Magnetic Water and Fuel Treatment: Myth, Magic, Or Mainstream Science?

Magnetic Water and Fuel Treatment: Myth, Magic, or Mainstream Science?

Magnetic treatment has been claimed to soften water and improve the combustibility of fuels. A literature review reveals that these claims are not well supported by data. MIKE R. POWELL

agnets are not just for refrigerators any more. In fact, according to some magnet vendors, magnets Mcan be used to improve blood circulation, cure and prevent diseases, increase automobile mileage, improve plant growth, soften water, prevent tooth decay, and even increase the strength of concrete. Some of these claims are backed by experimental evidence. Many are not. This article focuses specifically on the claimed benefits of magnetically treated fuel and water. Most magnetic water and fuel treatment systems appear to be marketed through independent distributors who sell out of their homes. An Internet search using the keywords magnetic treatment reveals dozens of independent distributor home pages. Very few such devices are offered by national chain stores or advertised in mail-order catalogs. Possibly, the magnetic-device manufacturers sell through independent distributors to insulate themselves from some of the

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER January/February 1998 27 more exotic claimed benefits of magnetic treatment, or per- erated by moving electrons are used in many household appli- haps consumer and wholesaler skepticism has kept magnetic ances, automobiles, and industrial machines. One basic exam- treatment out of mainstream retail. Regardless of the reasons, ple is the electromagnet, which is constructed from many coils magnetic water and fuel treatment devices are not usually of wire wrapped around a central iron core. T h e magnetic field available at die local hardware or automobile parts supply is present only when electrical current is passed through the store. This lack of wide availability has given magnetic water wire coils. and fuel treatment a sort of fringe-science status in the minds Permanent magnets do not use an applied electrical cur- of many consumers. Whether this label is deserved is the sub- rent. Instead, the magnetic field of a permanent magnet results ject of this article. from the mutual alignment of the very small magnetic fields produced by each of the atoms in the magnet. These Claimed Benefits and Effects atomic-level magnetic fields result mostly from the spin and orbital movements of electrons. While many substances The claimed benefits of magnetic water treatment vary undergo alignment of the atomic-level fields in response to an depending on the manufacturer. Some claim only diat mag- applied magnetic field, only ferromagnetic materials retain the netic treatment will prevent and eliminate lime scale in pipe atomic-level alignment when the applied field is removed. and heating elements; others make additional, more extrava- Thus, all permanent magnets are composed of ferromagnetic gant claims. Some of die additional claims include water soft- materials. The most commonly used ferromagnetic elements ening, improved plant growth, and the prevention of some are iron, cobalt, and nickel. diseases in people who consume magnetically treated water. The strength of a magnet is given by its magnetic flux den- Magnetic water treatment devices consist of one or more mag- sity, which is measured in units of gauss. The earth's magnetic nets, which are clamped onto or installed inside the incoming field is on the order of 0.5 gauss (Marshall and Skitek 1987). residential