MMagnetizerProducts

The proof we have on file

Everything on this page comes from a document or video in our possession that names Magnetizer. One-page documents are shown in full; every figure links to the page of the report it comes from, or to the minute of the video where it is said.

Results shown are manufacturer test data or results reported by Magnetizer Inc.; every figure links to its source. Results vary.

1. Customer letter and press

Siemens letter, 16 Nov 2007: natural gas consumption before and after Magnetizer on three boilers
Siemens letter, 16.11.2007 (scan, 557 px wide — the only copy on file)
Open full size · Download PDF
Siemens — Istanbul-Kartal factory, letter dated 16.11.2007

“We have assembled MAGNETIZER Fuel Saving Systems on our three Hot Water Boilers at our Istanbul – Kartal factory.” Three 1,600,000 kcal/h natural-gas boilers, ELCO burners, 40-day stabilization period.

Natural gas consumption before / after, per the letter: boiler 1 — 14 to 11.5 m³/h (17.8%); boiler 2 — 14.5 to 11 m³/h (24.0%); boiler 3 — 14 to 12 m³/h (14.2%). Average saving 18.6%. Signed Ünal Anaç.

Source: the letter as supplied to the distributor, shown here in full — open the scan or download it as a PDF. Manufacturer-supplied customer letter; results vary.
The Military Engineer, Nov-Dec 1993 cover: Featured inside, The Magnetizer Group, Inc.
The Military Engineer, Nov–Dec 1993, cover (300 px — the only copy on file)
Open full size

The Military Engineer, Nov–Dec 1993

The journal of the Society of American Military Engineers — an engineering trade journal, so this is commercial and institutional water and fuel systems, not a home product review. The cover reads: “Featured inside: The Magnetizer Group, Inc. — Water & Fuel Systems.”

Source: cover image only. The article text is not on file, so nothing from it is quoted here.

2. Video testimonials — New York Hilton (commercial installation)

Two short interviews recorded by Magnetizer with the New York Hilton’s engineering staff about the units on the hotel’s commercial building water systems (cooling tower, chiller plant, heat exchanger, water supply). This is commercial-scale evidence, not a home installation. Neither video states a percentage saving, so we don’t either.

Commercial installation — New York Hilton, Chief of Operations (1 min 05 s), on the Magnetizer units fitted to the pipes feeding the hotel’s rooftop cooling tower (open on YouTube).
Commercial installation — New York Hilton, Chief Engineer (1 min 50 s), asked “How was your experience with Magnetizer in the Hilton?” (watch at 0:00) — “This is really good … we open chillers and we have very good condition” (watch at 0:17). He lists the installations: cooling tower, chiller plant, heat exchanger and the water supply in four locations (watch at 0:42), after one to one-and-a-half years.

3. Manufacturer test data — the 23-page report

Magnetizer Inc. compiled its fuel and emissions tests into one document. We have re-saved it as a searchable PDF: Magnetizer Fuel Test Data, 23 pages (PDF). The headline numbers, each linked to its page:

18.8%
less fuel per km — 1990 Chevy LUV, CVS-75 / FTP-75 dynamometer cycle
Chilean EPA (Comisión de Descontaminación, Santiago), 6 Jan 1992 · report p. 7
20.11%
diesel saving — Scania passenger bus, 6,700 km over 24 days
CREA-PA Brazil (EPA testing), May–June 2003 · report p. 20
26%
lower fuel consumption — Kohler generator under constant electrical load
VTEC Laboratories, Germany & USA, laboratory test · report pp. 12–14
17%
drop in gasoline consumption — Volkswagen Quantum
Autolatina (Ford / Volkswagen), Argentina, 13 Oct 1993 · report pp. 14–15
+4.8%
average horsepower — full race engine on the dyno
Penske Racing dyno test, 17 Feb 1989 · report p. 11
60.7% / 61.2%
less diesel smoke opacity — two diesel pickup trucks
Sri Lanka EPA, Lucas Hartridge free-acceleration test, 17 May 1999 · report pp. 17–18
+8%
fuel savings, hydrocarbons −15%, carbon monoxide −11% — postal van
US Postal Service, California (summary line) · report p. 5
18.6%
average natural-gas saving on three factory hot-water boilers (building heating)
Siemens, Istanbul, letter dated 16 Nov 2007 · letter (PDF)

All fuel figures above are manufacturer test data taken from that report (or, for Siemens, from the letter shown). They are single tests on specific engines and boilers; results vary.

