Yep. It was about 3 inches long and about 2 1/2 inches in diameter with a high tech plastic tie wrap to hold it on. We was offered a fleet price of $76 US for them.



alanscott

 

I know the magnet device you're referring to, but the Wyoming Instruments is a different item, though still probably no good. The Atomizer in question is something you have to splice into the fuel line and not just a "strap-on." (he, he) This, of course, means that if you are going to remove it, you have to replace the line you've butchered. So, regarding all the hassle and no real guarantees of getting $ back, I'll skip on this item until I see some verified, researched reports on real benefits. With all this stuff floating around, you'd think some of the major publications would do a review of them. Project MPG on the Performance Unlimited website mentioned that they asked manufacturers to send them various devices for use on the test vehicle. They got no response. For a careful study of improving power and MPG, that site seems to be the best so far. I think the address is www.performanceunlimited.com. Check out the Project M-P-G link.

 

Ken,

I'm trying to keep an open mind on all this, but, I also don't feel qualified to defend a product that I haven't tested myself.

Wyoming Instruments' web page gives a pretty good description of how the system works according to them. It gives the company's explanation to your two questions. I agree with their response to your first, providing the injectors can shut down sufficiently. I am reserving my opinion on their response to your second question. I am not trying to promote their product for them, so, if you are interested in how they address your questions, their web site is: www.wyominginstruments.com

It all seems very plausible and I can see how it might work... enough, at least, for me to give it a try. If it works, I'll put one on my wife's Windstar, my buddy's Silverado (cringe) , my father's F150 and who ever else wants to try it... if it doesn't work, I'll try to get my money back... and it'll be the end of the story.

In any case, I'll post my findings here. As for base line information, I live on an acreage and work in the city, so, I drive a mix of highway/city, approximately 75%/25% respectively. My results are very consistent. I get 295-300 kilometers out of my rear tank (full to dry) running the truck at 100 kilometers per hour on the highway and seldom exceeding 1/4 throttle in stop and go acceleration. The best I've ever gotten out of the rear tank was 325 kilometers on a straight highway run with no stops till it ran dry. The front tank is larger and I get 350ish kilometers, though, I don't monitor it as closely. During particularly cold winter weather (colder than -20 celsius) the milage drops off significantly, and I would not want to use such periods for any kind of comparison.

I'll be making my judgement calls against this information.

Perry

 

After reading these threads and not knowing any of these products, I give my two cents worth based on my knowledge of organic chemistry (a course required in most engineering degrees).

Fuel, whether gasoline or diesel etc., is made up of many different substances (15 or more diff molecules for most gas blends) none of which are polar (pos-neg poles), therefore any product claiming to magnetically realign fuel molecule's structure is full of s--- and is a ripoff.

Molecular sturctures can only be rearranged through chemical reactions. When this occurs, you are left with a compound which is something other than what you started with.

For example:
methane(CH4) burned in oxygen(O2) will give you
carbon dioxide(CO2) and water(H2O).

The methane was converted (realigned) to CO2 and H2O.
This cannot be done with MAGNETS.

Because of trade secrets, many people lose money to gimmicks.
When considering these new products, ask how they work and ask for tech reports. If they can't or won't provide you with them, tell them to keep their junk and save your money.

RCC

 

>You didn't answer the questions I
>asked, answering them will go
>a long way towards knowing
>if you're making the right
>choice:
>
>1. If it atomizes fuel, then
>how come the fuel injectors
>don't stop working? Fuel
>injectors inject liquid fuel, not
>atomized gas.
>
>2. Why do they sell you
>a club membership instead of
>the actual product? Its
>because if they do, they
>aren't liable for meeting the
>claims.
>
(clip stuff)

>Ken Payne
>Ford Truck Enthusiasts Admin

1. The Wyoming Fuel Atomizer works through the PCV line back into the intake manifold, it doesn't work through the injectors. The original inventer of the gasoline engine (ott)? was quoted to say that his original design was to ignite fumes and not liquid... so the theory is supported from the beginning.

2. The reasons for selling "memberships" are supposedly stated on the website.

I don't have any of these, but I wish you luck Perry, I think you were involved in the discussion a few months ago on the same subject. It seems as though there could be some fine tuning involved in getting it just right, so I hope you don't give up on it right away. But if it doesn't work for you, I hope you do get your money returned. Have you talked with anyone in person who is using the product and who has seen some of the claims on the website? Even 25% would be great, but 40% would be greater. Keep us posted.

Tony G

 

Tony,

Thanks for the positive support!

You are right. I was involved in another thread on this subject a couple months back. It was that thread that got me researching the websites mentioned... and, eventually talking to the local distributor of the Fuel Atomizer 2000. We spoke on the phone for at least 20 minutes. He says that he has put these devices on about 60 vehicles... most are realizing a 35-40% increase in fuel economy. Granted he is a vendor, so we can be excused for proceeding with caution... he does seem trust worthy, though.

Anyway, I've always preferred to make up my own mind... and that's what I'm doing. I will definately keep you posted.

Perry

 

Here are a couple of facts that allow the company to advertise their "device" legally....

>Fuel, whether gasoline or diesel etc.,
>is made up of many
>different substances (15 or more
>diff molecules for most gas
>blends) none of which are
>polar (pos-neg poles), therefore any
>product claiming to magnetically realign
>fuel molecule's structure is full
>of s--- and is a
>ripoff.

