EPA-AA-TEB-511-8 2-9
EPA Evaluation of the POLARION-X Device Under Section
511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
by
Edward Anthony Barth
August, 1982
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Divison
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA Evaluation of the POLARION-X Device Under Section 511 of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires that EPA
evaluate fuel economy retrofit devices and publish a summary of each
evaluation in the Federal Register.
EPA evaluations are originated upon the application of any manufacturer
of a retrofit device, upon the request of the Federal Trade Commission,
or upon the motion of the EPA Administrator. These studies are designed
to determine whether the retrofit device increases fuel economy and to
determine whether the representations made with respect to the device are
accurate. The results of such studies are set forth in a series of
reports, of which this is one.
The evaluation of the POLARION-X device was conducted upon receiving an
application for evaluation from the marketer of the device. This device
is claimed to reduce emissions, to improve fuel economy and performance,
to provide more complete combustion, to eliminate engine carbon buildup
and dieseling, and to reduce the octane requirements of the engine. The
device is a fuel line magnet.
The following is the information on the device as supplied by the
Applicant and the resulting EPA analysis and conclusions.
1. Title;
Application for Evaluation of POLARION-X under Section 511 of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
2. Identification Information;
a. Marketing Identification of the Product;
POLARION-X Fuel Treatment Part No. 11587
b. Inventor and Patent Protection;
(1) Inventor
Albert J. Kovacs
1929 H
South Pasadena, CA 91030
(2) Patent Pending
Patent Application Serial No. 207,644 relating to "MAGNETIC
DEVICE FOR TREATING HYDROCARBON FUEL". The patent
application is Attachment A.
c. Applicant;
(1) AZ Industries, Inc.
28065 Diaz Road
Temecula, CA 92390
-------
(2) Principals
LaVern (Les) L. Adam, President
31315 Via Norte
Rancho, CA 92390
Lawrence E. Beard, Vice President
2855 Monte Verde
Covina, CA 91724
Dale V. Diver, Secretary
900 South Sixth Avenue, Space 234
Hacienda Heights, CA 91745
Robert L. Arnold, Treasurer
935 Roanoke Road
San Marino, CA 91108
Albert J. Kovacs, Consultant
1929 H
South Pasadena, CA 91030
(3) LaVern Adam is authorized to represent AZ Industries in
communications with EPA.
d. Manufacturer of the Product;
(1) Name and address
AZ Industries, Inc.
28065 Diaz Road
Temecula, CA 92390
(2) Principals
LaVern (Les) Adam, President
Lawrence E. Beard, Vice-President
Dale V. Diver, Secretary
Robert L. Arnold, Treasurer
Albert J. Kovacs, Consultant
3. Description of Product (as supplied by Applicant);
a. Purpose;
"The present device is a magnetic unit for treating hydrocarbon
fuel and an improvement on previous electromagnetic devices
developed with Saburo Miyata Moriya in that it requires no
outside source of energy and therefore is a means to conserve
energy."
-------
b. Theory of Operation;
"It is a well established principle that an electric field will
promote combustion, increase vaporization and heat transfer.
Many papers have been presented by the JSME and a list of Dr.
Asakawa's papers are enclosed in the letter of July 6, 1981 to
Dr. John Chao, Senior Motor Vehicle Pollution Engineer of the
California Air Resources Board which explains in detail the
theory of operation." This letter and its enclosures were
contained in the application as an exhibit. It transmitted a
number of documents to GARB. The pertinent ones have been
incorporated in this evaluation as attachments.
c. Construction and Operation;
"Information is in letter of July 6, 1981 and contains data for
this subsection c) under POLARION-X GAS SAVER UNIT, BLOCK
DIAGRAM, installation instructions and Patent Drawing."
(Attachments A, A-l, D, and E).
4. Product Installation, Operation, Safety and Maintenance (as supplied
by Applicant);
a. Applicability;
"The EPA Fuel Economy Estimates, Second Edition, February 1981
California has been marked up to indicate those vehicles which
the device is suitable. The device can be connected into all
fuel line systems of carbureted engines and is not suitable for
fuel injection, gasoline or fuel injection, diesel. Part No.
11587 is applicable to all carbureted engines." This copy of
the EPA Fuel Economy Guide was marked to indicate that the
device applied to all 1981 California vehicles with carbureted
gasoline engines.
b. Installation - Instructions, Equipment, and Skills Required;
(1) "General instructions are contained in installation
instruction brochure and provide two ways to install unit,
with or without cutting existing fuel line.
(2) "Unit is a universal model fitting vehicles with
carburetors only.
(3) "Tools required are a knife or scissors to cut hose or
hoses to proper length, pliers and a screwdriver for
unloosening existing clamps and tightening new clamps.
(4) "No equipment required to check the accuracy of the
installation.
(5) "No adjustments to vehicle or vehicle systems as well as
the device following installation. (California mandates no
deviations from factory settings and specifications.)
-------
(6) "Skills associated with the installation of the device
would be those possessed by the average do it-yourself
person who services his own car and is capable of minor
repairs such as adjusting fan belts, removing and replacing
air, oil and gasoline filters, etc."
c. Operation;
"The unit is furnished with installation instructions and a
brief explanation of the history and principles of the magnetic
fuel treatment device for use on engines equipped with
carburetors."
d. Effects on Vehicle Safety;
"No effect on vehicles or occupants have been observed since the
supervised testing program was initiated at California State
University of Los Angeles beginning in January 1980 on 10
vehicles driven by graduate students, faculty and technicians.
Independent testing laboratories; Automobile Club of Southern
California; Transportation Testing, Inc. of Texas; USAC, (IMS),
Speedway, Indianapolis have reported no unsafe conditions
resulting from installing. Total of 33 cars have had units
installed for testing purposes with no record of any unsafe
condition. Additional backup data in Exhibit No. 5 supports no
hazardous conditions have occurred dating back to original
electromagnetic models which have been sold since early in
1962." Exhibit No. 5 was a copy of the EPA/DOE 1981 Gas Mileage
Guide for California and contained no information about the
device.
e. Maintenance;
"No maintenance is required on the unit except periodic
inspection of hose connections."
5. Effects on Emissions and Fuel Economy (submitted by Applicant);
a. Unregulated Emissions:
"See exhibit, letters from Ed Payne, Vice President and General
Manager of Transportation Testing Incorporated of Texas dated
September 3, 1981 to Al Kovacs, Azaka Co., inventor, on fleet
vehicles used in their testing operations which were equipped
with the fuel treatment unit. Some are vehicles used in the
50,000 mile reliability testing but not individually
identified. Approximately 15 vehicles are equipped with fuel
treatment units, accumulating mileage and are checked weekly on
an exhaust gas analyzer."
b. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy;
"Test data supplied as noted - Exhibit No. 8".
-------
6. Analysis
a. Identification Information;
(1) A copy of the patent application, Attachment A, was
provided by the applicant (Attachment J) in response to the
EPA request (Attachment H) for additional information about
the device.
b. Description;
(1) The primary purpose of device as given in Section 3a did
not give a clear purpose for the device. EPA twice
requested (Attachments H and L) the applicant to clarify
the purpose.
The purpose was finally clarified to be (Attachment N);
"The purpose of the Polarion X Gas Unit is;
1. Increase fuel economy
2. Reduce exhaust emissions
3. Eliminate carbon build up
4. Permit use of lower octane rated gasoline
5. Increase engine performance
6. Eliminate after running or dieseling"
The installation brochure (Attachment E) also states that
the device promotes fuel vaporization, provides more
complete combustion, and improves the combustion rate.
(2) The theory of operation given in Section 3b refers to the
use of an electric field to "... promote combustion,
increase vaporization, and heat transfer." The exhibits
also refer to electrical devices. However, since the
POLARION-X is a magnetic device, the applicability of this
information was not apparent and EPA requested the
applicant to clarify how his magnetic treatment of the fuel
would beneficially affect emissions or fuel economy.
Despite numerous requests and responses, the applicant was
unable to adequately explain the theory of operation for
the POLARION-X (see Attachments H, J, L, N, 0, and P).
During a follow up phone call by EPA, the applicant finally
stated that it was difficult to explain the theory by which
the device works, that it worked by molecular theory.
Therefore, there is no sound technical basis to believe the
POLARION-X has a beneficial effect on either emissions or
fuel economy. EPA is not aware of any information that
demonstrates that magnetically treating the fuel will
affect emissions or fuel economy. The applicant was unable
to provide a technically sound theoretical explanation that
adequately described the beneficial effects of the device.
-------
(3) The description of the device as described by the documents
listed in Section 3c, the block diagram (Attachment A-l),
installation instructions (Attachment E), and patent
drawing (Attachment A) provided an adequate description of
the construction and claimed method of operation of the
device.
However, because the applicant stated in Section 3a that
this device was ". . .an improvement over previous
electromagnetic devices developed . . .", EPA requested
(Attachment H) the applicant to describe these improvements
in greater detail. The applicant provided the following
description of the differences:
"The improvement is based on the increased magnetic
lines of force with the placement of the magnet
element. The previous ION-X and ATOM-X
electromagnetic units produce approximately 450 gauss
at the center of the unit. The POLARION-X unit
measures approximately 750 gauss at the magnet surface
and 1500 gauss equidistant between the surfaces .060
inches apart.
"Improvements of the magnetic unit over earlier
electromagnetic units are (1) increased gauss
readings, (2) no electrical potential required to
activate the electromagnets and conserving energy
from not being connected to the alternator, (3) the
magnet unit cannot cause a spark which is a
possibility with an electromagnet, (4) ceramic magnets
are capable of operating at engine compartment
temperatures." See Attachment J.
(4) According to the specific claims for the device "Emissions
- Depending on engine conditions, can be reduced in a range
from 5% to 10% for CO, 2% to 10% HC. Gas mileage
improvements as measured by SAE methods 5%. Increased
performance measuring various engine parameters 10%."
(Applicants response (Attachment J) to EPA request
(Attachment H) for specific claims for the device.)
(5) According to the applicant (Attachment J), the suggested
retail price of POLARION-X IS $35.00.
