ASA Adjudication on Spirit of Nature Ltd

Ad

An ad in a direct mail catalogue stated "Save on Fuel - Magno-Fuel. Save fuel and reduce CO2 your car emits! Simple clever device that saves up to 15% of your fuel thereby reducing pollution. Simply fix Magno-Fuel around the fuel line with the cable ties provided. Oxygen molecules will become embedded between the fuel molecules, ensuring a better combustion. Based on Bloch and Purcell research, who were awarded the Nobel prize for their work in this field. Suitable for petrol or diesel engines. See our website for more details."

Issue

The complainant believed that the ad was misleading because he understood that:

1. there were no significant numbers of oxygen molecules to be "embedded",  otherwise the mixture would become explosive;

2. oxygen molecules could not be "embedded" between fuel molecules because fuel was a liquid; and

3. ordinary magnets could not produce the effects described. He believed the Bloch and Purcell research was in nuclear magnetic resonance and those effects could not be replicated by ordinary magnets.

The ASA challenged:

4.  whether the claim that the device reduced fuel consumption by up to 15% and the associated claim that it would reduce a car's CO2 emissions could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Spirit of Nature (SN) said the manufacturer of the Magno-Fuel device was a German company called Gertraud Engel e.K. They provided documents which they said they had on file from the manufacturer. Those consisted of a fact sheet which stated that tests had been carried out on the device in co-operation with a German-based Institute of Higher Studies. The manufacturers claimed the use of magnetic fields to improve the performance of combustion had been successfully used by the US Air Force in their Mustang aircraft, and by the British Royal Air Force in their Spitfire and Hurricane aircraft to allow greater range and better performance from poor quality fuel. They claimed the Magno fuel saving device worked, clamped to the fuel line of a vehicle, using "the principle of magnetically induced ionisation". They said the powerful magnetic field of the device acted on the nuclei of hydrocarbon fuel molecules and aligned them in relation to that field, allowing them to flow more evenly and therefore burn more efficiently. They also claimed the device accelerated the spin of the electrons moving around the nuclei of the fuel molecules, and said that produced "a net positive charge or positive ionisation" that further increased fuel efficiency by attracting greater bonding with negatively charged oxygen molecules, which allowed for more efficient and complete combustion. They provided figures from tests said to have been carried out on a number of vehicles using the Magno-Fuel device to indicate decreased CO2 emissions and also decreased fuel consumption.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted SN had not sent any verifiable independent evidence to show that the Magno-Fuel device increased the oxygen "bonding" in the air/fuel mixture of the vehicle engines to which they were attached. The German-based Institute of Higher Studies mentioned in the manufacturer's documents was not named and no test results from independent laboratories were provided. We understood that the combination of oxygen and fuel could produce explosions with the help of an explosive charge. However, we also understood that one proposed way to increase the efficiency of combustion engines was to increase the oxygen concentration in the air/fuel mixture under controlled conditions. Because we had seen no evidence that the Magno-Fuel device did that, we concluded that claims that the device would ensure better combustion by increasing the amount of oxygen or the amount of oxygen "bonding" in the air/fuel mixture were misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

We understood that air and fuel were combined in an internal combustion engine, and in a petrol engine ignited using a carefully timed electrical spark whilst in a diesel engine ignited by means of the injection of fuel into compressed air. We understood that this process created a controlled burn which then produced gases at high temperature and pressure, causing the engine parts to move. We understood that whilst one proposed way to increase the efficiency of combustion engines was to increase the oxygen concentration in the air/fuel mixture, this was likely to produce greater pollution problems by increasing the emission of nitrous oxides. We considered that the term "embedded" in the ad implied that extra oxygen molecules would become solidly attached between fuel molecules. Because we understood that the mixing of liquid fuel and gaseous air under compression in a combustion engine did not involve the planting of oxygen molecules within the chemical structure of fuel molecules, but a chemical reaction, and because we had seen no evidence that the Magno-Fuel device affected the oxygen concentration or "bonding" in the air/fuel mixture of engines, we concluded that the claim "embedded" was misleading.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Upheld

We noted SN did not send any evidence to demonstrate how ordinary magnets could produce the effects described. We understood that the very strong magnetic fields generated in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers could produce two different spin states in the nuclei of molecules, with a small difference in energy between them, and that this, combined with bombardment of the molecules by radio frequency radiation, was used by scientists to study the structure of compounds. We also understood that some molecules, including oxygen, depending on their internal electron composition, could be affected in the presence of magnetic fields. However, we understood that the Tesla was the standard unit used to measure  the strength of magnets and that whilst the magnets used in NMR might have a strength of several Teslas, the magnets found in ordinary consumer products such as refrigerator magnets had the strength of roughly one ten thousandth of one Tesla. We noted SN did not provide any information as to the strength of the magnets in the device or any independent verifiable evidence to show that the magnets in the device, or any commercially available magnets, could affect the nuclear alignment of hydrocarbon fuel molecules or increase "carbon/oxygen bonding" in the air/fuel mixtures of vehicle engines as described in the manufacturer's literature. We also noted that fuel was mixed with air in the injection system or carburettor of an engine and not in the fuel line. We concluded therefore that the reference to Bloch and Purcell's Nobel Prize winning experiments in NMR were misleading.

On this point the ad breached 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

4. Upheld

We acknowledged that the manufacturer's evidence sent to us by SN included figures for tests said to have been carried out on a number of vehicles including an Audi, a Vectra, a Daimler Benz and a Volkswagen. We acknowledged these figures showed a reduction in fuel consumption in each case, of between 11 and 17% when the Magno-Fuel device was attached to the fuel line of the vehicle. However,  those test results were unsourced and there was no evidence that they had been carried out by a reputable independent facility; the German-based Institute of Higher Studies mentioned in the manufacturer's documents was not named. Because of that, and because there was no clear methodology, no evidence of repeatability, no statistical analysis and no write-up by named independent experts, we concluded the evidence was insufficient to prove the claim that the device could reduce fuel consumption by up to 15%. We also considered that the associated claim the device reduced CO2 emissions had not been substantiated.

On this point the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

We welcomed Spirit of Nature's assurance that the ad would not be repeated and that they would ensure they held robust verifiable evidence for claims before marketing products in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)