The molecules in gasoline can be "realigned" as they claim. The structure doesn't change, just the orientation of the molecule in space. This is exactly what happens when you get an MRI done at the hospital. Atoms can be "aligned" and then relaxed back to thier original state. This relaxation allows a computer to image the atoms into that cool picture of your kidney stones. However, it takes a huge magnet with lots of power. A similar device on a fuel line would likely suck the nearest honda under your hood. So, the theory is there, but the true "alignment" of the atoms just aint going to happen for $300 and a strap-on magnet.

>Because of trade secrets, many people
>lose money to gimmicks.
>When considering these new products, ask
>how they work and ask
>for tech reports.
>
>RCC

....right on.


Jason McCary
Ph.D. Organic Chemistry
University of Utah

 

>A similar device on a fuel
>line would likely suck the
>nearest honda under your hood.
>
>
>
>Jason McCary
>Ph.D. Organic Chemistry
>University of Utah

You must mean an older honda, I don't think the new ones have any iron in them :-)

With the push for bigger and better fuel sqeezers, I am sure that every trick and gimmick out there has been researched by the manufacturers.

alanscott

 

Has anyone tried magnetic fuel savers. If so what is a reasonable performance increase? How much are they worth....Do they work?

 

Is it just me or is the only thing going on with this thing is introducing case vapors into the fuel system? I looked through the website and even visited the troubleshooting section. They mention possible vapor-lock at least 10 times. No wonder! They are pushing slugs of oil vapor through the fuel line! It seems to me, that the OEM PCV system probally has been better researched than this. Any MPG increase would come from the fact that this device is diluting the fuel. Will this cause detonation? One would almost think that a set of taller rear tires, or a free flowing exhaust would be a much better(and safer) use of the $200.

 

Okay everybody,

I promised the results of my testing way back in January... and now, long over due... this is what I've found... or not, depending on how you look at it.

When I first installed the Fuel Atomizer 2000, I realised an approximate gain economy which seemed to fluctuate between about 8% and 12%. In my application the unit seemed to fall out of adjustment a lot and it may be because I am drawing fuel from fuel rail with an adapter I rigged up. The high presure may not sit well with the adjustment control on the unit... it is kind of hokey. Adjustments were very fine and I had some difficulty dialling the thing in, but, as winter turned to summer, my milage stablized and settled in to pretty much 320-330 kilometers to my rear tank. I had accepted my baseline as 295-300 kilometers.

In one tankful, I got a real nice 406 kilometers on the highway, by far the best economy I've ever gotten with the truck. I also averaged in the consumption with the front tank to eliminate any confusion with a malfunction of the fuel selector valve.

I was satisfied that I was getting a fairly consistent 8-10% increase, not what I had hoped for, but worth the investment to me.

Now for the bad news...

I shut down the Fuel Atomizer 2000 to confirm my baseline in the summer time as I wanted to be certain of my findings. I was somewhat disappointed to find that I was still getting 320-330 kilometers to the same rear tankful with the system shut off.

It occurred to me that my 295-300 k/rt (kilometers/rear tank) was established prior to installation of my Banks Power Pack. Since that time I had mostly burned propane in the summer and not monitored my gasoline milage too closely... in the winter I was still getting the 295-300 k/rt as long as it wasn't really cold out, in which case it would fall to 275-280 k/rt.

RESULTS???

My results are inconclusive, however, I speculate that in my case the system might deliver a modest improvement in the winter time when the cold induction air is less capable of atomizing the fuel in the short distance from the injector nozzle to the combustion chamber, but, come summertime the improvement may be negligle.

Just the same, that tank at 406 kilometers is great as, with the system shut off, I have only been able to get a very consistant highway run measured over four tankfuls of 360-361 k/rt... suggesting a 12.5% increase is there, if I could just get the blasted thing dialed in and keep it there.

Right now, I've abandoned gasoline for the most part returning to propane as the price of gasoline is through the roof, and propane, though still near it's all time high, is once again cheaper to drive than gasoline.

I have not tried to return the Fuel Atomizer 2000, as I am not convinced that it won't work, and intend on playing with it some more... in any case, I am way past the 60 days money back guarantee.

Sorry I was not able to give a more conclusive answer... but, this is it for now.

Perry

 

Sounds like it works as good as rebuild in a can!

1988 Ford F250 4x4, 5.0 liter (soon to be Roller 5.0), AOD tranny, 2.5 Dual exhaust, Headman Shortyheaders, 33" BFG's Mud Terrain

1980 Ford F100, with 1988 5.0L Roller (carburated), T-5 five speed Borg Warner World Class Transmission, 31 spline 9" 3.73 posi , and a bunch more!! 13.78 quarter mile.

 

I checked out the website, this has got to be one of the biggest piles of Junk I've ever seen. It probably does save gas though, by lowering the fuel pressure going to the injectors.


If you use this piece of crap I'd invest in a good fire extinguisher.

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 12-Jun-01 AT 12:19 PM (EST)[/font][p]I'm selling memberships to my CLub "Stick a Block of Wood under the pedal on the Right" for not $20.00 but Just $19.95

 

Hi Perry!

I'm also looking at this device as well the Atomizer 2000, for my 2000 F150 5.4L triton. What I would lo=ike to know is that have you got and mounted this unit already and whats your opinion ?


Thanks


peter