Installation, Operation, Safety and Maintenance;
(1) Applicability;
The applicability of the product as stated in the
application, to esentially all carbureted gasoline powered
vehicles is judged to be reasonable. That is, it is
possible to install the device on these vehicles. In
Attachment K, the applicant also stated that a new design
was being developed for gas and diesel injection systems.
-------
(2) Installation - Instructions, Equipment and Skills Required;
The installation brochure (Attachment E) adequately
describes the installation of the device. The applicant's
statements, Section 4b, about the tools, equipment, and
skills required for installation appear reasonable. The
installation is relatively simple and should require no
more than 15 minutes in most applications
There are, however, several aspects of the installation
that were overlooked by the applicant.
Installation of the device requires additional hardware
that is not provided with the device. According to the
applicant (Attachment J), this "Additional hardware is not
supplied due to the various engine configurations. Hoses
and clamps of proper size are readily available for
specific engines from auto parts shops."
Although the application clearly stated in Section 4b(5)
that no post-installation adjustments are required, the
installation instructions state that "Slightly less fuel is
used if the carburetor is adjusted when you have a tune up
to take advantage of the magnetic effect." EPA requested
(Attachment H) the applicant to explain what was this
adjustment, how was it made, and to explain this apparent
inconsistency between the installation instructions in the
application and those provided with he device. In
Attachment J, the applicant informed EPA that:
"A tune-up is strongly recommended at time of
installation. California prohibits any deviation from
factory specifications for tune-ups. In states where
adjustments are permitted a slightly leaner setting
can be made. After the unit is installed and
approximately 500 miles is accumulated full economy
increase can be measured and emission byproducts are
reduced."
Therefore, it appears the instructions provided with the
device are slightly misleading and do not inform the
purchaser how to adjust the carburetor ". . . to take
advantage of the magnetic effect."
(3) Operation;
The applicant refers to the installation instructions for
operating information. These instructions make no
reference to the necessity for a mileage accumulation prior
to obtaining a benefit. However, the "Abstract of
Development of POLARION-X" states "Most engines would
require preconditioning periods of up to 1000 miles before
optimum fuel mileage was obtained." EPA requested
(Attachment H) the applicant to clarify these statements.
The applicant's response (see Attachment J)
-------
"Depending on carbon deposits in the engine, most
vehicles require 2 to 3 tanks of fuel to be consumed
to clean out the engine and as this occurs gas mileage
increases. Assuming the average car tank capacity
provides 250 to 350 miles range, 2 to 3 tanks are
approximately 500-1050 miles to show results. Yes,
some vehicles show immediate benefits the first day.
Benefits are observed after the unit is removed. This
is confirmed by test vehicles with and without devices
which are switched halfway between the test program
and by exhaust emission readings of HC and CO which
remained lower after completion of test programs."
indicates that mileage accumulation with the device is
required before the device would be expected to have an
observable benefit.
(4) Effects on Vehicle Safety:
Based on the patent application description and the
installation instructions, the device is judged to be
capable of being fabricated to be safe in normal vehicle
usage.
(5) Maintenance;
The applicant's statement that no maintenance is required,
except for periodic inspection of hose connections, is
judged to be correct.
d. Effects on Emissions and Fuel Economy;
(1) Unregulated Emissions;
The applicant submitted no test data and made no claims
regarding unregulated emissions. The statements and data
supplied in Section 5a relate to regulated emissions and
fuel economy only. However, since the device does not
modify the vehicle's emission control system or powertrain,
the device should not significantly affect a vehicle's
nonregulated emissions.
(2) Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy;
The applicant did not submit test data in accordance with
either the Federal Test Procedure or the Highway Fuel
Economy Test. These two test procedures are the primary
ones recognized by EPA for evaluation of fuel economy and
-------
10
emissions for light duty vehicles.*
After numerous telephone and written requests (Attachments
H, I, K, M, 0, P, Q, and S) coordinating the testing of the
POLARION-X, the applicant notified us that the device had
been tested at an independent laboratory. Although he has
not provided the actual test results, he verbally informed
us that the tests did not show a benefit for the POLARION-X
device.
As noted in Section 6b(2) EPA is unaware of any information
that provides a technical basis to support the claim for
improved emissions and fuel economy for an in-line fuel
magnet device like POLARION-X. EPA previously tested and
evaluated a similar product known as Super-Mag Fuel
Extender (EPA-AA-TEB-511-82-3) and provided a copy of the
report to the applicant (Attachment M). This device also
showed no emissions or fuel economy benefit.
Conclusions
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by the
applicant. The evaluation of the POLARION-X device was based on
that information and the results of the EPA confirmatory test
program of a similar device.
The information supplied by the applicant was insufficient to
adequately substantiate either the emissions or fuel economy
benefits claimed for the device.
EPA is unaware of any data that demonstrates that magnetically
treating a hydrocarbon fuel prior to induction into a combustion
chamber is able to beneficially affect emissions or fuel
economy. The previous EPA testing of Super-Mag, a similar
device, showed no emissions or fuel economy benefits.
Therefore, based on this information and on our engineering
judgement, it is concluded that there is no technical basis to
justify an EPA confirmatory test program on the POLARION-X
device or to support any claims for an emissions or fuel economy
benefit due to its use.
*The requirement for test data following these procedures is stated in
the policy documents that EPA sends to each potential applicant. EPA
requires duplicate test sequences before and after installation of the
device on a minimum of two vehicles. A test sequence consists of a cold
start FTP plus a HFET or, as a simplified alternative, a hot start LA-4
plus a HFET. Other data which have been collected in accordance with
other standardized procedures are acceptable as supplemental data in
EPA's preliminary evaluation of a device.
-------
11
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; Merrill W. Korth, Emission Control
Technology Division, Office of Mobile Sources, Environmental Protection
Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105, 313-668-4299.
-------
12
At tachment A
Attachment A-l
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachemnt D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Attachment H
Attachment I
Attachment J
Attachment K
Attachment L
List of Attachments
Patent Application (provided as an attachment to
November 30, 1981 letter to EPA).
Block Diagram of Magnetic Unit (provided with 511
application).
"Abstract of Development of POLAR10N-X", dated July 1,
1981 (provided with 511 application).
Background Data on Magnetic Fuel Treatment (provided
with 511 application).
POLARION-X GAS SAVER UNIT SPECIFICATIONS by Albert J.
Kovacs, the inventor of the device.
POLARION-X installation brochure and warranty, the
pamphlet also contains history and principles of
operation (provided with 511 application).
Letter of September 3, 1981 from Ed Payne,
Transportation Testing of Texas, to Al Kovacs, a
consultant of AZ Industries (provided with 511
application).
Letter of September 23, 1981 from Ed Payne,
Transportation Testing of Texas to Dale Diver of AZ
Industries (provided with 511 application).
Letter of October 26, 1981 from EPA to LaVern Adam of
AZ Industries acknowledging receipt of 511 application
for the POLARION-X and requesting clarification and
additional information.
Letter of October 27, 1981 from EPA to LaVern Adam of
AZ Industries describing procedures for testing at an
independent laboratory by the applicant.
Letter of November 30, 1981 from LaVern Adam of AZ
Industries to EPA in response to EPA request for
clarification and additional information about the
device.
Letter of December 11, 1981 from LaVern Adam of AZ
Industries to EPA requesting EPA to comment on two
quotations and to assist in developing a test plan.
Letter of December 14, 1981 from EPA to LaVern Adam of
AZ Industries requesting clarification and information
for items not fully covered by prior response
(Attachment J).
-------
13
Attachment M
At tachment N
Attachment 0
Attachment P
Attachment Q
Attachment R
Letter of December 18, 1981 from EPA to LaVern Adam of
AZ Industries responding to request to comment on
proposal testing.
Letter of January 15, 1982 from LaVern Adam of AZ
Industries to EPA responding to EPA request
(Attachment L) for information and clarification.
Letter of January 21, 1982 from EPA to LaVern Adam of
AZ Industries reiterating EPA's request for
information.
Letter of March 9, 1982 from EPA to LaVern Adam of AZ
Industries notifying applicant that EPA would shortly
close out the evaluation if adequate test data wasn't
provided.
Letter of March 24, 1982 from Dale V. Diver of AZ
Industries to EPA which provided a copy of the
POLARION-X test plan.
Letter of March 25, 1982 from Albert J. Kovacs, a
consultant of AZ Industries, to EPA providing
information and data on POLARION-X.
Attachment S
Letter of April 5, 1982 from EPA to LaVern Adam of AZ
Industries commenting on the test plan for POLARION-X.
-------
14
Attachment A
POLARION-X
Patent Application No. 207,644 for "Magnetic Device for Treating
Hydrocarbon Fuels"
This document contains several pages which may not have reproduced well.
The "Abstract of the Disclosure" and drawings of the device were
extracted from this document and are given below.
MAGNETIC DEVICE FOR TREATING HYDROCARBON FUELS
Abstract of the Disclosure
A magnetic device for treating hydrocarbon fuel, including a passageway
having an inlet and an outlet for the passage of the hydrocarbon fuel, a
pair of elongated magnets and with each magnet magnetized to have one
pole extending along one longitudinal face and the other pole extending
along the opposite longitudinal face, the pair of magnets located along
and on opposite sides of the passageway and with the faces of the magnets
having like poles spaced from and substantially parallel to each other,
and the pair of magnets providing a substantially unipolar flux field on
fuel flowing in the passageway.
-------
15
/////// ///////// ss//////////
-------
I3LC
Fuel.
CK DIAGRAM OF
/OMS
MAGNETIC UNIT
\ /
I. UNLOADED FUEL I'UMI'IZD TO MAGNETIC UNIT.
2. UNIT PLACOS MAGNETIC CIIAUGI- ON !;UI:L.
7>. CIIARGHIJ RII-L MIXED WITH AIR-1'OSITIVI.i F, NEGATIVE CHARGED.
