Celebrating the independent kiwi spirit of invention.

Research Topic: Fuelstar tin-based fuel combustion catalyst

By Ian Mander, 31 May 2008, updated 3 June 2008, minor changes 5 October 2008, updated 3 March 2009.

Question: Does the Fuelstar (or Fuelmate) tin pellet fuel combustion catalyst really improve fuel economy by 12-15% and engine power by 5%?

Answer: No. At best, it probably does absolutely nothing except lighten the wallets of gullible people, while encouraging them to maintain their vehicles better and making them more aware of their wasteful driving habits. At worst, it's a scam with no basis in scientific reality.

Read more...

Andecdotal evidence

Not hard evidence

The main way of marketing the Fuelstar devices is through personal testimonies that they work. This is known as anecdotal evidence, and is subjective, not objective like a laboratory test would be.

A close investigation shows that most of the anecdotal accounts have little to offer. One diesel 4WD owner claimed saving a 27% of his fuel bills after fitting a Fuelstar device, but on closer investigation it turned out that most of that saving actually came from removing a roof-mounted tent from his vehicle! The rest of the apparent improvement could easily be attributed to maintaining his vehicle better, such as a (by the sound of it) much needed oil change.

Another example of anecdotal evidence is Fuelstar's claim that its product is ideal for preventing valve seat regression. For evidence it presents a single engine which was fine after three years of use. But according to this article "FuelStar ... failed to meet Australian government standards for the prevention of valve seat recession under independent tests similar to the one described above for Valvemaster (which passed)."

One of the problems with anecdotal evidence is it sounds good but even if there's a real improvement it might be just bringing the vehicle back to normal and is quite likely due to other causes. Or an apparently real protective effect might be due to something else entirely - the Fuelstar engine may have had hardened valve seats that didn't need protecting anyway. Without an objective test with a control there's no way to tell, which makes these anecdotal tests useless.

Another happy customer was absolutely certain of improved economy, but he destroyed any weight his evidence might have by admitting "I haven't taken a calculator to it yet". This customer might have convinced himself he didn't waste his money, but his testimony is about as useful as someone being absolutely sure the Sun rises in the west "without having taken a compass to it."

The expectation of an improvement could itself lead to a strong impression of an actual improvement. Without careful record keeping it's basically meaningless. Conversely, a lack of good record keeping can keep people from speaking out against it, along with the problem that people don't want to admit they were gullible enough to spend hundreds of dollars.

As far as evidence for Fuelstar working, these anecdotal claims mean nothing except to those who already want to believe the thing works. Remember that a sincere believer can still be sincerely wrong.

Conventional before fringe

Much improvement can be obtained from a combination of:

• An engine tune.
• A new air filter.
• A new fuel filter.
• An oil change and new oil filter.
• Increased tyre pressures.
• New spark plugs (for petrol engines).
• New injectors (more expensive than the other items).

All these except the last item should be done as regular maintenance anyway. Do these first before trying any fringe products. In one of Fuelstar's favourite tests, California Environmental Engineering did these things and achieved a fuel saving of 27% (although I note that no units are given for the fuel used in the test runs, so it could be an increase of 27%). "Restorative maintenance was performed to include changing the oil, and the oil, air and fuel filters. ... The unit was installed vertically on the engine side of all filters. The fuel line between the Fuelstar unit and the engine was appropriately replaced with a new comparable line." All the test shows is that on the right vehicle, a bit of maintenance goes a long way.

Science

Amount of tin

The amount of tin that would be included with every fuel injection into an engine cylinder is ridiculously small. How could such a small amount of tin provide a catalytic effect?

Fuelstar claims its devices last 500,000 km, improving fuel economy a guaranteed 12% and increasing power by 5%. The implicit claim is that the devices will still be saving 12-15% (down from a claim of 20%, incidently) of fuel at the end of 500,000 km, which means there must still be enough tin left in the thing to supply it to the fuel. I've seen only two possible (not definite) figures for the amount of tin in a Fuelstar car-appropriate device: 200 grams and 100 grams. Let's run with the 200 gram figure and assume there would still be 50% left after 500,000 km, meaning 100 g of tin has been used over the 500,000 km. Average tin economy is thus 5,000 km/g. If the car it's fitted to uses fuel at an average of 10 L/100 km then the fuel used over 5,000 km would be 500 L. At petrol's density of 737.22 g/L, 500 L is 369,000 g of petrol.

1 g tin per 369,000 g fuel means a catalyst comprising just 0.000 27% of the tinned fuel is credited with a guaranteed 12% fuel saving. That's a huge claimed benefit for a really really small amount of substance. (I once described it as a homeopathic amount, but that's not strictly accurate on average.)

This does not sound in any way reasonable and is a very good indication that it may be a con.