Every test in the report, page by page (each entry links to its page)
  • Comparison table, patents RE 35689 and 5,829,420, CARB executive order EOD-174-3, US military stock number NSN 2910-01390-0004 — pp. 1–2
  • Before / after hydrocarbon and carbon-monoxide table for about 40 vehicles (Chevy, Ford, Nissan, BMW, VW, Hyundai and others; some entries from Boston Gas Company, Guatemala, Argentina and Malaysia) — pp. 2–3
  • Certified-test bullet list: VTEC 26%; Institute of Aeronautics (Poland) CO −40%, HC −20%; RV Power Group 5.34 to 8.08 mpg; Bacon Equipment +33% tractor horsepower; Penske +4.8%; Chile EPA 18%; Tomei Industrial Furnace (Taiwan) 11.7% less heavy oil; Northern California Diagnostic Laboratories +5% horsepower; US Border Patrol test 8/10/95 (27.0%, 29.8%, 10.3%, 50.8% on four vehicles); Electrometal Ltd 7/31/95 genset 25% diesel; Wheels Ltd 11/04/95 rental cars +17.46% and +18.0%; City of Berkeley CA fleet 14.13%, 2.46%, 7.06% — pp. 4–5
  • Certified-tests summary: Beijing Railroad 4.88–5.91%; United States Air Force 80% smoke reduction, +50% CO and HC reduction on petrol vehicles with catalytic converters; US Postal Service CA +8% fuel; US Federal Border Patrol +10% fuel; SIRIM Malaysia 5% fuel, CO −40%; EPA Latin America 18.8%; Sri Lanka 60% opacity; Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Proton, Ford/VW emission reductions — p. 5
  • United States Air Force, Air Force Material Command, Management & Equipment Evaluation Program (MEEP), Hurlburt Field, Florida: two petrol vehicles and one diesel bus over six months; conclusion “demonstrated the ability to reduce harmful emissions in both petrol and diesel engines”; recommended for Air Force use and a national stock number was assigned — pp. 6–7
  • Chilean EPA CVS-75 test, 1990 Chevy LUV 1600: 8.50 to 10.10 km/l, 18.8% — pp. 7–9
  • Mercedes-Benz Argentina S.A., 10 Nov 1993, diesel bus: CO 0.09 to 0.04 (600 rpm), HC 30 to 12 — p. 9
  • Guatemala, Nissan Dicorsa plant, 13 Apr 1991: five vehicles, idle and 2,500 rpm CO / HC before and after — p. 10
  • SIRIM Malaysia, Proton 1.5S, June 1993: HC 130 to 100, CO 2.0 to 1.4, power 58 to 59 kW — p. 11
  • Penske dyno, 17 Feb 1989: average 609.2 to 614 hp (+4.8%) — p. 11
  • VTEC Laboratories generator test: about 26% lower fuel flow at constant load — pp. 12–14
  • Autolatina (Ford / VW) Argentina, 13 Oct 1993: gasoline consumption down 17% — pp. 14–15
  • SIRIM Malaysia, 20 May 1999: Proton Iswara 1.3S −3.29% fuel, +6.6% power; Proton Perdana 2.0i −6.62% fuel; Kia Sportage 2.0 −6.11% fuel, +2.3% power — pp. 15–17
  • Sri Lanka EPA, 17 May 1999: pickup one opacity 30.1 to 11.8 HSU (60.7%); pickup two 56.4 to 21.7 HSU (61.2%) — pp. 17–18
  • Nepal, April–May 1999: seven petrol vehicles average CO −83.12%, HC −38.97%; seven diesel vehicles average smoke −61.13% — pp. 18–19
  • China Academy of Railway Science, Tung Fong 4 locomotive, June 1996 – March 1997: average 4.88% (5.91% in April 1997, peak 9.11%); softer carbon on injectors — p. 19
  • CREA-PA Brazil, Scania bus, 1 May – 7 June 2003: 2.874 to 3.452 km/l, 20.11% — p. 20
  • Transporte São Luiz, Brazil, Oct–Nov 2003 tachograph analysis: about 9.36% — p. 20
  • 1983 Ford F-100 teardown at 158,000 miles with units fitted since 41,000 miles: clean water jacket, no carbon on valves or pistons — p. 21
  • California emissions test, 2001: HC −84%, CO −83%, NOx −72%; stabilization period 200–500 miles — pp. 22–23