'I. ATOMIZED FUEL - LIKE CHARGES REPEL FROM MANIFOLD
f>. UNLIKE CHARGED FUEL/AIR PARTICLES ATTRACTED.
fi. COMBUSTION PROCESS PROMOTED BY POLARIZED FUEL
7. MORI; COMPLETE COMBUSTION-GREATER EEFI CJ l-NCY- I.ESS EMISSIONS.
>
i
-------
ATTACHMENT B
17
July 1, 1981
Abstract of Development of POLARION-X
During the Korean War, while serving as a consultant to the USAF and the
Japanese government, my duties required detailed R&D in the field of EMI
(Electromagnetic Interference) for our global communication systems. Out of
this grew c background of knowledge of magnetism, electromagnetic fields and
more recently, electrogesdynamics. Since 19^-6 I have been involved in the
design of electrostatic industrial equipment.
In 196l a Japanese associate brought a electromagnetic device which he had
invented, and for which he had been granted US patents, to the US and I assisted
him in efforts to make the device. It was tested by industrial corporations,
several of which took out agreements to distribute the device- Federal snd
state agencies also tested the device and made recommendations that it be used
on general purpose vehicles. However, due to the 25$ per geU.cn price of
gasolene there was little interest in fuel economy or increased performance
with 100 octane fuel. He returned to Japan to manufacture and sell his device
in the Orient and in Europe.
About 1970 the ceramic type Alnico magnet prices became cost competitive
with the barium ferrite magnet and we planned to develop^' improved models but
i •
he became ill and closed his factory. Several more US patents were granted on
the improvements.
In 1975 I wes able to develop £. magnetic model which was more povrerful
than his electromagnetic device end cheeper to manufacture. In 1977 I submitted
an unsolicited proposal to the Energy Research end Development .Administration
for e grent to develop a engineering model end to study the effects of electro-
magnetic fields on hydrocarbon fuels. No grant v;as available from ERDA but
-------
18
NASA's Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio and JPL, Pasadena ev/arded a grant
to the Mechanical Engineering Department, Californie State University Los Angeles
end I have a contract to furnish consulting services in their diesel fuel program
to treat diesel fuel with electrostatic and electrogasdynamic methods.
B&D on the magnetic unit to treat gasolene, gasohol and methanol involved
the study of magnetic fields on the combustion rate using small laboratory gasolene
engines and starting in January 1979 in the Auto Labs, Industrial Studies Department
at CSULA a 1977 Datsun, 2000 cc Pickup was instrumented for field testing on the
freeways. The Automobile Club of Southern California assisted in laying out a
freeway loop, furnishing a 5th wheel for accurate mileage recording and dynamometer..
Testing was done in the Auto Lab to measure fuel/air ratios, fuel consumption,
emissions and performance parameters to establish base line data.
Various models of magnetic units were designed to study their effect on fuel
consumption by driving the freeway loop with and without the unit attached. A
patent was applied for at this time when other vehicles were also base lined on
dynamometers and driven over the freeway loop. The smallest vehicle was a 1976
Honda, 1^00 cc 2 door sedan and the largest, a Mercury 1972 429 cid4 door sedan.
Fuel economy increases ranged from 8$ to 15$ on 6 vehicles tested.
•During this period outside consultants were engaged, Dr. Peter Campbell of
the USC Electrical Engineering Department and AZ Industries which furnished
magnets with special characteristics to optimize the magnetic field effect on
hydrocarbons. AZ Industries also made studies and recommendations of the most
cost effective configurations of units to fit domestic end foreign fuel systems.
Since most of the testing was done on the freeway system, we wanted to have an
independent laboratory make fuel economy tests on e closed course or a track.
The Goodyear test track was recommended. It is now the Transportation Testing
-2-
-------
19
Inc. of Texas at San Angelo, Texas. They conducted a series of tests using a fleet
of 8 cars accumulating a total of over 25,000 miles of driving on their test track.
The preliminary report was favorable so en additional test was conducted. The
conditions were to place POLARION-X units on the control vehicles vhich were with-
out units to see if these vehicles were benefited to the same degree. An additional
25,000 miles has been accumulated for a total of 50,000 miles. This would also
provide a reliability test of the POLARION-X units under actual service conditions.
Development of the earlier electromagnetic fuel treatment devices revealed
characteristics of the effects of electromagnetic fields on gasolene powered I.C.
engines. The devices did not immediately show an increase in MPG. Most engines
would require preconditioning periods of up• to ITVSQ'O miles before optimum fuel
mileage was obtained. The head was removed to photograph the ^carbon build up and
deposits. After 1,000 miles the head was again removed and photographed showing
removal and changes in the carbon deposit. In many engines the ignition timing
was advanced and a lower octane fuel could be used without detonation. Easier
starting was observed in many cases. Much of this was documented for oil companies
in Jepen and dynamometer readings showed HP increase attributable to the electro-
magnetic device. Similar observations with the present magnetic unit have been
noted but no claims have been made until comparable tests have been repeated.
Surveys show buyers are not interested in these other benefits except for the MPG
increase with the magnetic unit.
My Japanese associate continued to make improvements in the fluid and fuel
treatment devices, receiving over 25 US and foreign patents for these improvements,
however only 3 or h models or configurations were manufactured during the 1960's in
Japsn end sold in Jspan and Europe. He also manufactured and distributed barium
ferrite jncgnets for the electronics industries until he becozne ill in 1970 but
-------
20
continued E&D in electromagnetics with patents being granted as late as 197^-
Concurrently, with his consultant, Dr. Yukichi Asakawa who was then Director,
High Tension Laboratory, Nikon University, Tokyo, Japan the principles of
electromagnetics and electrostatics were used to develop concepts and working
models for various applications for hydrocarbon fluids, thermodynamics, promotion
and retardation of heat transfer, automotive engines and systems. Dr. Asakawa
also has numerous US patents for promotion of combustion, vaporization and heat
transfer used in industrial applications and equipment.
When the energy shortage occurred in 197^ it was brought to the attention of
ERDA that there vere many papers on energy conservation in Japanese which were
not translated into English. The Japanese associate and myself had several
scientific papers translated to support US patent filings on the effect of electric
fields on combustion, vaporization and heat transfer. HASA officials read the
proposal to treat hydrocarbons and assisted in developing the present program at
CSULA, Mechanical Engineering Department to study .the-effects of electrostatics
on diesel fuels.
Azake Company and AZ. Industries, Inc. feel a significant break through is
occuring in carrying on the development of strong magnetic fields to treat hydro-
carbon fuels such as gasolene, diesel fuels and combustible gases to obtain more
energy by more efficient fuel combustion and to seek new ways to conserve energy.
-k-
-------
ATTACHMENT C 21
BACKGROUND DATA ON MAGNETIC FUEL TREATMENT*
The use of magnetic and electromagnetic fields to influence physical
and chemical reactions is well known and has many industrial applications
as in electrostatic printing (Xerox), audio and recording tape for video
and television, electrostatic precipitation of dust particles, electric
motors, electronic and electronic control systems are examples.
Magnetism is used in four basic forms in the treatment of hydorcarbons
and hydrocarbon fuels.
1) Permanent magnets
2) Electromagnets
3) Electrostatics
4) Electrogasdynamics
An electrical field has the effect of promoting combustion, vaporization
and heat transfer by increasing the combustion rate. When the rate is in-
creased, more complete combustion takes place in increasing efficiency,
cleaner burning and less combustion by-products.
The development of cermets (ceramic magnets) capable of operating at
higher temperatures without losing the magnetic efficiency such as occurs
with other types of magnets such as ferrites has for the first time made
possible the use of cermets without the addition of a magnetic field. An
electromagnet is needed for increased temperatures to compensate for the
loss of magnetic efficiency, in the modern auto engine compartment 250
temperatures are usual; to maintain the magnetic field strength when fer-
rite or other types of magnets are used.
Ceramic magnets (cermets) are relatively new and have outstanding
properties of stability, desirable magnetic composition, ease of manu-
facture and control of the grain structure and polarity orientation for
specific applications. The particular capability of magnetizing In a man-
ner to provide desired configurations of the magnetic fields not possible
with other types and to have greater magnetic strength.
*This is a true copy of information provided by applicant; retyped for
legibility.
-------
Miniturization of electronic equipment is due in part in using these
properties in the design of matnetic components.
For the past 5 years,investigation, R&D, field testing of magnets
for treating fuels has been conducted to determine the optimum parameters
of magnetic fields to effect polarization of hydrocarbons specifically
gasolene, gasohol and diesel fuel. Much of the technical knowledge in
electromagnetics and electrostatics was available from the paint and coat-
ing industry where spraying with electrostatic guns has been done for over
30 years. Hydrocarbon rheology and fluid mechanics, placing electrical
charges on atomized fluid and air particles, polarizing molecules, are
means to provide control of the atomization and heat transfer reactions.
The hydrocarbons and solvents used for catalyzation and polymeriza-
tion are similar to the fluids used to provide combustion,atomization and
heat transfer in the combustion process. We have developed with assistance
from USC.Cal Tech, JPL.NASA at California State University Los Angeles the
magnetic unit that provides fields strong enough to effect polarization
of gasolene and are pursuing research on higher viscosity fuels.The units
are now being field tested by independent laboratories serving the auto
industry.
Transportation Testing Inc.of Texas,San Angelo,Texas is completing a
50,000 mile reliability and fuel consumption test, the 25,000 mile part is
submitted as an enclosure. USAC Properties,Inc. Speedway,Indiana will have
their test data available shortly on fuel economy tests conducted at the
Indianapolis race track by the products testing division. Patent application
drawing and data are included to clarify the details of the operation of the
unit and how it works in the fuel system.
-------
ATTACHMENT D
2—]
o
ALBERT J. KOVACS
PLANNTNO CONSCXTANT
1929 FREMONT AVE.
SO. PASADENA, CA. 91030
PHONE 225-6122
POLARION-X GAS SAVER UNIT*
SPECIFICATION-
1. How the invention is constructed.
2. How it operates
3. How it is used
How the invention is constructed.