Compare the figure to that of Valvemaster (needed by some cars to avoid valce seat recession after leaded fuel was taken off the market), which had a concentration of a chemically significant 0.1% of the fuel. The chemistry behind Valvemaster was also clear.

Update 3 March 2009: In response to an email I calculated the volume (instead of mass) of tin and petrol in each injection. Skipping the calculation details, because tin is about ten times as dense as petrol the result came out as roughly ten times the above figure, or 1:3,700,000. In each injection there will be about 18,000 µm³ of tin to 67,000,000,000 µm³ of petrol. There is no way this is reasonable - that volume of tin simply doesn't have enough surface area to catalyse several million times the volume of petrol (and especially not in less than a hundredth of a second).

Tin suboxide

Since the tin is being consumed (and possibly converted to tin oxide and other compounds) it could be argued that the tin cannot be viewed as a catalyst, because a catalyst is not consumed in a reaction.

However, Dr Jim Sprott has claimed that tin suboxide (chemical symbol SnO) is the real catalyst, not tin metal. I wanted to find out more about tin suboxide and its role as a hydrocarbon catalyst, so naturally enough I tried "tin suboxide" catalyst (with the quotes) in Google. I got just 8 hits. Yes, eight. (Compare that to the 102 results for fuelstar scam.)

Two were forums quoting a report by Dr Sprott - promoted as being "without doubt, the foremost authority in New Zealand in fuel oxidation chemistry" - one was the report itself, one was a misleading advertising complaint regarding Fuelstar's emissions claims, one was simply a mention in a very long list of chemical names as an appendix to a long paper on solar absorbers (ie, nothing to do with hydrocarbons), one was a technical paper mentioning how tin suboxide is a p-type semiconductor, etc.

None of them were explanations or references to explanations of how tin suboxide might act as a hydrocarbon combustion catalyst.

This startling lack of information is a good indication that the catalytic effect may be fictitious.

Fuelmate's explanation for their own version of the catalytic devices goes further and claims that after several thousand kilometers of using their devices the engine is further enhanced by a layer of tin oxide (not "suboxide", although the formula is the same) coating the combustion surfaces. The problem with that is that combustion occurs in the middle of the cylinder, not on the edges, and yet somehow, magically, "This condition creates an even more controlled burn rate across the combustion chamber." How? Catalysts do not affect reactants at a distance, so how can a catalyst on the chamber walls affect the burn rate in the centre? Furthermore, SnO (tin oxide) is unstable at high temperatures. Perhaps they meant tin dioxide (SnO₂), or perhaps they don't know what they're talking about.

The lack of scientifically sustainable explanations is a good indication the products are bunkum.

Fuel filters and the size of particles

One reason given by Dr Jim Sprott that the AA-commissioned test was invalid is that there was a fuel filter between the Fuelstar device and the engine. In his report he says "there must be no physical impediment between the Fuelstar unit and the engine. Consequently there must not be a fuel filter in the line between the Fuelstar unit and the [engine]." (He actually starts talking about the tubing there, instead of mentioning the engine.)

How much tin will there be in the fuel and would a fuel filter block it? At a steady 100 km/h it would take 50 hours at about 2,500 rpm to travel the estimated 5,000 km to use a single gram of tin. With a 4 cylinder 4 stroke engine that's 2,500 x 60 x 50 injections. So 1 g of tin is spread over 7.5 million injections, and each injection has 0.000 000 13 g of tiny tin particles spread through it. So with the required low concentration of tin and at the size of tin particle which would have to be involved (the 0.000 000 13 g of tin would have to be reasonably evenly distributed through the fuel injected), it seems quite unreasonable that any normal fuel filter would be fine enough to stop any of the tin particles. The fuel filter in the AA test would have had no noticeable affect.

Also, we have Fuelstar itself contradicting their much touted expert regarding the placement of the fuel filter with common rail diesel engines. Their web site recommends the Fuelstar device is installed before the fuel filter. It seems to me a common rail diesel engine would stand the most damage if large particles of tin did enter the fuel line. A cynical view of this is that it seems like a very sensible way to cover themselves if their non-effective product malfunctions.

Fuelstar is also clearly mistaken or disingenuous when they say the tin particles are visible with a microscope, as they would be so fine that an electron microscope would be required to see them. Dr Sprott points out that the particles are less than 100 nanometres across - much less than the wavelength of visible light, and thus invisible under any visual magnification.

The contradictions between Fuelstar and its expert is a good indication that they don't know what the real situation is, or that they're trying to hide the real situation from their customers.

The price of tin

The current price of tin is US$21,055 per tonne (as per the NZ Herald this morning). If a typical Fuelstar device for a car contains 200 grams of tin that would be NZ$5.40 tin. The actual price of the unit is perhaps 40 or 50 times as much.