water supply line. Typical costs for a residential Typical household refrigerator magnets have field strengths of installation range from about $ 100 to $600 or more. about 1,000 gauss. According to the distributors, the magnets Magnetic fuel treatment devices are constructed similarly. sold for water and fuel treatment have magnetic flux densities One or more magnets arc damped around or installed inside in the 2,000 to 4,000 gauss range, which is not unusually an automobile's engine fuel line between the gas tank and the strong. Permanent magnets with flux densities in the 8,000 carburetor (or fuel injectors). Claims for these devices include gauss range are readily available. The magnets sold for mag- decreased hazardous gas emissions, more complete combus- netic fuel and water treatment are nothing special; they are just tion, improved engine power, longer-lasting engine compo- ordinary magnets. nents, and a 10 percent to 20 percent increase in gas mileage. Prices for automotive fuel treatment magnets range from Water Hardness about $50 to $300. The distributors of these devices rarely can cite any docu- The phrase hard water originated when it was observed that mented test results that validate these claims. Instead, they rely water from some sources requires more laundry soap to pro- on numerous testimonials, lists of corporations and munici- duce suds than water from other sources. Waters that required palities that purportedly use the devices, and scientific-sound- more soap were considered "harder" to use for laundering. ing explanations of magnetic water and fuel treatment. Water "hardness" is a measure of dissolved mineral content. However, just because distributors do not cite the literature As water seeps through soil and aquifers, it often contacts min- does not mean that no relevant literature exists. Published test erals such as limestone and dolomite. Under the right condi- reports and journal articles that investigate magnetic treatment tions, small amounts of these minerals will dissolve in the are available. This article reviews the available experimental ground water and the water will become "hard." Water hard- evidence for magnetic water and fuel treatment. ness is quantified by the concentration of dissolved hardness minerals. The most common hardness minerals are carbonates and sulfates of magnesium and calcium. Water with a total Magnets and Magnetism hardness mineral concentration of less than about 17 parts per million (ppm) is categorized as "soft" by the Water Quality To many people, magnets are a complete mystery. Vendors of Association (Harrison 1993). "Moderately hard" water has a magnet-based scams often use this ignorance to their own concentration of 60 to 120 ppm. "Very hard" water exceeds advantage, so a familiarity with the basics of magnetism can 180 ppm. aid in the detection of dubious claims. Hard water is often undesirable because the dissolved min- Magnetic fields are produced by the motion of charged par- erals can form scale. Scale is simply the solid phase of the dis- tides. For example, electrons flowing in a wire will produce a solved minerals. Some hardness minerals become less soluble magnetic field surrounding the wire. The magnetic fields gen- in water as temperature is increased. These minerals tend to form deposits on the surfaces of water heating elements, bath- Mike R. Powell, P.E., is a chemical engineer for a research and tubs, and inside hot water pipes. Scale deposits can shorten the development laboratory in Richland, Washington. useful life of appliances such as dishwashers. Hard water also

