laurentien > wrote:
>
> > > > > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of
> > > > > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I
> > > > > have not seen any results from the people here.
>
> > > > What more do you want? Â*That link is much more credible than your
> > > > claim.
>
> > > > Using simple LOGIC actually defeats your claim.
>
> > > It ýs not a questýon of logic here (leave where it applies please) but
> > > a question of facts
>
> > Well, since you have present zero facts, then logic is what is to be
> > used. Â*It worked for Aristotle, so it can work for you, too.
>
> OK ıf you read my posts you will fınd that I did present this group
> some facts that I have obtained.

No, you presented some OPINIONS that you had. Not facts.

> But the initial point here was me asking the people on this forum with
> their own facts on magnets.

Nobody has offered data because there are no hard data to offer.
Folks gullible enough to believe that magnets do anything to motor
fuels are not smart enough to carry out controlled experiments.

> Only one person did point to sone news report about R+D done by some
> research groups.

So far, the only credible source of information, which, oddly has not
been refuted by you or anyone, by anything other than you saying "I
don't believe it."

> The rest is just YOUR pure speculation that companies would absolutely
> apply them if they were functionnal.

You are mischaracterizing my comments. If my logic is not sound,
refute it, if you can.

> I repeat that you can say that if you cannot prove your point.

Luckily, it is not I who must prove myself.

Your demand otherwise is a logical fallacy of reversing the burden of
proof.

> Nobody
> can bring data that actually Renault or Toyota or VAG did try them and
> produced resports which I can read and judge by myself.

Logical fallacy - demanding proof of a negative.

> This argument may be logical but is not worth anything since this is
> what your naive mind wants to believe.

Logical fallacy - ad hominem.

> Things can prove
> differently in the world where economics rule.

As you have shown, your knowledge of basic economics is poor. I
suggest further coursework.

> > > > > The only responses I
> > > > > read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would
> > > > > have been done a long time".
>
> > > > Your logic fails here. Â*Carmakers would LOVE to have a device that
> > > > saves fuel or adds power for almost no additional weight or research
> > > > spending. Â*It make huge monetary sense. Â*What possible reason would
> > > > carmakers have for NOT adding such a device?
>
> > > Many reasons would lead to that observation and especially the ones of
> > > being very conservative and therefore your point is not an educated
> > > one.
>
> > That is not a logical refutation, but a red herring ad hominem. Â*Both
> > of those things are called "logical fallacies", which you may look up
> > at your leisure.
>
> It is not a question of logic but a question of being rational ın a
> world which is not.

If you are attempting to convince others of your position, you must
rely on some sort of rational system.

Logic.

> I do not think that you know what logic is and where it application
> commences and finishes.

Logical fallacy - ad hominem.

> > > Who are you to say what carmakers think and would like to do ?
>
> > A person that understands simple economics. Â*So simple, that a college
> > freshman could understand them. Â*An item to help meet government
> > mileage and emissions requirements, with very little capital outlay,
> > and very little space used.
>
> Naive again.

Logical fallacy - ad hominem.

> I though that some time ago until I had these companies as clients.

Unproven claim.

> Well continue to believe in this religion of yours and it will lead to
> the disasters that we now live more and more.

Logical fallacy - red herring.

> > Again, simple logic. Â*Basic logic.
>
> It is not a question of logic but a question of being rational ın a
> world which is not.

Your comment has even less meaning now than when you said it the first
time. If you wish to have a rational discussion, you cannot abandon
reason.

Reason and logic are tied together, and cannot be unbound.

> I do not think that you know what logic is and where it application
> commences and finishes.

Logical fallacy - ad hominem.

> > Again, I ask you: Â*why *wouldn't* ALL of the carmakers use such a
> > thing if they could to produce better results? Â*Especially considering
> > the cost:benefit ratio?
>
> Since I do not see you or anyone else bringing me reports from the car
> makers showing that they do not work.

That is not a response to the question asked, but yet another red
herring fallacy.

> Then I have to judge them severly and you believiıng without seing
> makes you a simple propagandist of the good news of economics.

Ad hominem.

> Has Audi worked on these magnets ?

Why would they? Simple physics shows that the cannot work.

> > > > > On Sep 3, 4:20 pm, Dano58 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > ... because [use of magnets] HASN'T been accepted as valid in
> > > > > > auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little
> > > > > > or no effect on gas mileage or performance.
>
> > > > > Well prove it.
>
> > > > Actually, you have it backwards. Â*You are making a claim that,
> > > > contrary to logic and published data, magnets do something. Â*It is up
> > > > to *you* to prove it. Â*With hard data, not "my car feels faster."
>
> > > In a serious group it goes both ways.
>
> > Actually, it doesn't. Â*Folks who make unproven claims get to prove
> > them. Â*The original data stands as proof of the contrary claim.
>
> Sorry as far as I am concerned IT DOES.

Then it is fortunate for me that it is not you who gets to make up the
rules of logic and reason, yes?

> You are making an unproven claim yourself.

You are mistaken. Quote it exactly.

> And also I never made claim that they work.

