Recently I picked up a copy of Popular Science at the airport to kill boredom on a cross-country flight. I’m accustomed to getting a skim what’s new in science and technology, nifty how-tos for hacking home gadgets, and yes, even automotive news.

What I’m not used to seeing are full-page ads of preposterous scams that any technophile can spot a mile away. This one in particular claims “over 100 miles per gallon, even with an SUV”. The paragraph of blatantly false pseudo-science that follows is at once outlandish and offensive. “The Science Behind The Solution“, the ad claims “…is to install a Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell Kit. Using electricity from your battery, it turns water into pure gas that is mixed with your gasoline in the combustion chamber.” — seriously folks, I can’t make this stuff up.

What they are describing (electrolysis of water) is not only inefficient, but it is net-energy-negative, meaning it takes more energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen than burning them can ever make back. Add to this the fact that the alternator which charges the battery and the battery itself are both inefficient, this system must inherently be consuming more energy than it can produce!

But wait, there’s more! They also claim to use “a Covalizer (to break down the covalent bonds of the fuel)“. Sounds like another fuel line magnet to me. (by the way, that link goes to Popular Science’s sister publication Popular Mechanics, in which they disprove automotive fuel improvement scams) There’s also brief general mention of “ionization” in the ad too; if ever there was a general rule for regarding consumer gadgets, it’s ‘if they use the word “ionization”, don’t buy it’.

Had enough? That’s not all. Apparently, “the second step is to install a customized Pre-Ignition Catalytic Converter (PICC) that will actually turn your fuel into plasma and burn it so clean that there is no pollution“. With the former owners of “male enhancement” companies being fined 500 million dollars on charges of fraud, I’m shocked there are still con artists out there dumb enough to peddle this crap.

How can anyone expect a (presumably educated) reader of a science magazine to believe that a “relatively inexpensive modification” will more than quadruple fuel economy and burn with “no pollution”? If it were possible, wouldn’t every automaker already be doing it? How can any technology publication with integrity allow supermarket-tabloid science onto its advertising pages? Shame on you, Popular Science.