Howdy folks,

Last month (12-13-00) I mentioned my intent to post this report and
predicted that it would be done by New Year's Eve. Well, it took a little
longer that anticipated to get all my ducks in a row so here it is (better
late than never).

What follows is my attempt to summarize and interpret into lay terms an
experiment carried out by Michael Kugele, Andrew B. Yule (both of the School
of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales), and Maher Kalaji (Department of
Chemistry, University of Wales). The experiment was originally documented in
a paper entitled "An Effect of Magnetic Field Exposure on Microorganisms
Associated with Fuel Oil" which was published in the journal "Biofouling
1999" vol.14(3).

It should be noted that this study was contracted for and financed by a
company that manufactures and distributes magnetic fuel treatment devices
and that the resulting paper was supplied to me by the director of that
company (who is also apparently a reader of TWL). I would like to thank
everyone involved for carrying out the study and for making the results
available to us.

A copy of this report was submitted (12-24-00) to corresponding author
Michael Kugele for evaluation. To date, no response has been received.

INTRODUCTION

As most of us on TWL are aware, there have been many claims and
counter-claims for the efficacy of various types of magnetic fuel treatment
devices. For various reasons such claims tend to be presented without valid
evidence to back them up. After complaining about this lack of evidence in a
post on 11-29-00 I received an offer to review just the type of report that
I had thought nonexistent. Obviously I jumped at the chance and that's what
this post is about.

There are research papers dating back to 1962 and before that discuss the
idea that magnetic fields can affect certain microorganisms. This paper
cites 14 previous papers relating to this topic and describes their results
as inconsistent, inconclusive, and limited. Clearly there has been little
more consensus in the scientific community than there has been in the
business community about this subject.

This study is an attempt to find out whether a specific type of
microorganism and/or the fouling associated with it can be affected by
magnetic treatment.

DEFINITIONS and ABBREVIATIONS

The report that I'm working from was written by scientists for scientists;
TWL is a plain text only forum and I don't want to use any special
characters; Added to that is the fact that I don't type particularly well or
quickly. For these reasons, I'd like to define a few terms and abbreviations
here to save some typing later.

bug = Fuel oil degrading microorganism
d = day(s)
fsw = fortified saltwater
l = liter(s)
lpm = liters per minute
mc = micron or 0.0001 centimeter (a human hair is approx 50mc)
sem = scanning electron microscope

OVERVIEW

The experiment calls for diesel fuel to be pumped through two systems; one
with magnetic treatment and one without but otherwise the two systems are to
be identical. Conclusions will be drawn from the differences in performance
between the two systems.

APPARATUS and MATERIALS

The apparatus for the study consisted of a heated storage tank, a
circulating pump (Shurflo #8000-043-295), and two legs of plumbing each
containing a 30mc filter (Separ #KWA-20), a magnetic treatment housing, and
several valves to allow samples to be taken at different points in the
system. One magnetic treatment housing contained a barium ferrite magnetic
ring while the other contained a non-magnetic ring of the same material. All
piping, valves, etc. were carefully matched to insure that the only
difference between the two legs was the magnetic component*. The path
followed through the system was as follows: From the tank to a 'T' to either
the active or non-active treatment leg (each consisting of the magnetic unit
(or dummy), the 30 mc filter, and a number of valves arranged to allow
product sampling and flow rate measurement) to another 'T' recombining the
two legs to the pump and finally back to the tank.

Materials used were 114l red diesel fuel "assayed to ensure that a biocide
was not present", 20l sterile filtered (0.2mc) saltwater with potassium
nitrate and disodium orthophosphate added (fsw), and an additional batch of
diesel and fsw which was used to culture the bugs used in the study. System
temperature was maintained at 25-30C for the duration of the study.

• It was found at the end of the study that the two filter elements were
  somewhat different but since the difference mitigated against the magnetic
  unit it was deemed non-significant (IOW: If the two elements had been
  identical then the magnetic device would have looked even better).

PROCEDURE

The system was first run for 6d with diesel and fsw (but no bugs).

The bug culture was added and the system was run for 17d during which time
there was no additional mixing of the diesel and fsw culture in the tank. At
the end of the 17d period there was no indication of filter plugging in
either leg of the system.

Subsequently aeration was added to the tank to simulate the mixing that
would happen in a typical mobile application. This mixing immediately
resulted in restriction being noted in both legs of the system. As the
experiment continued to run for the next 20d the restriction in the
non-magnetic leg grew at a much faster rate than did that of the
magnetically
treated leg. It was estimated that the filter in the non-magnetic leg would
have been totally blocked after a total of 42d whereas its magnetic leg
counterpart would last 240d before being completely blocked.

Samples were also taken from various points in both legs of the system to
estimate the bug population. The study found that there was no significant
difference in population anywhere in the system. In fact, during the course
of the study the overall bug population density in the apparatus grew to
equal that of the seed culture.

The samples were also used to estimate particle size of the contaminates in
the system with particles classified into groups based on the following
sizes 15mc, 30mc, 50mc, 85mc, 112mc, & >135mc. Particles in the magnetic leg
tended toward the smaller size groups while the non-magnetic ones tended to
be larger.

At the conclusion of the study the filter elements were examined by sem
which showed them to have collected (mainly) what could be thought of as bug
poop. Sem pictures taken of different sections of filter element showed no
significant difference in the number of actual bugs.

CONCLUSION

Given that magnetic treatment does not appear to kill bugs but does make a
dramatic difference in the rate of plugging a 30mc filter the logical
conclusion would seem to be that magnetic treatment somehow prevents bug
poop (the experimenters call it bio-film) from aggregating to the point of
plugging filters.

Since most engine mounted fuel filters are nominally in the 25 to 35mc range
it would appear that magnetic treatment could reduce clogging and extend the
life of these elements.

One question remains unanswered that would be of interest to most TWListees:
How would these results have been different if the study had used 2mc
filters instead of 30mc? Given that 2-3mc is the nominal filtration range
for the most common aftermarket filters used by TWListees and that that's
much smaller than even the smallest group tracked in this study it wouldn't
be surprising to see very different results from such a change in procedure.

Gaussly yours,

Alex

A week or so ago, someone (I think Alex) asked about the source for
2-micron fuel filter elements for the Lehman engine mounted filter.
Sure enough, when I checked, the Fram filters I have are not
2-micron.  Jim at Doc Freeman's says they're more like 5-micron.

Of interest, is that Doc Freeman's offers a retrofit adapter for the
original CAV filter housing that will allow you to use Parker/Racor
2-micron spin on filter elements.  I gather these are the same
elements used by the Racor 215 filter assembly, mentioned earlier as
another replacement option for the original CAV assembly.  This
adapter is around $40 (for a single filter model).  Elements are
about $20/ea, from Doc's or WMP.  The advantage over the 215 housing
is one doesn't need to re-plumb the fuel lines, and it's cheaper (vs.
$100 for the 215).

The Parker adapter is called the "Interceptor, #IN CAV ADAPTER", for"
Perkins, Ford, SAAB, Volvo-Penta and more!"  Uses element P/N "IN
B32008" or "IN B32016".

Email me directly if you'd like a .gif image of the Parker data sheet.

-Louis
SEASTAR - '69 American Marine Defever Alaskan 46-018
Redwood City, CA., USA, Terra, Sol, Milky Way