The unit consists of 7 pieces. The mag-
net assembly has 4 ceramic type magnets encased in a square aluminum tube, the
magnets placed in the tube, 2 magnets in tandem, facing 2 magnets in tandem
placed on the opposite side of the tube. The magnets are polarized to oppose
each other so that magnetic particles are not attracted to the inner surface
of the opposing magnets.
The 2 end caps of non-magnetic material are forced onto the ends of the
tube (7th piece) and expoied in place to form a tight seal to prevent any
leakage of the fluid passing through the unit. The orifices of the end caps
are sized to correspond to the approximate inner space between the magnets to
permit a smooth flow of fluid over the inner surfaces of the 4 magnets. The
opposite side of the magnets are in direct contact with the inside of the
tube and are kept in position by their repelling magnetic action and the end
caps prevent any lateral movement.
There is no constriction of the flow of the fluid and the total inner
open area is designed to match the fluid flows of the largest fuel pumps.
How it operates
The unit is installed in the engine fuel line between
the fuel pump and as close to the carburetor as possible. It has no inlet or
outlet markings, working with fluid entering from either direction so the
unit cannot be installed incorrectly. The action of the fuel pump forces
fuel into the unit and fills the chamber so the inner surfaces of the magnets
are in intimate contact with the fuel flowing over the surfaces which are
placing a polarizing charge as the fuel is forced towards the carburetor.
Fuel leaves the unit entering into the inlet of the carburetor and through
a filter,if a filter is located in the carburetor inlet, and then into the
float chamber.
the fuel is metered into the throat of the carburetor to be mixed with
the incoming air and is atomized with the charged particles of fuel now in
droplet form being attracted to the oppositely charged air particles. In the
atomized fuel air mixture are an approximately positvely and negatively
charged ions, water vapor, dust particles which are drawn into the air horn
*This is a true copy of information provided by applicant; retyped for
legibility.
-------
24
The oppositely charged fuel air particles caused these to be attracted
to each other. The like charged particles cause dispersion of the droplets
so that due to the turbulence in the intake manifold and the negative charge
on the intake manifold the negative charged fuel air droplets are repelled
away from the intake manifold. The excess negative charges received from
the negative magnetic field implements the repelling effect.
How it is used.
The magnets in the unit provide a means to place a pol-
arizing charge on the flowing fuel. By placing the unit next to the carbu-
retor and connecting unit to the fuel line with insulating fuel hose the
charge is prevented from grounding. With engine stopped, the fuel in the
unit remains in the magnetic field force. On starting, gasoline from the
float chamber are first atomized causing easier statting.As long as the unit
does not touch any magnetic metal the polarization of the fuel continues,
either with the engine running or stopped. Spark plug wires or any electrical
wiring must be at least 3/4 inches distant so electromagnetic interference
cannot occur to the magnetic field.
By proper orientation of the charge on the permanent magnets it is pos-
sible to induce this polar charge on elements in the fuel. These elements in
additives often provide nuclei for the formation of charged particles when
in the carburetor and combustion chamger. Water,gasoline are non-solar sol-
vents in pure state. When impurities are present in non-polar solvents they
become conductive. Additives such as detergents, ionic and cationic surfac-
tants can cause conductive reaction,i.e., polarization.
-------
HISTORY
OF
PATENTS PENDING
POLARION-X is a new prcxluct based on strong
magnetic fields affecting fluids passing over a
magnet surface. This causes gasoline to burn
cleaner and more completely. The magnetic
energy increases the combustion ratio to get more
mileage from the tank of gasoline.
Japanese scientists working with magnets dis-
covered electromagnetic forces can be used in
fuel lines to increase combustion and cause a
greater vaporization of hydrocarbon fuels and
water. This is what happens in your carburetor
where fuel and air are vaporized into a very fine
mist and are drawn in the intake manifold and
engine cylinder.
A fuel air mixture is ignited by the spark plug and
the magnetic energy transfer provides better mix-
ing to promote combustion. Slightly less fuel is us-
ed if the carburetor is adjusted when you have a
tuneup to take advantage of the magnetic effect.
POLARION-X has very strong ceramic type
magnets which are not as sensitive to engine heat
and maintain their forces. This provides more
energy and does not require any electrical current
and will not cause any sparking or arcing in the fuel.
system.
Since it is also an energy saving device and
does not use electricity from your alternator, less
load is placed on the auto electric system.
A PRODUCT
OF
INDUSTRIES
INCORPOfltTCO
DISTRIBUTED
BY
30 Day Warranty
It lor any reason you are not satlst/ed with the
performance of this unit, return to place ol pur-
chase tor a full refund. You must return the unit
within 30 days from date of purchase in original
carton with proof of purchase.
Mfg. by AZ Industries, Inc.
Temecula, California
under license from
AZAKA, Inc.
Monrovia, California
PRINCIPLE
OF
PATENTS PENDING
In other countries, high gasoline prices have
caused the use of small fuel efficient cars. They
have used the newer electronic systems to im-
prove car performance.
As a result, the magnetic principle of
POLARION-X was incorporated into the fuel
system to promote better vaporization of the fuel
and air to provide more complete combustion.
Both electrical and electronic systems are based
on + and - polarity; a magnet can do the same
thing much more simply. It is safer as it cannot
spark or cause a gasoline explosion from vapors
and it conserves energy as no current is taken from
the alternator.
When POLARION-X is Installed with a tuneup, it
will increase time between tuneups. With better
combustion rate and cleaner burning of the fuel
and air, there is less carbon deposit in the engine
and an increase in fuel economy. Independent
laboratories are testing the unit and find there is
mileage improvement. Where POLARION-X has
been tested on cars It was reported that there is
easier starting and less dieseling when the engine
is turned off. When engines are overhauled they
were found to have less carbon deposit on the In-
. ternal parts.
You can get these benefits by the use of
POLAR ION-X which never wears out and needs no
maintenanc.e.
NJ
Ul
-------
26
CUT OUT SECTION OF FUEL LINE TO ACCOMMODATE POLARION-X 7V,"
I
POLARION-X instruction installations
Tuneup is strongly recommended
1. Determine by holding unit alongside the fuel
line where it will fit, free from touching engine,
but as close as possible to carburetor. Mark the
fuel line.
2. Remove fuel line or bend line for step 3.
3. Cut fuel line at the two marks PLUS % inch,
which is 7% in. See sketch.
4. Cut a piece of fuel line hose 2'/
-------
27
ATTACHMENT F
Transpor fat ion Test m&
incorporated 9f Texas
Independent Tire and Vehicle Testing • 1601 San Antonio Highway • San Angelo, Texas 76903 • Phooe915/655-Q580
P.O.Box 171, San Ang«lo, Texas 76902, USA
September 3,
Wi. ML K.OVO.CA
Azaka. Co. •''':;
244 E. Pomona. Awe.
At,
91016
In /terfe/ience to OWL luting ojj youn pnoduct, Po&uuan X Fue£ Save*
, we o*e £utLnit>hing you. data JLe&ated dift.ejc.tJty to E.P.A. emmi&&ion
Li&ted beJLoua you. wWL {ind Co and HC leading* puJLon. to and
the. Jin&taXJLcuion o£ you*, product.
BEFORE AFTER
VEHICLE PESCRIPTIOM
1980 fold T-&ctd 2 Voon.
1980 Mazda 626 2 t?oo/t
7980 Fo/td MttiXiang 2 Poo*
1980 Fold Fairmont 2 Poo*
7980 Fo/uf Fa&mnont 2 Poo*
In addition to the. unit* Lilted aboue we wc££ update, you on a week ^o
0(J othoA unite equipped with you*, pnoduct. OA to HC and Co
EMGINE SIZE
302 Cuktc inch
2000 cc
2.3 Lite*.
2.3 Litest.
2.3 Lite*.
to
2.3%
3%
1.0%
1.7%
4.0%
HC
165 ppm
230 ppm
270 ppm
290 ppm
295 ppm ;
Co
1.5%
2.7%
.95%
1.5%
3.2%
HC
110 ppm
240 ppm
260 ppm
230 ppm
. 290 ppm
-------
Independent Tire and Vehicle Testing • 1601 San Antonio Highway • San Angelo. Texas 76903 • Phone 915/655-0580
P.O.Box 171, San Angelo, Texas 76902. USA
Sep-tembe/i 23,79S7
Vi.veA.
c/o CoaAt Mac.hineA.y
2479 Chi.c.0
Sooth VeJL Monte., CaLL^.
VC.OA. VaJLe.,
Enc£o.aed you. n:itL
at QUA
91733
-t/:e peA^neivt data xieded to complete. the. testing
-en conjunction utitk the. 5AE ^.ecommenrfed p/uiciice
On Sep'tejnbz/i 3, J98I, the. testing j.nvo£ve.d youA. PotcuiAjcun X fiueJl iauea cfeu-cce
OM a 79SO Fo^irf MuAtang (2.3 titeA] . The. contAoi ve.hic£e. UXL& a 19BO
Toyota ConoSUta (Z.ZLiteA.). The. &o££ouiing day, Se.ptzmbeA. 4, 19Z1, the. Aame.
tioo ve.hA.cZeA we/ie aiecf fau^t the. Plasuan X Fuel AaveA uxu> removed. Vou. &ha££
data. Jiun 4/iee/t4 attached to -t/u-4 ZztteA, along iv^th MPG da-Ca
Tfie j$o-t£ow-trcg -ctem6 may be fcene^ciad to you Ln tA.yi.ng to dcJteAmine. the.
amount o£ vaAJM.bleA that cue/ie eLvn(uninteAAupted. tut i.nteAval&] .
F. Constant 55 mp/i ipeed Lanut.
G. StAaight higluvay (no hiLtb on i.ncJLineA and veAy j$eu> winding C.UAVU] .
i
PRII/ER' OI/SERI/ATIOWS.-
A. Boih ve.hi.clu ian smoothly.
B. Wo evidence
C. We engine A
CRZU'ERS AW Cl'SERt'ERS:
A. ContAoZ ve.liic£c.
PRIt'ER: M-l. Ro3^t Zingg J.t.