2 8 January/February 1998 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER increases soap consumption and the amount of "soap scum" formed on dishes. Many homeowners and businesses use water softeners to avoid the problems that result from hard water. Most water softeners remove problematic dissolved magnesium and calcium by passing water through a bed of "ion-exchange" beads. The beads are initially contacted with a concentrated salt (sodium chloride) solution to saturate the bead exchange sites with sodium ions. These ion-exchange sites have a greater affinity for calcium and magnesium, so when hard water is passed through (he beads the calcium and magnesium ions are captured and sodium is released. The end result is that the calcium and magnesium ions in the hard water are replaced by sodium ions. Sodium salts do not readily form scale or soap scum, so the problems associated with hard water are avoided. A 1960 survey of municipal water supplies in one hundred U.S. cities revealed that water hardness ranged from 0 to 738 ppm with a median of 90 ppm (see Singley 1984). Ion- exchange water softeners are capable of reducing the hardness of the incoming water supply to between 0 and 2 ppm, which is well below the levels where scale and soap precipitation are significant. One of the principal drawbacks of ion-exchange water softeners is the need to periodically recharge the ion exchange beads with sodium ions. Rock salt is added to a reservoir in the softener for this purpose.

Magnetic Water Treatment

A wide variety of magnetic water treatment devices are available, but most consist of one or more permanent magnets they claim, is unhealthy for people with high blood pressure. affixed either inside or to the exterior surface of the incoming While it is true that ion-exchange softening increases the water pipe. The water is exposed to the magnetic field as it sodium concentration, me amount of sodium typically found flows through the pipe between the magnets. An alternative even in softened water is too low to be of significance for the approach is to use electrical current flowing through coils of majority of people with high blood pressure. Only those who wire wrapped around the water pipe to generate the magnetic are on a severely sodium-restricted diet should be concerned field. about the amount of sodium in water, regardless of whether it Purveyors of magnetic water treatment devices claim that is softened (Yarows et al. 1997). Such individuals arc often exposing water to a magnetic field will decrease the water's advised to consume demineralized water along with low-salt "effective" hardness. Typical claims include the elimination of foods. scale deposits, lower water-heating bills, extended life of water There is apparently no consensus among magnet vendors heaters and household appliances, and more efficient use of regarding the mechanisms by which magnetic water treatment soaps and detergents. Thus, it is claimed, magnetic water treat- occurs. A variety of explanations are offered, most of which ment gives all the benefits of water softened by ion-exchange involve plenty of jargon but little substance. Few vendors, if without the expense and hassle of rock-salt additions. any, offer reasonable technical explanations of how magnetic Note that only the "effective" or "subjective" hardness is water treatment is supposed to work. claimed to be reduced through magnetic treatment. No mag- The important question here, though, is whether magnetic nesium or calcium is removed from the water by magnetic water treatment works. In an effort to find the answer, I con- treatment. Instead, the claim is that the magnetic field ducted a search for relevant scientific and engineering journal decreases the tendency of the dissolved minerals to form scale. articles. I describe the results of this search below. Even though the dissolved mineral concentration indicates the More than one hundred relevant articles and reports are water is still hard, magnetically treated water supposedly available in the open literature, so clearly magnetic water treat- behaves like soft water. ment has received some attention from the scientific commu- According to some vendors, magnetically softened water is nity (e.g., see reference list in Duffy 1977). The reported healthier than water softened by ion exchange. Ion-exchange effects of magnetic water treatment, however, arc varied and softeners increase the waters sodium concentration, and this, often contradictory. In many cases, researchers report finding