The price of the device being so much more than the price of tin is a good indication that it may be a con.

Not in cars

Dr Sprott: The use of tin as a combustion catalyst has been known for about 70 years.

So the car manufacturers have certainly had enough time to test it and figure out if it works or if it's quackery. What have they concluded?

There is no car manufacturer who includes a tin catalyst in their vehicles as standard equipment.

There are no car manufacturers who offer it as an option.

I have still not heard any pro-Fuelstar explanations why this should be, if the Fuelstar products work as claimed. Don't think the car manufacturers wouldn't want to know about it. Car companies are so keen on improving fuel economy they're even going to the point of expensive systems to automatically turn off the engine while the vehicle is stationary - just to boost fuel efficiency slightly. I would expect that even if supposed tin catalyst products only offered a predictable 2% improvement it would be used in at least some models. That it isn't used in any is a very serious problem with Fuelstar being taken seriously.

This lack of industry adoption is a clear sign there's absolutely no value in it.

Other claims and queries

NZ Herald motoring editor Alistair Sloane

Quotes from Alistair Sloane are in italics.

None of those who rubbish it have tried it. I was hoping for at least one person to say they fitted it and it's all smoke and mirrors. ... Those who say it works can't say why. Those who say it doesn't work haven't tried it.

This is a very sad misconception. One doesn't need to try something to understand it doesn't work, or to be able to disprove claims made for it. This attitude he has that the anecdotal evidence for Fuelstar (and Mr Sloane knows it's all anecdotal) must be countered by more anecdotal evidence opposing the claims shows his lack of reasoning on the issue. He says he is not pro-Fuelstar but has repeatedly written pro-Fuelstar articles, full of anecdotal evidence.

These claimed deficiencies [with the AA test]: what are they? All the scientific community will say is that there is no basis in science for Cornelius' claims. It's turning into a he said/she said circus.

The scientific community is right - there is no scientific basis for Fuelstar's claims. Be that as it may, Dr Sprott had four main complaints regarding the test, which are clearly outlined in the report. Even a poor reporter should have been able to find that report, even if he didn't understand what was being said.

Dr Jim Sprott

Dr Sprott had four main complaints regarding the AA's test:

1. There was a fuel filter between the unit and the engine. I've addressed that above, concluding the tin particles would be so small they'd go straight through the filter. However, Dr Sprott goes further and claims that the colloidal tin particles would have an electric charge, and would thus be attracted to the filter. His wording implies the charge is because the particles are colloidal. While colloidal particles are often charged, this is not always the case, and these particles are (it is claimed) being produced by tin pellets being shaken together, not by an electrical process, which is how colloidal silver, for example, is made. Thus I find it hard to understand why charged tin particles would be a problem. How would they become charged? Where would the filter get an opposing charge to attract and hold the particles? Or if the filter were neutral thanks to it being grounded, the tin particles would just lose their charge passing through the filter. So the complaint either doesn't make sense or it's a non-issue.
    
2. The test was an accelerated one, with the engine run at wide open throttle. If the product works, it should still produce a clear results at high revs. If the product doesn't work, no rev range will show any difference. Get over it.
    
3. The device was not installed properly and the test didn't duplicate on road conditions. What this failure was is not elaborated on, but apparently it doomed the test to failure. Again, if the product really works so well, it should still produce a clear result in the laboratory. The exception would be if the unit was installed so that an important component of normal operation was avoided, such as mounting it on the floor instead of on the engine itself, so vibrations could shake tin particles loose. Ian Cornelius, the Australian con-artist, er, inventer of Fuelstar makes this claim, but Dr Sprott doesn't. I haven't seen the test report so unfortunately cannot comment further, other than to say it seems strange that a test would be so designed if vibration was critical to correct functioning. (However, if vibration is critical to correct functioning, how is it that the device is claimed to work on any sort of engine, with whatever sort of vibration the engine happens to produce? It's not credible.)
    
4. The test should have been run after 50 hours of engine conditioning. This implies all the tin is not swept straight out of the cylinders, exhausted with the combusted fuel. One can only speculate as to what it is doing. There is no realistic science that explains how the stuff might work, so it makes it very hard to design a test for anything other than realistic usage. However, I also found a report that a test commissioned by Fuelstar specified 20 hours of conditioning and I've also seen claims that benefits can be seen instantly. Which is it?

Conclusion

Fuelstar, Fuelmate, and other similar devices/companies just make gullible people poorer. Better to spend your money on vehicle maintenance.

Celebrating the independent kiwi spirit of invention.

Contact:
Return to ianman HOME | Back to Aqualab Home | Return to TOP
Inventions: Super Soaker Backpack | Air Cannon | LED Torch