Download the full report (PDF, 23 pages)

4. A customer’s own mileage log

Fuel log spreadsheet: ten fill-ups January to May 2011, Gasoline Maximizer added at tank six
Customer fuel log, January–May 2011
Open full size · Download PDF

A customer’s own mileage log

A customer’s fuel spreadsheet, January to May 2011: ten fill-ups, with the Gasoline Performance Maximizer added before tank six. Average 17.63 mpg for tanks 1–5, 20.90 mpg for tanks 6–10 — an 18.6% increase (mileage log PDF).

Self-reported by one driver; one car, one season. Results vary.

5. All the videos

News 8 report by Colleen Moody (2 min 18 s). In the reporter’s words: “the manufacturer of this product boasts that by using special magnets they’ve developed for cars, trucks, and motorcycles, you’ll increase your gas mileage by nearly 20%” (watch at 0:16) and that the unit “should pay for itself within three months” (watch at 1:13). Manufacturer claims as reported; results vary.
Magnetizer’s classic 6-minute presentation (1980s footage) explaining the technology for home water, pools and fuel. Spoken in the video: the units are “made from ceramic alloys and permanently magnetized; for installation you need no tools and no plumbing modifications are required” (watch at 5:09). Home-water segment at 2:20, pools and spas at 3:22.
Garrett Shivo, CEO of Magnetizer, interviewed by the Product Prognosticator (3 min 13 s). In his words: the Engine Performance Maximizer “is designed to magnetize the fuel of automobiles, which gives a more complete burn, reducing emissions, increasing efficiency, and helping the overall life of the car by reducing carbon” (watch at 0:33), and the home water system “prevents scale from building up inside your hot water heater” (watch at 1:21).
Magnetizer’s 10-minute slide presentation: company background (0:25), water and fuel benefits (2:10), pools (5:10), automotive (5:40), industrial (7:25), oil line (7:55), refrigeration (8:25), agriculture (8:40). Music only, no narration — read the slides.

6. Dated case studies reported by Magnetizer Inc.

These eight customer results were published by Magnetizer Inc. with a date and place. We do not hold the original letters, so they are labelled accordingly, carry no source link, and are kept separate from the documents above.

Natural gas heating — 5 buildings, Canada and USA, 1997–2002

“The average fuel consumption per degree-day with Magnetizer treatment was reduced by 17%. The estimated average savings was $20,000. This particular installation had one time cost of $6,354.”

— IBM, White Plains, New York — 300 HP natural-gas burners, tested by IBM’s service contractor
White Plains NY, 1997 · Reported by Magnetizer Inc.; original letter not on file.

“1998/99 vs. 1996/97: 13.3% reduction in natural gas used. 1998/99 vs. 1997/98: 12.6% reduction in natural gas used (adjusted for degree days).”

— 204 residential apartments — natural-gas heating
Quebec City, Canada, 1999 · Reported by Magnetizer Inc.; original letter not on file.

“The saving achieved of 8.3% based on an average energy consumption of $120,000.”

— York Holdings office building — January to June comparison over four years
Montreal, Canada, 1999 · Reported by Magnetizer Inc.; original letter not on file.

“This comparison shows a decrease of 9.73 cubic meters per degree-day. Percentage of saving 7.5%. Our treatment is only on the heating boilers. These boilers consume 58% of the building’s total cubic meters. Therefore 7.5% divided by 58% consumption factor gives an overall 12.9% savings.”