-------
29
Independent Tire and Vehicle Testing • 1601 San Antonio Highway • San Angelo. Texas 76903 • Phone915/655-0580
P.O.Box 171, San Angelo, Texas 76902, USA
OBSERVER: MA. DoAman
8. Tut ve.tu.cte.
PRIl/ER: /.Pi. Mo£t
OBSERVER: MA. Kan
TEST VEHICLES
A. Bo££a6i t/wu 4e-t at 85$ toad recommended -ttAe -i-tze.
B. J980 FoAd Ma&Xang tine. *i.ze.: PIS5/SORI3
In/J£aiion pre^^uAe: 26 PSI
851 £oad per tut tine.: 955 L5S.
C. J9S0 Toyota Corona T^Ae Sx^ze: I75SRJ4
1 notation pACi^u/te: 24 PSI
892 LBS.
POLARIAW X FUEL SAl'ER PEl/ICE
A. TeA^ component a'O6 utilized
-------
30
MILES PER GALLON CONVERSION
WITH PE I/ICE/CONTROL VEHICLE
&.2S1
t.27t
B.297
S.317
8.799
$.320
RUN «1
3
4
2A
3A
4A
49.662
49.662 LBS * 6.0 = S.277
46 MILES X 6 = 276
276 * S.277 = 33.35
BASELINE VEHICLE MILES PER GALLON
33.35 MPG * 1.1915 = 27.99
TEST VEHICLE MILES PER GALLON
33.35 MPG * I.J372 = 29.48
-------
31
TEST SEGMENT T/C RATIOS
fc'ITH POLAR!AH X FUEL SATER
Tut Run #7 7.7379
3 1.1372
4 1.1116
Ave-uigc 3.3937 * 3 « 7.1312
Se.gme.nt
Tut Run #2 1.7795
3 7.79*0
4 1.7970
3.5745 * 3 = 7.7975
j$ue£ ^aued = (AueA^ige baA&Line. T/C - AueAage ^fcA-t T/C)* (Ave/uige
T/C)
« (7.7975 - 7.7372) t 7.7975
= ( .0603) f (7.7975)
= { .050603 x 700) = 5.06QSS rfue£ iaued
PeAcen-t lmp>iovejme.nt = (AueAage btucLine. t/C - Average, tut T/C) * AueAage -teA-t T/C
- (7.7975 - 7.7372) * 7.7372
= ( .0603) * 7.7372
= ( .053306 x 700) = 5.33061 ImjM.ove/nen*
73
-------
COMPARATIVE PATA RESULTS FROM POLARIAN X FUEL SAVER PEVICE
WITH PEVICE VS CONTROL VEHICLE
TEST RUN . LSS FUEL CONSUMED LOS CONSUME!?
NUMBER TEST VEHICLE + CONTROL VHEICLE « T/C RATIO
/ 9.389 £• 8,251 _!>• J./379
2 9.315 a 8.386 £ J.M0£
•t
3 9.414^ 8.278,0 1.J372
4 9.281^ 8.297 o 1.11.86
TC value* 0 981 conscience
r
1.1379. @ .98 • 1.1151 Range. 1.1151 to J./379
PO .NOT ACCEPT RUN 2 AS COMPARATIVE PATA.
PATA POINT IS BELOW RANGE.
THREE REMAINING TATA POINTS ARE ACCEPTABLE.
N>
-------
WO/ PEl/ICE
TEST RUN
NUMBER
1
COMPARATIVE PATA RESULTS FROM POLARIAM X FUEL SAl/ER PEl/ICE
VS CONTROL l/EHICLE
L8S FUEL CONSUMEP
TEST VEHICLE
9.726 V
9.822
9.959
LBS CONSUMEP
CONTROL VEHICLE
8,317^
8.320,^
T/C RATIO
1.1624
I./795
1./980
1.1970
TC voCue^ @ 981
H.lgh&>t T/C naUjo x .98 = m^numum accep-tabCc T/C
1.1980 @ .981 -/.1740 Range /. J980 -to 1.1740
00 WOT ACCEPT RUN HI AS COMPARATIVE PATA.
PATA POINT IS GELOW RANGE.
THREE REMAINING PATA POINTS ARE ACCEPTABLE.
u>
U)
-------
.M-osr,,,.
•r <
ATTACHMENT H
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
34
OFF.CEOF
AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION
October 26, 1981
Mr. LaVern Adam, President
AZ Industries, Inc.
28065 Diaz Road
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Adam:
We received your letter of October 7, 1981 in which you applied for an
EPA evaluation of the "POLARION-X" , a fuel economy retrofit device.
Our Engineering Evaluation Group has made a preliminary review of your
application and has identified several areas which require additional
clarification. Our comments below address the individual sections.
1. Section No. 3 - Please provide a copy of the patent application.
2. Section 8(a) does not give a clear purpose for the POLARION-X.
You state "The present device is a magnetic unit for treating
hydrocarbon fuel and an improvement on previous electromagnetic
devices developed ...". The benefits of electromagnetic
treatment of a hydrocarbon fuel with respect to fuel economy and
emissions of motor vehicles are not clearly demonstrated.
Please explain this more fully. Also, the improvement over
earlier electromagnetic devices is not shown. Please explain
these improvements in greater detail.
3. Section No. 8(b) refers to the use of an electric field to
"promote combustion, increase vaporization, and heat transfer."
The exhibits also refer to electrical devices. However, since
the POLARION-X is a magnetic device, the applicability of this
information is not apparent. Please explain.
4. Section No. 10 and the installation brochure adequately describe
the installation of the POLARION-X but it appears that
additional hardware is required. Do you provide installation
kits (hoses, fittings, etc.) to accompany the device? If so,
please describe.
5. Section No. 10(e) states no adjustments are necessary after
installation. However, the history of POLARION-X given as
part of the installation instructions states "slightly less fuel
is used if the carburetor is adjusted when you have a tune up to
take advantage of the magnetic effect". What is this
adjustment? How is it made? Please explain this inconsistency
between the installation instructions in your application and
the instructions accompanying the device.
-------
35
6. Section 11 refers to the installation instructions for operating
information. These instructions make no reference to the
necessity for a mileage accumulation prior to obtaining a
benefit. However, the "Abstract of Development of POLARION-X"
states "Most engines would require preconditioning periods of up
to 1000 miles before optimum fuel mileage was obtained." Please
clarify. Is mileage accumulation required? If it is, how many
miles? Are any benefits evident immediately after installation
of the device? Are the benefits of the device still evident
after its removal?
7. The test results in Section 15 contain several anomalies.
a. The mileage on the Mustang at the end of testing on 9-3-81
was 36,119 miles but it started on 9-4-81 with 36,091 miles.
b. Run numbers 1 w/p, 2 w/p, and 3 w/p each show 46 total
miles. However, the odometer indicates only 36 miles.
c. According to the odometer readings for the Corona, it
appears the first run given for each day was a warm-up and
should not be used for comparison. Since the Mustang ran
at the same time, this also appears to be true for it.
d. Section 54 of SAE recommended practice J1321 specifies a 5
minute interval between vehicles. However, the data shows
both vehicles traveled together.
e. The last fuel reading on test 1 w/p appears to be in error,
f. The 2% bandwidth for acceptable data is correct. However,
using .98 of the highest value to determine the lowest
acceptable reading means you always automatically accept
the highest reading even if it is the outlier and thus,
valid lower values will be rejected. Plus or minus 1% of
the mean or median would appear more acceptable.
g. Was there mileage accumulation with the device prior to the
9-3-81 test of the Mustang? If so, how many miles?
Please comment on 7a through 7g. Until our questions on these
data and their analysis are satisfactorily addressed, we will be
unable to properly evaluate the test results.
8. Also in Section 15, the test data was obtained in accordance
with SAE over-the-road fuel economy test for heavy duty trucks
and tractor-trailers. Although we will consider data which have
been collected in accordance with other standardized fuel
economy measurement procedures, the test procedures must be
appropriate. The SAE passenger car fuel economy measurement
procedures (either SAE J1082a and SAE 1256) would appear to be
more appropriate. Please explain why the truck procedures were
used.
-------
3 6
9. What are the specific cleaims to be made for POLARION-X for
emissions, fuel economy, and performance?
10. What is the suggested retail price of POLARION-X?
Submittal of the information requested above will be necessary to further
process your evaluation. In order for us to process Section 511
applications efficiently, we have established a schedule for each. I ask
that you respond to this letter by November 11. If you have any
questions or require further information, please contact me.
Since processing your application will require you to submit test data
obtained at a recognized independent laboratory, I am sending you a
separate letter containing the current information on this procedure. I
am prepared to assist you in developing a test plan which will allow you
to conduct appropriate testing at an independent laboratory. Enclosed
with that letter is an EPA test report on a device which appears to be
similar to POLARION-X. It is entitled "Evaluation of the Super-Mag Fuel
Extender". Even if you do not consider this device to be similar, you
may find this report useful as an example of an EPA test program.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
-------
37
ATTACHMENT I
» jrm \
S&i
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION
October 27, 1981
Mr. LaVern Adam, President
AZ Industries, Inc.
28065 Diaz Road
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Adam:
This letter is in response to your request of October 7, 1981 for an EPA
evaluation of POLARION-X. The Environmental Protection Agency is charged
by Congressional mandate to evaluate fuel economy and emission control
devices. While the EPA does not actually "approve" such devices, it does
conduct evaluations for the purpose of increasing the common knowledge in
the area. For this reason, the outcome of any testing by EPA becomes
public information. It is this information which may be cited, although
no claims can be made that any EPA findings constitute "approval" of the
device or system.
Enclosed with this letter is a packet of materials which will assist you
in developing a test plan which will allow you to conduct appropriate
testing at an independent laboratory. This packet consists of 1) a doc-
ument entitled "EPA Retrofit and Emission Control Device Evaluation Test
Policy", 2) "Basic Test Plans and Testing Sequences", and 3) a copy of
the applicable Federal Regulations.
A critical part of the application is the substantiating test data. The
required test results will have to be obtained at a laboratory of your
choice. Such testing would be conducted at your expense. A list of
laboratories, which are known to have the equipment and personnel to
perform acceptable tests, has been included in the enclosed packet.