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER January/February 1998 29 no significant magnetic treatment effect. In other cases, how- age particle charge by about 23 percent. These results, along ever, reasonable evidence for an effect is provided. with those of many others (e.g., Parsons et al. 1997; Liburkin et al. (1986) found that magnetic treatment Higashitani and Oshitani 1997), imply that application of a affected the structure of gypsum (calcium sulfate). Gypsum magnetic field can affect the dissolution and crystallization of panicles formed in magnetically treated water were found to at least some compounds. be larger and "more regularly oriented" than those formed in Whether or not some magnetic water treatment effect actu- ordinary water. Similarly, Kronenberg (1985) reported that ally exists, the further question, and die most important for magnetic treatment changed die mode of calcium carbonate consumers, is whether the magnetic water treatment devices precipitation such tJiat circular disc-shaped particles are perform as advertised. formed rather than die dendritic (branching or tree-like) par- Numerous anecdotal accounts of the successes and failures ticles observed in nontreated water. Others (e.g., Chechel and of magnetic water treatment devices can be found in the liter- Annenkova 1972; Martynova et al. 1967) also have found that ature (Lin and Yotvat 1989; Raisen 1984; Wilkes and Baum magnetic treatment affects the structure of subsequently pre- 1979; Welder and Partridge 1954). However, because of the cipitated solids. Because scale formation involves precipitation varied conditions under which these field trials are conducted and crystallization, these studies imply that magnetic water it is unclear whether the positive reports are due solely to mag- treatment is likely to have an effect on the formation of scale. netic treatment or to other conditions that were not controlled Some researchers hypothesize diat magnetic treatment during the trial. affects the nature of hydrogen bonds between water molecules. Some commercial devices have been subjected to tests They report changes in water properties such as light under controlled conditions. Unfortunately, the results are absorbance, surface tension, and pH (e.g., Joshi and Kamat mixed. Duffy (1977) tested a commercial device with an inter- 1966; Bruns et al. 1966; Klassen 1981). However, these effects nal magnet and found diat it had no significant effect on the have not always been found by later investigators (Mirumyants precipitation of calcium carbonate scale in a heat exchanger. et al. 1972). Further, the characteristic relaxation time of According to Lipus et al. (1994), however, the scale prevention hydrogen bonds between water molecules is estimated to be capability of their ELMAG device is proven, although they do much too fast and the applied magnetic field strengths much not supply much supporting test data. too small for any such lasting effects, so it is unlikely diat mag- Busch et al. (1997) measured the scale formed by the dis- netic water treatment affects water molecules (Lipus et al. tillation of hard water with and without magnetic treatment. 1994). Using laboratory-prepared hard water, a 22 percent reduction Duffy (1977) provides experimental evidence that scale in scale formation was observed when the magnetic treatment suppression in magnetic water treatment devices is due not to device was used instead of a straight pipe section. However, a magnetic effects on the fluid, but to the dissolution of small 17 percent reduction in scaling was found when an unmagne¬ amounts of iron from the magnet or surrounding pipe into die tized, but otherwise identical, device was installed. Busch et al. fluid. Iron ions can suppress die rate of scale formation and (1997) speculate that fluid turbulence inside the device may be encourage die growth of a softer scale deposit. Busch et al. the cause of the 17 percent reduction, with the magnetic field (1986) measured the voltages produced by fluids flowing effect responsible for the additional 5 percent. River water was through a commercial magnetic treatment device. Their data subjected to similar tests, but no difference in scale formation support die hypothesis diat a chemical reaction driven by die was found widi and without the magnetic treatment device induced electrical currents may be responsible for generating installed. An explanation for this negative result was not the iron ions shown by Duffy to affect scale formation. found. Among those who report some type of direct magnetic- Another study of a commercial magnetic water treatment water-treatment effect, a consensus seems to be emerging that device was conducted by Hasson and Bramson (1985). Under the effect results from the interaction of the applied magnetic the technical supervision of die device supplier, they tested the field with surface charges of suspended particles (Donaldson device to determine its ability to prevent the accumulation of 1988; Lipus et al. 1994). Krylov et al. (1985) found that the calcium carbonate scale in a pipe. Very hard water (300 to 340 electrical charges on calcium carbonate particles are signifi- ppm) was pumped through a cast-iron pipe, and the rate of cantly affected by the application of a magnetic field. Further, scale accumulation inside die pipe was determined by period- the magnitude of the change in particle charge increased as die ically inspecting the pipe's interior. Magnetic exposure was strength of the applied magnetic field increased. found to have no effect on either the rate of scale accumulation or on the adhesive nature of the scale deposits. Gehr et al. (1995) found that magnetic treatment affects the quantity of suspended and dissolved calcium sulfate. A Consumer Reports magazine (Denver 1996) tested a $535 very strong magnetic field (47,500 gauss) generated by a magnetic water treatment device from Descal-A-Matic nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer was used to test Corporation. Two electric water heaters were installed in die identical calcium sulfate suspensions with very high hardness home of one of the Consumer Reports staffers. The hard water (1,700 ppm on a CaCC^ basis). Two minutes of magnetic (200 ppm) entering one of the heaters was first passed through treatment decreased die dissolved calcium concentration by the magnetic treatment device. The second water heater about 10 percent. The magnetic field also decreased the aver- received untreated water. T h e water heaters were cut open after