Your first paragraph above says differently.

> I just saıd that I tried them as anyone with an open mind should do if
> they do not see proper reports.

I consider the reports given as proper. I have seen no refutation
with data, or in questioning of method or results.

> I dıd post some results but it is up to you to decide for yourself
> (not for the others) if they are worth something.

You posted your opinion. Opinion is not data.

> > > There are explanations for
> > > saving energy wýth magnets. Are you ready to hear it ?
>
> > The changes brought about in organic compounds by magnetism are so
> > small that it takes fields in excess of 5 Tesla to gain molecular
> > data. Â*Tell me more about NMR spectroscopy, if you will.
>
> Well maybe but through a magnetic field you can untwist those
> parafines and this means less energy consummed to do the combustion.

No. Both your chemistry and physics are wrong in the above statement.

> > > > > You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have
> > > > > little or no effect on gas mileage or performance.
>
> > > > Such information exists in abundance. Â*A 30-second Google search gives
> > > > quite a long list of articles. Â*Use "fuel" and "magnets" as your
> > > > search parameters. Â*Enjoy.
>
> > > I was not satisfied with what I have seen.
>
> > So? Â*Your satisfaction is immaterial. Â*Either the material you read
> > has flaws in experiment or conclusion, or they don't. Â*Point out these
> > errors, and why they are errors.
>
> Show me something serious that came out of your Google search.

You are avoiding the question. (Or, logical fallacy - red herring).
If you do not like what you've seen, then tell me how it's flawed.
You do realize this the the cornerstone of science publishing, right?

> > > > > > You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the
> > > > > > magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof
> > > > > > that you say we should accept.
>
> > > > > Indeed, your feeling while you drive your car may not be considered
> > > > > scientific facts but this is what will determine if your car has
> > > > > improved or not.
>
> > > > Actually, no. Â*Your "feeling" is irrelevant. Â*Hard data is the only
> > > > thing that can be used as proof. Â*And, since there exists a body of
> > > > data that already says that there is no effect, your experiment must
> > > > not only produce statistically positive results, it must be
> > > > repeatable.
>
> > > This is you opinion...
>
> > No, this is what's known as "The Scientific Method".
>
> What do you know about it ?

Obviously much more than you. If you cannot recognize the difference
between feeling and hard, reproducable data, then explaining the
scientific method is a waste of my time.

> I am not using one of my labs to do this can of ınvestigation since I
> work on other issues.

It doesn't require a lab.

> I cannot justify funding requests for this can of tests.

If you can buy magnets, then you can afford the testing.



> I have to do it by myself with only one car.

Easily done.

> If you are waiting for scientific results then wait until someone else
> does it.

Then all you're doing is typing a bunch of gibberish on the internet.
If you are unwilling to even collect preliminary data, what use is
anything you have to say?

> Lets be honest with each other : if my car gets more punch (meaning
> more HP) or does save even 10 % I will be satisfied.

Let's be honest: you won't see even a single HP increase.


> > Not opinion, but a way of life for everyone who does research in a
> > hard science.
>
> Who are you to lecture me about science ?

Someone who has lived and worked science his entire adult life.

But it is a nice ad hominem.

> What are your credentials ?
> Myself I have three scientific journal articles and one book chapter
> in robotics kinematics a domain where everybody thought that if
> improvements were being possible they would have been done but it
> proved false and I am working on issues that people do not want me to
> publish because I show the flaws of the accepted methods.

Logical fallacy - appeal to authority. Please spare me the "I would
have been published except for politics in my field."

> > > I do not have access to the proper facilities to make proper tests on
> > > two Audi A4 1.9 TDi and see the results.
>
> > Ah. Â*So you do not even know *how* to design a conclusive experiment.

On Sep 9, 7:49Â*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
> On Sep 8, 12:08Â*am, laurentien > wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of
> > > > > > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I
> > > > > > have not seen any results from the people here.
>
> > > > > What more do you want? Â*That link is much more credible than your
> > > > > claim.
>
> > > > > Using simple LOGIC actually defeats your claim.
>
> > > > It ýs not a questýon of logic here (leave where it applies please) but
> > > > a question of facts
>
> > > Well, since you have present zero facts, then logic is what is to be
> > > used. Â*It worked for Aristotle, so it can work for you, too.
>
> > OK ıf you read my posts you will fınd that I did present this group
> > some facts that I have obtained.
>
> No, you presented some OPINIONS that you had. Â*Not facts.
>
> > But the initial point here was me asking the people on this forum with
> > their own facts on magnets.
>
> Nobody has offered data because there are no hard data to offer.
> Folks gullible enough to believe that magnets do anything to motor
> fuels are not smart enough to carry out controlled experiments.
>

If your respect the others speak for yourself.
You have no rright to speak for anyone else than others.
You are becomıng very rude and I do not see why I keep answering to
your comments.