Please allow EPA to comment on your test plan before beginning testing at
an independent laboratory. If you desire, we can assist in the develop-
ment of a satisfactory test plan.
There are, however, several aspects concerning testing at an outside
laboratory which I would like to bring to your attention at this time:
Minimum Test Requirements - Although different types of devices may
require a more complex test plan, the minimum we require involves two
vehicles and two test sequences run in duplicate. The vehicles
should be selected from those listed in Table 1. Each vehicle is to
be set to manufacturer's tune-up specifications for the baseline
tests.
The tests are conducted in a "back-to-back" manner, once with the
vehicle in baseline condition, and again with the device installed
with no vehicle adjustments between tests. If installation of the
device also involves some adjustments, e.g. timing, fuel-air mixture,
choke, or idle speed, another test sequence with only these adjust-
ments should be inserted between the first and last. If mileage
-------
38.
shown, then we would be able to say statistically at the 80% con-
fidence level that there is a real improvement. Similarly, we would
expect a minimum of 3% improvement for a fleet of 5 vehicles. Test
results which display a significant increase in emission levels
should be reason for concern.
Minimum Fuel Economy Improvements versus Size of Test Fleet
Fleet Size Average Improvement Required
2 6%
3 5%
4 4%
5 3%
10 2%
Any EPA testing will be performed at no cost to you and you will be given
the opportunity to concur with our test plan. Once this testing is com-
plete, an evaluation report will be written. If no further testing is
required, the report will be written solely on the basis of the test data
submitted and our engineering analysis.
EPA intends to process your application in as expeditious a manner as
possible. We have established a goal of twelve weeks from the receipt of
a complete application to the announcement of our report. The attainment
of this objective requires very precise scheduling, and we are depending
on the applicant to respond promptly to any questions, or to submit any
requested data. Failure to respond in a timely manner will unduly delay
the process. In the extreme case, we may consider lack of response as a
withdrawal of the application.
I hope the information above and that contained in the enclosed documents
will aid you in obtaining the required independent laboratory testing for
an EPA evaluation of your device. I will be your contact with EPA during
the entire process. My- address is EPA, Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. The tele-
phone number if (313) 668-4299. I have also enclosed a copy of an EPA
report on the Super-Mag Fuel Extender. This device appears to be similar
to the POLARION-X. Please contact me if you have any questions or
require any further information.
Sincerely,
1*1
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Emission Control Technology Division.
Enclosures
-------
3'9
accumulation is necessary in order to realize the full benefit, the
same number of miles that are accumulated before the test runs must
also be accumulated before baseline runs. When mileage accumulation
is involved, duplicate tests must be run immediately after the device
is installed and again after the mileage accumulation is complete.
In addition, the method of mileage accumulation should be kept con-
stant. Also, as a minimum, the test sequence shall consist of a
hot-start LA-4 portion (bags 1 and 2) of the Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) and a Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). The details of these
tests are contained in the enclosed packet. Although only a hot-
start FTP is required to minimize the costs to you, you are encour-
aged to have the entire cold-start test performed, since any testing
and evaluation performed by EPA will be based on the complete FTP,
and you may wish to know how a vehicle with your device performs over
this official test. As a final requirement, the personnel of the
outside laboratory you select should perform every element of your
test plan. This includes preparation of the test vehicle, adjustment
of parameters, and installation of the device.
Submission of Data - We require that all test data obtained from the
outside laboratories in support of your application be submitted to
us. This includes any results you have which were declared void or
invalid by the laboratory. We also ask that you notify us of the
laboratory you have chosen, when testing is scheduled to begin, what
tests you have decided to conduct, allow us to maintain contact with
the laboratory during the course of the testing, and allow the test
laboratory to directly answer any questions at any time about the
test program.
Cost of the Testing - The cost of the minimum test plan (two
vehicles, two test sequences in duplicate) described above should be
less than $3000 per vehicle and less than $6000 for the total test at
any of the laboratories on the list. It should be recognized that
additions to the minimum test plan (such as mileage accumulation,
parameter adjustment, or additional testing) will result in addi-
tional costs. In any case, you will have to contact them indi-
vidually to obtain their latest prices.
Outcome of the Tests - In order for EPA to best utilize our fac-
ilities, confirmatory testing will be performed only on those devices
that demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in fuel
economy or emissions based on data from an EPA-recognized independent
laboratory. We have established some guidelines which will help you
determine whether the test results with your device should be con-
sidered encouraging. These values have been chosen to assure both of
us that a real difference in fuel economy exists, and that we are not
seeing only the variability in the results. The table below presents
the minimum number of cars that need to be tested for varying degrees
of fuel economy improvement, assuming a typical amount of variability
in fuel economy measurement. For a minimum test plan which was con-
ducted on a fleet of two cars, the average improvement should be at
least 6%. If at least a 6% difference in average fuel economy can be
-------
'Precision Is Our Business'
ATTACHMENT J 40
INDUSTRIES
INCORPORATED
28065 DIAZ ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92390
(714) 676-6331
November 30, 1981
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Attention: Mr. Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Subject: Application for evaluation of "Polarion-X"
Reference: a. AZ Industries letter dated October 7, 1981
b. EPA letter dated October 26, 1981.
Enclosure: Patent application and correspondence
Gentlemen:
As requested in "referenced B" letter the following is additional clarification
on our application for evaluation of the Polarion-X Unit.
1. Section Number 3 - See enclosure.
2. Section Number 8 (a) - The improvement is based on the increased magnetic
lines of force with the placement of the magnet element. The previous
10N-X and ATOM-X electromagnetic units produce approximately 450 gauss at
the center of the unit. The POLARION-X unit measures approximately 750
gauss at the magnet surface to 1500 gauss equidistant between the surfaces
.060 inches apart.
The benefits of electromagnetic treatment of a hydrocarbon fuel with respect
to fuel economy and emmissions of motor vehicles are the subject of many
papers relating to combustion, vaporization and heat transfer. The scientific
principles involved indicate that combustion rates are increased in a
electromagnetic field, (i.e.) electromagnetic lines of force promoting
increased vaporization and heat transfer for greater combustion efficiency.
Brochure pages 30 & 31 list papers reporting the effects of electric
fields, electromagetics and electrostatics on combustion relating to
hydrocarbon fuel.
-------
USEPA -2- November 30, 1981
3. Section Number 8 (b) - Improvements of the magnetic unit over earlier
electromagnetic units are (1) increased gauss readings, (2) no electrical
potential required to activate the electromagnets and conserving energy
from not being connected to the alternator. (3) The magnet unit cannot
cause a spark which is a possibility with an electromagnet. (4) Ceramic
magnets are capable of operating at engine compartment temperatures.
4. Section Number 10 - Additional hardware is not supplied due to the various
engine configurations. Hoses and clamps of proper size are readily
available for epecific engines from auto parts shops.
5. Section Number 10(e) - A tune-up is strongly recommended at time of
installation. California prohibits any deviation from factory specifications
for tune-ups. In states where adjustments are permitted a slightly leaner
setting can be made. After the unit is installed and approximately 500 miles
is accumulated full economy increase can be measured and emission byproducts
are reduced.
6. Section Number 11 - The instructions make no reference to the necessity for
a mileage accumulation propr to obtaining a benefit as it is assumed the
purchaser already has some idea of his gasolene consumption before installation.
Most purchasers, after installation would fill the tank, drive till empty
and retop the gasolene level to the previous mark. Mileage driven divided
by fuel used gives MPG consumption, so the vehicle would have to have mileage
accumulation to measure performance. Depending on carbon deposits in the
engine, most vehicles require 2 to 3 tanks of fuel to be consumed to clean
out the engine and as this occurs gas mileage increases. Assuming the
average car tank capacity provides 250 to 350 miles range, 2 to 3 tanks
are approximately 500-1050 miles to show results. Yes, some vehicles show
immediate benefits the first day. Benefits are observed after the unit is
removed. This is confirmed by test vehicles with and without devices which
are switched halfway between the test program and by exhaust emission readings
of HC and CO which remained lower after completion of test programs.
i
7. Section 15 - (a.b.c.) Both test vehicles were equipped with transmissions that
are not found on normally equipped type vehicles. These transmissions are
prototype 1984 models and will be used on cars with much smaller tire sizes.
Ultimately, the drive gears equipped with these units are smaller and cause
a very high odometer mileage run-off.
The test course was calibrated by using our Labeco 5th wheel system and test
course mileage is correct. The vehicle speed was calibtated utilizing a
Custom Signals hand-held radar system.
In order to correct mileages shown on each run we had to adjust clerically.
We acknowlege our clerical errors and will correct them.
(d) Both vehicles were run at the same time using a spacing of 200 feet between
test units. Vehicles were speed calibrated with our Custom Signal hand-held
radalr. Professional drivers were used in the operation of this testing
and proper spacing was maintained throughout testing. If vehicles had
been seperated we would have certainly encountered a wind variable which
is very common in the area of west Texas. This variable was never considered
-------
USEPA -3- November 30, 1981
42
in this test specification but we felt it would play an important role in the
performance of fuel economy in both test vehicles.
(f) Plus or minus 1% of the mean or median would appear more acceptable. In
dealind with products such as Polarian-X it might be best to consider the
"worst case". It is a product which will be sold to the public as a fuel
saver device and to consider the mean or median may become a misleading sales
point. In working with strict regulations set forth by the E.P.A. many
considerations should be taken to protect the integrity of one's product and
the best measure to qualify such device is to use "worse case".
(g) Yes, the device had a mileage accumulation of 1252 miles prior to testing
of the device.
8. In an effort to eliminate variables and to obtain consistency, our experience
in over the road testing we believe the SAEJ1321 was more appropiate. Stop
and go testing and acceleration, deceleration were secondary to recording
fuel economy and performance. Our professional test drivers have operational
patterns to eliminate as much as possible environmental factors and vehicle
performance differences. Thier truck driving experience when testing passenger
car performance gives more consistent data. We also find that there are less
complexities of measurements with SAEJ1321 for both truck and passenger cars.