3 0 January/February 1998 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER more rJian two years and after more than 10,000 gallons of that if no improvement in mileage is noted, dien die improve- water were heated by each heater. The tanks were found to ment must have come in die form of more horsepower. This, contain the same quantity and texture of scale. Consumer of course, makes it difficult for consumers to determine Reports concluded diat die Descal-A-Matic unit was ineffec- whether their magnetic fuel treatment devices really are work- tive. ing. Much of the available laboratory test data imply diat mag- A literature search for magnetic fuel treatment studies netic water treatment devices are largely ineffective, yet reports revealed that such studies are practically nonexistent. I found of positive results in industrial settings persist (e.g., Spear a total of diree references. Two of these (Daly 1995; McNeely 1992; Donaldson 1988). The contradictory reports imply that 1994) were anecdotal accounts describing the use of a mag- if a magnetic water treatment effect for scale prevention exists, netic treatment device to kill microorganisms in diesel fuel, a then it only is effective under some of the conditions encoun- fuel treatment application not usually mentioned by magnetic tered in industry. At present, dierc does not seem to be a fuel treatment vendors. defensible guideline for determining when the desired effect The diird reference (Tretyakov et al. 1985) describes tests can be expected and when it cannot. conducted in which die electrical resistance and dielectric One of the claims made for residential magnetic treatment properties of a hydrocarbon fuel were found to change in devices is ih.it less soap and detergent will be required for response to an applied magnetic field. This report does not washing. Compared to the claim to suppress scale formation, address whether the observed physical property changes might this claim has received litde direct attention in die literature. affect fuel performance in an engine, but it references two To decrease soap and detergent consumption, die concentra- research reports diat may contain performance data (Skripka tion of dissolved hardness minerals must be decreased. The et al. 1975; Tretyakov et al. 1975). Unfortunately, I could tests by Gehr et al. (1995), described earlier, demonstrated a obtain neither report, and bodi are written in Russian. decrease in dissolved mineral concentration of about 10 per- My literature search search found no other credible research cent. If this fractional decrease in dissolved mineral concentra- reports pertaining to magnetic fuel treatment. tion is representative of that obtained by magnetic treatment, The utter lack of published test data is revealing. According dien it is unlikely that soap and detergent use will be signifi- to the vendors, magnetic fuel treatment has been around for at cantly reduced. For example, given a water supply widi 100 least fifty years. If it actually worked as claimed, it seems likely ppm dissolved hardness, magnetic treatment would only be that it would by now be commonplace. It is not. expected to reduce the hardness to 90 ppm, assuming die Vendors of magnetic fuel treatment sometimes respond to results of Gehr ct al. can be applied at this hardness concen- this reasoning with hints that die automobile manufacturers tration. and big oil companies are conspiring to suppress magnetic fuel Is diere a beneficial effect of magnetic water treatment? treatment to maintain demand for gasoline. Such a conspiracy Perhaps. seems quite improbable. This supposed conspiracy has not Is there sufficient evidence of a beneficial effect to warrant managed to suppress other fuel-saving innovations such as fuel spending hundreds of dollars on a residential magnetic water injection and computerized control. treatment unit? Unlikely. The understanding of magnetic In summary, I found no test data that support the claims water treatment must first be developed to die point where die for improved engine performance made by vendors of mag- effects of magnetic treatment can be reliably predicted and netic fuel treatment devices. Until such data become available, shown to be economically attractive. considerable skepticism is justified. At present, it seems quite Does magnetic water treatment perform as well as ion- unlikely diat any of die claimed benefits of magnetic fuel treat- exchange treatment? Definitely not. At present, die conven- ment are real. tional water softening technologies are clearly much more reli- able and effective. Further, the initial cost of an ion-exchange References water softener (around $500) is comparable to diat of many magnetic treatment systems. Brum, S. A., V. I. Klassen, and A. K. Konshina. 1966. Change in the extinc- tion of light by water after treatment in a magnetic field. Kolloidn. Zh. 28: 155-155. Busch. K_ W., M. A. Busch. D. H. Parker. R. E. Darling, and J. L McAfee. Magnetic Fuel Treatment Jr. 1986. Studies of a water treatment device that uses magnetic fields. Corrosion 42 (4): 211-221. Magnetic fuel treatment devices installed in automobiles arc Busch. K. W.. M. A Busch. R. E. Darling. S. Maggard. and S. W. Kubala. similar in design to magnetic water treatment devices. 1997. Design of a test loop for the evaluation of magnetic water treatment devices. Proms Safely and Environmental Protection. Transactions of the Hydrocarbon fuel is pumped through a canister containing Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Part B): 105-114. one or more magnets or a magnetic device is clamped to the Chechel. P. S.. and G. V. Annenkova. 1972. Influence of magnetic treatment external surface of the fuel line. Magnetic treatment of fuel, it on solubility of calcium sulphate. Coke Chem. USSR. 8: 60-61. Dah/. J. 1995. Miracle cure. Motor Boating and Sailing. October, p. 36. is claimed, results in increased horsepower, increased mileage, Denver. E., executive ed. 1996. Magnets that don't do much to soften water. reduced hazardous gas emissions, and longer engine life. Typically, vendors claim diat eidier mileage or horsepower MAGNETIC TREATMENT will be improved by about 10 to 20 percent. They also claim continued on page 63