> > Only one person did point to sone news report about R+D done by some
> > research groups.
>
> So far, the only credible source of information, which, oddly has not
> been refuted by you or anyone, by anything other than you saying "I
> don't believe it."
>
> > The rest is just YOUR pure speculation that companies would absolutely
> > apply them if they were functionnal.
>
> You are mischaracterizing my comments. Â*If my logic is not sound,
> refute it, if you can.
>

Again it is not a question of logic.

> > I repeat that you can say that if you cannot prove your point.
>
> Luckily, it is not I who must prove myself.
>

I completely disagree here.
You cannot prove that the magnets are not working since you cannot
produce any facts done by yourself nor can you explain using physics
or chemestry that it is not going to work. You keep insulting people
by saying that anybody knowing elementary science will
know what happens. OK than can you enlight us with that verifyable
basic knowledge of yours. Can you do it ?

> Your demand otherwise is a logical fallacy of reversing the burden of
> proof.
>
> > Nobody
> > can bring data that actually Renault or Toyota or VAG did try them and
> > produced resports which I can read and judge by myself.
>
> Logical fallacy - demanding proof of a negative.
>

You have no sense of science when you say that.

> > This argument may be logical but is not worth anything since this is
> > what your naive mind wants to believe.
>
> Logical fallacy - ad hominem.
>

It sounds lıke you live in the religion of logic.

> > Things can prove
> > differently in the world where economics rule.
>
> As you have shown, your knowledge of basic economics is poor. Â*I
> suggest further coursework.
>

There is no point discussing furter with you.

LHR

On Sep 9, 12:31Â*am, laurentien > wrote:
> On Sep 9, 7:49Â*am, Ed Pirrero > wrote:
>
> > On Sep 8, 12:08Â*am, laurentien > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of
> > > > > > > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I
> > > > > > > have not seen any results from the people here.
>
> > > > > > What more do you want? Â*That link is much more credible than your
> > > > > > claim.
>
> > > > > > Using simple LOGIC actually defeats your claim.
>
> > > > > It ýs not a questýon of logic here (leave where it applies please) but
> > > > > a question of facts
>
> > > > Well, since you have present zero facts, then logic is what is to be
> > > > used. Â*It worked for Aristotle, so it can work for you, too.
>
> > > OK ıf you read my posts you will fınd that I did present this group
> > > some facts that I have obtained.
>
> > No, you presented some OPINIONS that you had. Â*Not facts.
>
> > > But the initial point here was me asking the people on this forum with
> > > their own facts on magnets.
>
> > Nobody has offered data because there are no hard data to offer.
> > Folks gullible enough to believe that magnets do anything to motor
> > fuels are not smart enough to carry out controlled experiments.
>
> If your respect the others speak for yourself.

I do not respect people who proclaim fact without knowing any.

Who propound theory without knowing any.

I repeat: if you are DUMB enough to believe that you can get
something for nothing, then you deserve what you get.

Throwing Euros down the toilet.

> > > Only one person did point to sone news report about R+D done by some
> > > research groups.
>
> > So far, the only credible source of information, which, oddly has not
> > been refuted by you or anyone, by anything other than you saying "I
> > don't believe it."
>
> > > The rest is just YOUR pure speculation that companies would absolutely
> > > apply them if they were functionnal.
>
> > You are mischaracterizing my comments. Â*If my logic is not sound,
> > refute it, if you can.
>
> Again it is not a question of logic.

Repeating that claim does not make it valid. If you cannot reason,
then you cannot have a rational discussion. If you cannot use logic,
then you cannot make a rational presentation of hypothesis,
experiment, results nor conclusion.


> > > I repeat that you can say that if you cannot prove your point.
>
> > Luckily, it is not I who must prove myself.
>
> I completely disagree here.

You disagreeing does not make you correct. You are arguing against
already-published data. It is up to YOU to prove that data wrong.
Either through rational discussions of the experimental design or
conclusions from data. Or, you can perform the experiments yourself
and present the data.

Until you do those things, the original data stand.

Your attempt at reversing the burden of proof is laughable.

> > Your demand otherwise is a logical fallacy of reversing the burden of
> > proof.
>
> > > Nobody
> > > can bring data that actually Renault or Toyota or VAG did try them and
> > > produced resports which I can read and judge by myself.
>
> > Logical fallacy - demanding proof of a negative.
>
> You have no sense of science when you say that.

Wrong.

> > > This argument may be logical but is not worth anything since this is
> > > what your naive mind wants to believe.
>
> > Logical fallacy - ad hominem.
>
> It sounds lıke you live in the religion of logic.

Logical fallacy - straw man.

If you cannot present rational argument, why should anyone take you
seriously?

> > > Things can prove
> > > differently in the world where economics rule.
>
> > As you have shown, your knowledge of basic economics is poor. Â*I
> > suggest further coursework.
>
> There is no point discussing furter with you.

Actually, you didn't have a point to begin with. You bought some junk
for your car, and emotionally felt the need to justify it by "feeling"
something that wasn't (and never will be) there.

It's called "The Placebo Effect".

Next time you wish to engage in a Usenet debate, try and use reason
and logic, rather than your overwrought emotions. You might get
further. And focusing on the emotion, rather than the facts, will
always put you in a bad spot.

E.P.