— Wallace McBain & Associates building, 299 Mill Road
Scarborough, Ontario, Canada, 1999 · Reported by Magnetizer Inc.; original letter not on file.

“Multi unit apartment building powered by natural gas benefited an energy savings of 10.97% based upon available data for previous years.”

— Nexacor Realty Management
Oshawa, Ontario, Canada, 2001 · Reported by Magnetizer Inc.; original letter not on file.

“The savings in natural gas as a result of the installation of magnets was 11.95% in 2001-2002 when compared to 2000-2001.”

— McReedy East Mine — mine-ventilation heater house, one year without and one year with magnets
Location not stated in the source; monitoring completed May 2002 · Reported by Magnetizer Inc.; original letter not on file.
Fuel oil boilers — Scarsdale Manor, 1997

“Both boilers showed yearly fuel savings of 17% and 19% respectively. The yearly savings was $17,855 with cost of Magnetizer equipment of $3,716.”

— Scarsdale Manor (A.B. Wolle, Inc.) — two boilers, Bacharach Fyrite II combustion analyzer, #4 and #6 oil
Scarsdale NY, 1997 · Reported by Magnetizer Inc.; original letter not on file.
Water-side scale and chemicals — University of California, 1991

“Saved $4,200 yearly on elimination of chemicals, acid treatments, drilling, and maintenance. ROI in 2 months.”

— University of California — water-side treatment
California, tested 1991 · Reported by Magnetizer Inc.; original letter not on file.

References & documents

Documents (PDF)

Videos (YouTube, channel “magnetizerproducts”)

Fuel, energy and scale results on this site are manufacturer test data or results reported by Magnetizer Inc., each linked to its source and dated. They are not a promise of what you will get. Results vary with the vehicle, appliance, fuel, water and installation.

Convinced? Pick your product

Magnetizer Gasoline Performance Maximizer
Item #5000 · Vehicles		Buy $198
Magnetizer Diesel Performance Maximizer
Item #5000D · Vehicles		Buy $198
Magnetizer Motorcycle Energizer
Item #5055 · Vehicles		Buy $60
Magnetizer Natural Gas Fuel Maximizer
Item #5560 · Home heating & appliances		Buy $198
Magnetizer LPG Fuel Energizer
Item #5530 · Home heating & appliances		Buy $198
Magnetizer Home Fuel Oil Energizer
Item #5500 · Home heating & appliances		Buy $100
Magnetizer Home Refrigerator Energizer
Item #R1002 · Home heating & appliances		Buy $60
Magnetizer Home Hard Water Conditioner
Item #4520 · Water		Buy $198
Magnetizer Pool & Spa Conditioner
Item #4565 · Water		Buy $198
Magnetizer Flav-O-Ring
Item #8000 · Gift		Buy $60

Shipping calculated at checkout on emediapress.com. Commercial and industrial systems are quoted separately — request a quote.

Peer-Reviewed Research on Permanent-Magnet Treatment (2016–2025)

The studies below were not performed with Magnetizer® products. They were conducted by independent university and industry researchers using other permanent (neodymium/NdFeB) magnets — not electronic or pulsed devices — and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. We list them because they independently support the science behind the method Magnetizer uses: passing water or fuel through a strong permanent magnetic field.

Results in these studies vary with water chemistry, fuel, engine and installation. They are published findings, not guarantees of any particular result with any product.