SKEPTICAL INQUIRER January/February 1998 31 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

well as die Libertarian Party platform, that It was disheartening to see so much nega- istrative overhead, and political meddling. I would easily clear up this confusion. tive reaction to Barry Fagin's article didn't say what agency I worked for because Second, contrary to one writer's state- "Skepticism and Politics." it doesn't matter—they're all in the same ment, we [as a nation] have not "tried die At the risk of beating the issue into the boat. That's the way it is, and it's hardly a libertarian approach." Never. I am at a loss ground, I wanted to reply to the readers bargain for the taxpayers. to explain where this silly idea originated. who thought it was ironic for a govern- Victor Commisso ment employee to be so critical of govern- John Pollard ment. Perhaps it is, but I'm a retired fed- Potomac Md. Virginia Beach, Va. eral employee and I share his point of view. I think Mr. Fagin is speaking from experience, having seen what the govern- Editor's Note: Once again, our intent with Your Letters to the Editor column for ment does from the inside. 1 w a s a believer Fagin's article was not to debate political ide- September/October should have been in a big, benevolent government when I ology or to endorse any ideology but to raise titled "Liberals Speak Out in Defense of began working for Uncle Sam, but and discuss some general issues of skeptics' Big Government." They arc so obvious. twenty-eight years of service made mc very involvement in political issues.—EDITOR Why can't these people apply skepti- skeptical of that. cism to their own beliefs such as socialism, I partially agree with the readers who collectivism, egalitarianism, environmen- The letters column is a forum for views on believe the government has a role to play in talism, and their right to make you and mc the matters raised in previous issues. Letters the sciences. I did human resources work pay for it. should be no more than 225 words. Due to for a major federal research agency and I the volume of letters, not all can be pub- I consider SI to be well edited. Keep it can honesdy say diey did important, valu- lished They should be typed double-spaced. up. able research. However, they are burdened Address: Letters to the Editor, SKEPTICAL Garwood Allen by bureaucratic nonsense, impediments to INQUIRER, 944 Deer Dr. NE, Albuquerque, Nyssa, Ore. hiring the best candidates, excessive admin- NM 87122.

