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

-------