Water & Scale

  1. Sohaili J. et al. (2016). “Removal of scale deposition on pipe walls by using magnetic field treatment and the effects of magnetic strength.” Journal of Cleaner Production 139: 1393–1399. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.028
    Finding: Permanent magnets (0.1–0.4 T) increased removal of existing scale from pipe walls by 46.7%.
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment
  2. Bali M., Mabrouk Y., Abdelli N. (2016). “Effects of magnetic treatment on scaling power of hard waters.” Separation and Purification Technology 171: 88–92. doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2016.07.027
    Finding: Permanent magnets showed about 45% anti-scaling efficiency, with the effect persisting about 3 days.
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment
  3. Simonič M., Urbancl D. (2017). “Alternating magnetic field influence on scaling in pump diffusers.” Journal of Cleaner Production 156: 445–450. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.080
    Finding: With a permanent magnet, hard adherent calcite scale was replaced by loose aragonite powder that flow flushed away.
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment
  4. Gao F. et al. (2024). “Magnetization coupled reverse osmosis (RO): Enhanced inhibition scaling mechanisms and operation optimization.” Chemical Engineering Science 286: 119650. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2023.119650
    Finding: Neodymium magnets slowed membrane flux decline, improved recovery and shifted deposits to looser aragonite; effective above 0.24 m/s flow.
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment
  5. Naderi M., Past V., Mahvi A.H. (2024). “Magnetic treatment as a suppressive method for CaCO3 scale deposition in hard waters in the presence of air bubbles.” Desalination and Water Treatment 318: 100249. doi:10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100249
    Finding: An NdFeB ring magnet shifted calcium carbonate to form in the water rather than on surfaces (statistically significant, p = 0.009).
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment
  6. Zhang W. et al. (2025). “Magnetic field mitigation of composite fouling through microbial and interfacial disruption.” npj Clean Water 8: 104. doi:10.1038/s41545-025-00532-9
    Finding: Permanent magnets (300–800 mT) reduced fouling mass 18.6–36.2% in a reclaimed-water system (permanent-magnet results only; the paper also tests electromagnetic devices).
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment
  7. Sayed A.A.M. et al. (2025). “Elucidating the Memory Effects of Magnetic Water Treatment via Precipitated Phase Changes of Calcium Carbonate.” Eng 6(2): 26. doi:10.3390/eng6020026
    Finding: A 700 mT neodymium magnet raised the softer vaterite form from 26% to 51% of precipitate, with smaller particles.
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment

Fuel & Combustion

  1. Chen C.-Y. et al. (2017). “Impact of Magnetic Tube on Pollutant Emissions from the Diesel Engine.” Aerosol and Air Quality Research 17: 1097–1104. doi:10.4209/aaqr.2016.11.0478
    Finding: An NdFeB magnetic tube reduced fuel consumption about 3.5%, particulates 22–33% and hydrocarbons 29–65%; NOx rose 1–13%.
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment
  2. Amini Niaki S.R. et al. (2020). “Experimental investigation of effects of magnetic field on performance, combustion, and emission characteristics of a spark ignition engine.” Environmental Progress & Sustainable Energy 39(2): e13317. doi:10.1002/ep.13317
    Finding: 9,000-gauss permanent magnets on a gasoline engine cut fuel use 4–12%, CO 11% and HC 18%.
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment
  3. Arias Gilart R. et al. (2020). “Performance and exhaust gases of a diesel engine using different magnetic treatments of the fuel.” Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Sciences 14(1): 6285–6294. doi:10.15282/jmes.14.1.2020.07.0492
    Finding: NdFeB conditioners (0.36 T) cut fuel consumption 4.89% and CO about 21% at 80% load.
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment
  4. Oommen L.P., Kumar G.N. (2020). “Experimental studies on the influence of axial and radial fields of sintered neo-delta magnets in reforming the energy utilization combustion and emission properties of a hydrocarbon fuel.” Energy Sources, Part A 46(1). doi:10.1080/15567036.2020.1767729
    Finding: Sintered NdFeB magnets on a gasoline engine raised power up to 9.2% and thermal efficiency up to 7.7%.
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment
  5. Perdana D. et al. (2020). “The Role of Magnetic Field Orientation in Vegetable Oil Premixed Combustion.” Journal of Combustion 2020: 2145353. doi:10.1155/2020/2145353
    Finding: 1.1 T neodymium magnets on a burner improved flame stability and raised burning velocity and flame temperature.
    Independent study — not Magnetizer-brand equipment

Free newsletter

Get Energy Times — free

The Energy Times newsletter from A & P Electronic Media: energy science, magnets, the technology behind products like Magnetizer, and first word on new releases. No spam; unsubscribe with one click.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. Privacy Policy