Krylov. O. T.. I. K. Vikulova. V. V. Eletskii. N. A. 98-104. MAGNETIC TREATMENT Rozno. and V. I. Klassen. 1985. Influence of Raisen, E. 1984. The control of scale and corro- from page 31 magnetic treatment on the electro-kinetic sion in water systems using magnetic fields. potential of a suspension of CaCOi. Colloid]. Corrosion 84. Conference proceedings, Nat. USSR 47: 820-824. Assoc, of Corrosion Engineers, Houston, Consumer Reports. February, p. 8. Liburlcin, V. G., B. S. Kondratev. and T. S. paper no. 117. Donaldson, J. D. 1988. Magnetic treatment of Pavlyukova. 1986. Action of magnetic treat- Singley, J. E. 1984. Municipal water treatment. In fluids—preventing scale." Finishing. 12: ment of water on the structure formation of Ksrlt-Othmer Encyl of Chemical Technology. 22-32. gypsum. Glass and Ceramics (English transla- 3rd ed. Edited by Martin Grayson. New York: Duffy, E A. 1977. Investigation of Magnetic Water tion of Stetlo IKeramika) I: 101-105. John Wiley and Sons. Vol. 24, pp. 385-406. Treatment Devices. Ph.D. dissertation, Lin, I., and Y. Yotvat. 1989. Electro-magnetic Skripka, N. I., A. A. Litvinov. and I . G . Tretyakov. Clemson University, Clemson, S.C. treatment of drinking and irrigation water. 1975. Influence of operational factors on oxi- Gehr, R.. Z. A. Zhai. J. A. Finch, and S. R. Rao. Water and Irrigation Rev. 8:16-18. dizability of liquid hydrocarbons. Operational 1995. Reduction of soluble mineral concentra- Lipus, L. J. Krope. and L Garbai. 1994. Mag- Properties of Fuels. Lubricants end Technical tions in CaSOi saturated water using a magnetic water treatment for scale prevention. Liquids Used in Civil Aviation (Kiev) 1: 11-14. netic field. Wat. Res. 29 (3): 933-940. Hungarian J. Ind. Chem. 22: 239-242. [In Russian.] Harrison. J. 1993. WQA Glossary of Terms. Water Marshall. S. V.. and G. G. Skitek 1987. Electro- Spear, M. 1992. The growing attraction of mag- Quality Association. Lisle, III. magnetic Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. netic treatment. Process Engineering. May, Hasson, D., and D. Bramson. 1985. Effectiveness Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prenrice-Hall, Inc. p. 143. of magnetic water treatment in suppressing Martynova. O. 1.. E. F. Tebenekhin, and B. T. Tretyakov. I. G„ M. A., Rybak. and E Yu. CaCO, scale deposition. Ind Eng. Chem. Gusev. 1967. Conditions and mechanism of Stepancnko. 1985. Method of monitoring the Process Da. Dev. 24: 588-592. deposition of the solid calcium carbonate effectiveness of magnetic treatment for liquid Higashitani, K.. and ]. Oshitani. 1997. Measure- phase from aqcuous [sit] solutions under the hydrocarbons. Sov. Surf Eng. Appi ments of magnetic effects on electrolyte solu- influence of a magnetic field. Colloid J. USSR Electrochem. 6: 80-83. tions by atomic force microscope. Process 29: 512-514. Tretyakov, I. G., E S. Dcnisov, and A N. Solovcv. Safety and Environmental Protection. Transac- McNeely. M. 1994. Magnetic fuel treatment sys- 1975. Effects of magnetic field treatment on tions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 tem designed to attack fuel-borne microbes. dectrophysical properties of aviation fuels. (PartB): 115-119. Diesel Progress Engines and Drives. November, Operational Properties of Fuels, Lubricants and Joshi, K. M.. and R V. Kama.. 1966. Effect of p. 16. Technical Liquids Used in Civil Aviation [Kiev] magnetic field on the physical properties of Mirumyams. S. O . E A. Vandyukov. and R. S. 1:41-42. [In Russian.] water./ Ind. Chem. Soc. 43: 620-622. Tukhvatullin. 1972. The effect of a constant Welder. B. Q.. a n d E P. Partridge. 1954. Practical Kiissen. V. 1. 1981. Magnetic treatment of water magnetic field on the infrared absorption spec- performance of water-conditioning gadgets. in mineral processing. In Development! in trum of liquid water. Russ. J. Phys. Chem. 46: Ind Eng. Chem. 46: 954-960. Mineral Processing, Part B. Mineral Processing. 124. Wilkes, J. E. and R. Baum. 1979. Water condi- Elsevier. N.Y.. pp. 1077-1097. Parsons. S. A.. S. J. Judd. T. Stephenson. S. Udol. tioning devices—an update. Int. Water Conf: Kroncnberg, K. J. 1985. Experimental evidence and B.-L Wang. 1997. Magnetically aug- 40th Annual Meeting, paper no. IWC-79-20. for effects of magnetic fields on moving water. mented water treatment. Process Safety and Yarows. S. A.. W E Fusilier, and A B. Weder. IEEE Trans, OH Magnetics, vol. Mag-21, no. 5: Environmental Protection Transactions of the 1997. Sodium concentration of water from 2059-2061. Institution of Chemical Engineers 75 (Pan B): softeners. Arch. Intern. Med 157: 218-222. •

SKEPTICAL INQUIRE* January/February 1998 S3