9. Emissions - Depending on engine conditions, can be reduced in a range from
5% to 10% for CO, 2% to 10% HCppm. Gas mileage improvements as measured
by SAE methods 5%. Increased performance measuring various engine parameters
10%.
10. Suggested retail price of POLARION-X (35.00)
If additional information is required, please advise.
Sincerely, '
aVern Adam
President
LArrm
-------
Attachment K
"Precision Is Our Business"
A7 INDUSTRIE!^]
INCORPORATED
28065 DIAZ ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92390
(714) 676-6331
December 11, 1981
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Attention: Mr. Merrill W. Koath
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Subject: Laboratory Testing Quotations Polarion-X Unit
Reference: EPA letter dated October 27, 1981
Enclosure: a. SCI letter dated October 29, 1981
b. Olson Engineering letter dated October 30, 1981
c. AESI letter dated November 17, 1981
Gent!emen:
Enclosures a, b, and c are copies of quotations for testing our
Polarion-X gas unit.
In view of your comments regarding the cost of testing (EPA letter
dated October 27, 1981) it is not clear as to exactly what tests are neces-
sary to comply with EPA evaluation requirements.
It appears that their quotations are considerably higher than the
$3,000 per vehicle as stated in your letter.
This product will be mainly marketed for carbureted engines with new
design being developed for gas and diesel injection systems.
-------
U.S.EPA
-2-
December 11, 1981
44
We will appreciate your reviewing the enclosed quotations and request
your assistance in the development of a satisfactory test plan.
Sincerely,
A Z INDUSTRIES
•fLaVern Adam
President
LA:rm
-------
x.,tnsr,, . ATTACHMENT L 45
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ -TMlVg- : ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
December 14, 1981 AIR AND VVAST^MANAGEMENT
Mr. LaVern Adam, President
AZ Industries, Inc.
28065 Diaz Road
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Adam:
We received your letter of November 30 in which you responded to our
request for clarification of the information contained in your applica-
tion for EPA evaluation of the "POLARION-X", a fuel economy retrofit
device.
Our Engineering Evaluation Group has reviewed your responses and has
noted several items that your reply apparently did not address or that
still require clarification. Our comments below address the individual
items.
1. Our letter of October 26 stated:
"Section 8(a) did not give a clear purpose for the POLARION-X.
You state "The present device is a magnetic unit for treating
hydrocarbon fuel and an improvement on previous electromagnetic
devices developed ...". The benefits of electromagnetic treat-
ment of a hydrocarbon fuel with respect to fuel economy and
emissions of motor vehicles are not clearly demonstrated.
Please explain this more fully."
Your letter of November 30 responded:
"The benefits of electromagnetic treatment of a hydrocarbon fuel
with respect to fuel economy and emissions of motor vehicles are
the subject of many papers relating to combustion, vaporization
and heat transfer. The scientific principles involved indicate
that combustion rates are increased in a electromagnetic field,
(i.e.) electromagnetic lines of force promoting increased vapor-
ization and heat transfer for greater combustion efficiency.
Brochure pages 30 & 31 list papers reporting the effects of
electric fields, electromagnetics and electrostatistics on com-
bustion relating to hydrocarbon fuel."
-------
4 .6
Your reply did not sufficiently answer our question. The ref-
erence you included with your application appeared to discuss
the effect of an electric field on a fuel/air mixture during the
actual combustion event while your device exposes only the fuel
to a magnetic field. We are not aware of how the material in
the reference relates to the principles of your device. In
addition, the references listed on pages 30 and 31 of your
application are not readily available and are apparently all
given in Japanese. The only exception appears to be an article
in Nature Magazine. This reference discusses electric fields.
Please explain more fully the benefits of magnetically treating
an engine's fuel and provide technical papers or other approp-
riate documents (in English) that support your explanation.
2. Our letter of October 26 noted that the test data in item 7c of
your application indicated that the first run each day was a
warm-up and should therefore not be considered. You did not
respond to this comment. Please inform us whether or not this
first test was indeed a warm-up. Also please tell us how the
vehicles were warmed-up and stabilized each day.
Submittal of the information requested will be necessary to further pro-
cess your evaluation. I ask that you respond to this letter by December
23. If you have any questions or require further information, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
ATTACHMENT „ 47
December 18, 1981
OFFICE OF
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr. LaVern Adam, President
AZ Industries, Inc.
28065 Diaz Road
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Adam:
We received your letter of December 11 in which you asked for our com-
ments on the three enclosed quotations for testing the POLARION-X gas
unit.
1. You said the cost quotations were considerably higher than the
$3,000 per vehicle we estimated. As we stated in our policy
letter, the costs of the minimum test plan (two vehicles, two
test sequences in duplicate) should be less than $3,000 per
vehicle and less than $6,000 for the total test at any of the
laboratories. However, as we noted, mileage accumulation and
additional device testing could add substantially to these mini-
mum costs. A breakdown of the cost data you submitted for the
three independent testing laboratories reveals that all three
showed a cost for the minimum test plan which is very close to
$3,000 per vehicle.
2. While we are striving to ensure that the testing performed at
independent laboratories accurately assesses the capabilities of
a device, we are also reviewing our test policies in order to
minimize the cost of testing. For devices that achieve their
full benefit only after mileage accumulation, we recently
decided that we would eliminate the requirement to test immedi-
ately after installation. This change will reduce the testing
requirements on your device appreciably.
3. Your November 30 letter to us stated that approximately 500 to
1050 miles of driving with the device was required before the
benefits were evident. The two quotations that included mileage
indicated you only intended to accumulate 500 miles with the
device before device testing started. We question whether its
wise to accumulate mileage using the lower limit of the minimum
mileage accumulation requirement. It would be unfortunate if
the mileage accumulation interval was insufficient for an indi-
vidual vehicle and you where to later deem additional device
mileage accumulation and testing was necessary. To avoid this
situation, we suggest you choose a mileage accumulation interval
for which you can be sure the benefits of POLARION-X will be
evident in testing.
-------
48
4. The three quotations each discuss a variety of test options
available to you. It appears that our Test Plan Code C (no
parameter adjustments but mileage accumulation required) using
Test Sequence Code A (claims for device on city and highway, and
device does affect cold start) would be the most appropriate
Test Plan/Test Sequence to use. On the other hand, Test Se-
quence Code 1 (claims for device on city and highway, and device
does not affect cold start) would also be acceptable to us and
would cost less.
In planning your testing, please remember that Test Plan Code C
no longer includes the testing formerly scheduled between device
installation and mileage accumulation.
Also please note in determining the number individual tests
required by a given Test Plan and Test Sequence that we are
referring to the number of valid tests on a vehicle that is in
proper tune when tested.
Your letter of November 30 indicated you will be claiming a 5% fuel econ-
omy improvement based on SAE methods. If a similar improvement is ex-
pected in the FTP and HFET tests, you will need to test a minimum of
three vehicles. If the average fuel economy improvement achieved in
testing the device is less than 5%, you will need to test more than three
vehicles to verify the fuel economy improvement.
Therefore, in order to minimize the potential costs tt» you, you may wish
to test vehicles sequentially rather than as a group. (On this basis you
could initially test two or three vehicles. If the test results are not
conclusive, you could schedule another complete test sequence on addi-
tional vehicles, one at. a time, until the results become conclusive.
The preceding comments are based on the information (currently available
to us. As I noted in my letter of December 14, the benefits of magnetic
treatment of fuel are still not evident to us and I therefore requested
additional information. Your answers to my questions may affect the
testing requirements.
I am prepared to assist you further in the development of your test
plan. Please inform me of your progress by January 15. If you have any
questions or require further information, please contact^me.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Enclosure
-------
ATTACHMENT N 4,9
"Precision Is Our Business"
INDUSTRIES!
INCORPORATED
28065 DIAZ ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92390
(714) 676-6331
January 15, 1982
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Attention: Mr. Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Subject: Application for evaluation of Polarion-X
a. AZ Letter dated 7 October 1981
b. EPA Letter dated 26 October 1981
Reference: c. AZ Letter dated 30 November 1981
d. EPA Letter Dated 14 December 1981
Gentlemen:
In response to your letter of December 14, 1981 regarding our reply
to questions you submitted in your October 26th letter, we submit
the following information on clarification of comments in Section
8(a) and 7(c).
The purpose of the Polarion X Gas Unit is:
1. Increase fuel economy
2. Reduce exhaust emmissions
3. Eliminate carbon build up
4. Permit use of lower octane rated gasoline
5. Increase engine performance
6. Eliminate after running or dieseling
1. The paragraph beginning in our November 30th letter:
" The benefits of electromagnetic treatment of a hydrocarbon
fuel...." is not germane to Section 8 (a) and should not
have been included under Section 8. Our intention was to
comment on the similarity of the effect of a permanent magnet
and an electromagnet. It was inappropriate to use an example
-------
U.S.E.P.A -2- January 15, 1982 50
of.electromagnetic treatment when the intent was to use
magnetic treatment of hydrocarbons. We apoligize for the
misuse of the term electromagnetic treatment.
Of the references listed on pages 30 and 31, only a few
have been translated into English. We were informed the
paper "Behavior of Fluids under Electric Field—Promotion
of Combustion, Vaporization and Heat Transfer..." by Dr.
Yukichi Asakawa is an abstract of some of his papers in English.
This paper, dealing with behavior of fluids under electric
field, explains the effects of using electromagnetic lines
of force to induce reactions to take place. He writes of
a "Reaction Velocity Theroy" to explain this behavior. By the
use of magnetic lines of force generated by a permanent magnet
we can achieve similar results as that obtained from elec-
tromagnetic lines of force generated from an electric field.
2. Item 7 (c), warmup of vehicle was run on north course of track
a distance of 70 miles for 1:15.5 hours at approximately
55 MPH as specified in SAE Practice J1321 which requires
a l.hour minimum warmup time. The odometer readings needed
to be corrected due to the 1984 tire size that were on the
vehicle at the time the tests were being conducted.
If additional information is required, please advise.
Thank you,
AZ INDUSTRIES
Le Vern Adam
President
LVA:rm
-------
ATTACHMENT 0
i
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ui
J ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
January 21, 1982
Mr. LaVern Adam, President
AZ Industries, Inc.
28065 Diaz Road
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Adam:
We received your letter of January 15 in which you replied to our request
for clarification of information contained in your previous correspon-
dence. Your replies have answered all our questions about the POLARION-X
except for the theory of operation.
As we stated previously, the fuel economy and emission benefits of mag-
netic treatment of a liquid hydrocarbon fuel are not clearly shown. The
reference provided in your application discusses the effect of an elec-
tric field on a fuel/air mixture during the actual combustion event while
your device only exposes the fuel to a magnetic field. This is the same
reference you refer to in your letter of January 15.
Again I request that you explain more fully the benefits of magnetically
treating the liquid fuel and provide technical papers or other appropri-
ate documents (in English) that support your explanation.
Also in our telephone conversation of January 15, you said that you
planned to begin testing of your device in mid-February. Please provide
us a copy of the test plan so that we may review it and assist you in
determining if the results will be acceptable to us. We are also inter-
ested in who will perform the testing and tfhen it is to be completed.
Again, submittal of the information requested will be necessary to
further process your evaluation. I ask that you respond to this letter
by February 15. If you have any questions or require further informa-
tion, please contact me at (313) 668-4299.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
-------
ATTACHMENT P
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
52
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
March 9, 1982
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
Mr. LaVern Adam, President
AZ Industries
28065 Diaz Road
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Adam:
We still lack two critical pieces of information before we can properly
evaluate your device. As explained in our earlier letters and telephone
conversations, we are obligated to publish our evaluation in the Federal
Register. We cannot delay that action indefinitely. Therefore, I am
forced to ask you again to provide the information we need or we will
have to complete our evaluation and publish our conclusions with the
information at hand.
The most important information we lack is substantive test data to sup-
port your claims for the device. We have yet to see your test plan for
the test program you are about to initiate. As we explained, if we do
not have the opportunity to review your plan, you run the risk of an
oversight that might invalidate your whole effort. We recognize that
such testing is expensive and want to ensure that your testing will meet
our needs.
The other important piece of information is the designation of how your
device causes a fuel economy improvement. The rather vague term "molecu-
lar theory" really does not help us in our evaluation process. We need a
more detailed explanation.
Because of the inordinate amount of time that has passed since we first
received your application and the difficulties encountered in getting the
information in proper form for us to analyze, we are faced with the need
to establish a deadline. That deadline is April 30. At that time, we
will conclude our evaluation, with or without the requested information.
We believe that that date allows more than enough time for our review of
your plan and the conduct of the test program at an independent labora-
tory. At least three vehicles should be tested. If the data from the
independent laboratory indicate a meaningful fuel economy or emissions
benefit, EPA will perform confirmatory tests even though you may not wish
to fully disclose the principle of operation for your device.
Please let us know when you send us the test plan what laboratory you
have selected and the scheduled dates for your testing. If you have any
questions about these requirements, please contact me immediately at
(313)668-4299.
Sincerely,
v. _•- -- ---'--'«- -v~; '-'-• -\_"tr
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
-------
3 - a.«-; - £ ?
-j -t— / "
-------
United States Environmental 2 March 24, 1982
Protection Agency 54
Your letter of March 9, 1982, also requested further information and test
data to support our claims for the device. Enclosures (b) thru (c) is
additional information that may be helpful in your evaluation of the
Polarion-X Device.
Mr. Al Kovacs of Azaka Company who has patent rights pending will submit
under separate cover further explanation on our claims for the device.
It is respectfully requested that you review this proposal and advise
at your earlist convenience.
Sincerely,
AZ INDUSTRIES
"^•JL—JTU— -UTn— .-•-_.
v^
Dale V. Diver
Vice President
DD:gk
Enclosure
-------
5.5
"Precision Is Our Business"
INDUSTRIES]
INCORPORATED I
28065 DIAZ ROAD, TEMECULA, CA 92390
(714) 676-6331
Basic Test Plans and Testing Sequence
AZ Polarion-X Unit
A minimum of three (3) cars will be tested under Section 511 of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Saving Act. Following is the test
outline we propose:
Test Plan Code C
No Parameter Required
Mileage Accumulation Required
Testing Sequence
Code 1 or 4
Mileage
500 Mile Prior to installation of Polarion-X
500 Miles after installation
Type of Engines to be Used
General Motors 350 CID V8 1977
Ford Motor 351 CID V8 1978
Chrysler 318 CID V8 1975
AMC 258 L6 1981
Enclosure (a) thru (f)
-------
Azaka Company T
East': Pomona Avenue ATTACHMENT R 56
Monrovia,California 91016
March 25,1982
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI ^8105
Att!
Subject:Additional Data on Fuel
Reference: .• Letter dated 9 March f:>LaVern Adam. • President
from EPA AZ Industries Inc.
Enclosures si Abstract of Development of POLAR ION-X>
2 Principles of a Magnetic Device for Treating
Hydrocarbon Fuels
3/;List of U.S. Patents and Foreign Patents granted
for Fuel Treatment
Mr. Adam requested I answer your inquiry for additional
data on the theory of fuel treatment using magnetic fields. The
principles relating ionization and polarization are explained
in terms relating to the physical and electrical reactions thai:
occur in the movement of the fuel, vaporization and combustion.
Sincerely,
'
AlberV/T.Koyacs .Owner
(/
AzakaCompany
Monrovia CA 91016
-------
Principles of a Magnetic Device for Treating Hydrocarbon fuels 57
Fuel electrification occurs when a. liquid such as a petro-
leum product flows past a solid or another fluid. The generation
of static electricity varies widely among petroleum products and
is unavoidable when moving hydrocarbons through a pipe or tube.
Thus, fuel flowing in a pipe, through a filter, solids or water
droplets settling through fuel, or fuel misting or spraying can
generate static electricity. Essentially,it means separation of
positive and negative charges. Since hydrocarbons are extremely
poor conductors of electricity, such charges tend to accumulate
as long as movement continues.
Conductivity of fuels is derived, in most part, from trace
quantities of polar or ionic contaminants. Examples of such con-
taminants are various salts of acids, partially oxygenated com-
pounds and asphaltenes. These are present in such great variety
that measuring them is impractical.
In addition, the transfer of fuel from refinery to the tank
of an automobile introduces other contaminants from handling,
storage and pumping operations. Fust particles and magnetic micro-
fines, dirt and water are substances usually found to be in the
fuel system.
Most gasolenes are treated with additives, surface active agents
which are addtional sources of ions along with those in the fuel,
available to react when the fuel and air are mixed. During the
vaporization process both charged ions in the fuel and the nega-
tive and positive ions in the air supply react to surround the
atomized fuel droplets in the fuel-air mixture.
. A charged droplet then becomes the nucleus to attract oppos-
itely charged ions. A complex set of electrostatic reactions occur
with the polarized ions in the fuel; the charged fuel droplet,
negative and positive charged ions from the air causing the charged
fuel droplets an1 the ions to be more widely dispersed in the fuel-
air mass from the repelling effect of like charged ions.
Azaka Company
Monrovia CA 91016
-------
MECHANISM OF COMBUSTION . 58
This polarization develops conditions condusive to promoting
a greater mixing of the fuel-air mixture to cause better combustion*
First, a free active ion of OH,H,or 0 is necessary to initiate the
series. In the second place, once such an ion enters into a reaction
it produces both the oxidition product and a number of new active
ions. A reaction of this sort is called a branched-chain reaction
because the original active ion produced a number of new active
ions. In this case the original OH ion produced three new active
ions. Each of these will in turn tend to start a new chain of
reactions, and the reaction rate in the fuel-air mixture as a
whole will tend to increase rapidly.
Cracking of the large molecules to yield hydrogen and simpler
forms of hydrocarbons and the partial oxidation of some hydrocarbons
to form active intermediary compounds such as aldehydes, alcohols*
peroxides,ketones and organic acids are some of the reactions
that contribute, to the complexity of the problem. The aldehydes,
in particular, appear to play a very important part in hydrocarbon
flames. Spectroscopic analysis always indicates their presence.
Conductivity of fuel molecules as mentioned previously,are
derived from trace quantities of polar and ionic contaminants,
various salts of acids, oxygenated compounds,etc., as well as
rust,'addititives,magnetic microfines, dirt and water. These con-
taminants, passing through a magnetic field are influences to
various degrees, dependent on the magnetic and paramagnetic
susceptibility,retaining this effect to react in attracting the
free polarized ions as the fuel and air are atomized.
Since static electricity is present in fuels, advantage is
taken of a magnetic field to increase the polarization of those
l
elements in the moving fuel which can be effected. When fuel is
atomized the polarized ions in the air supply a large increase
of ions to augment the fuel droplet polarization and to promote
the various complex reactions described above. The solid fuel
can provide the means to initiate the ionization and the polar-
ization process.
Azaka Company
Monrovia CA 91016
-------
ATTACHMENT S 59
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48!05
April 2, 1982
OFRCE op
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
Mr. LaVern Adam, President
AZ Industries
28065 Diaz Road
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr. Adam:
We received your letter of March 24 which outlined your "Basic Test Plan
and Testing Sequence AZ Polarion-X". The plan is acceptable to us and
should ensure that the testing at an independent laboratory will accu-
rately asess the capabilities of your device.
On the other hand, we cannot grant the time extension you requested. We
believe it is reasonable to expect the testing to be completed and avail-
able to EPA by the deadline of April 30. You were originally advised of
our testing requirements in my letter of October 27, 1981. I commented
on the test quotations and suggested the appropriate testing options in
my letter of December 18.
Again, please let us know what laboratory you have selected, the sched-
uled dates for testing and the testing sequence (Code 1 or Code 4) you
select. If you have any questions about these requirements, please con-
tact me immediately at (313) 668-4299.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
ca Dale V. Diver, AZ Industries
------- |