EPA-AA-TEB-511-8 3-2
EPA Evaluation of the PETRO-MIZER Device Under
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act
by
Edward Anthony Barth
December 1982
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Divison
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
EPA Evaluation of the PETRO-MIZER 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 PETRO-MIZER device was conducted upon the
application of the manufacturer. The device is a fuel line magnet which
is claimed to reduce emissions, to improve fuel economy, and to increase
engine horsepower.
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 the PETRO-MIZER Device Under Section
511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
2. Identification Information;
a. Marketing Identification of the Product:
PETRO-MIZER
Model M K I for gas & diesel cars and gas trucks
Model 3-J-80 for diesel trucks
b. Inventor and Patent Protection;
(1) Inventor
John Mitchell
3940 Sunny Dunes Road
Palm Springs, CA 92264
(2) Patent
On file with Hubbell, Cohen, Stiefel & Gross, P.C.
551 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10176
"For any information regarding patent, I have been advised
to refer you to Lawrence G. Kurland, 212-687-1360."
-------
c. Construction and Operation;
"The PETRO-MIZER consists of a tube made from non-magnetic
material through which the fuel to be treated flows. Permanent
bar magnets are mounted against the tube and sealed in place
with resin. A metal casing acts as the outer shell of the
device. The PETRO-MIZER is installed in the fuel line as
specified in section 4-b-l. It is an entirely solid state
device and requires no connection to external power."
d. Specific Claims for the Product;
Substantial fuel savings^ The applicant cited the results from
.two test reports in support of this claim. A letter from
Zellerbach Paper Co. noted a 14% increase in miles per gallon
from 2 diesel-powered vehicles in fleet usage. The report by
Olson Engineering on a 1980 Ford Fairmont indicated a 9.8%
increase over the Highway Fuel Economy Test. The Olson report
also included test results from the Federal Test Procedure which
indicated a 5.7% improvement although this finding was not cited
as verification of this claim. Copies of both reports were
submitted with the application.
Increased Horsepower; "Dynamometer tests from Clayton Mfg Co. ,
El Monte, CA and Cummins Diesel Engines of CT., Hartford, CT."
No percentage improvements were cited for these tests. Copies
of both reports were provided.
Reduction in Exhaust Emissions; "Olson Engineering Inc. report,
page 10. HC reduced 46.3%. CO reduced 15.4%." A copy of this
report was provided.
e. Cost And Marketing Information (as supplied by Applicant):
Price Range: Model 3-J-80 fcl25.00 to £175.00
Model M K I $80.00 to £130.00
Distribution: Warehouse Distributors
4. Product Installation, Operation, Safety and Maintenance (as supplied
by Applicant);
a. Applicability;
"PETRO-MIZER is suitable for all gas and diesel fueled engines.
Model 3-J-80 for diesel trucks. Model M K I for gasoline
engines and diesel cars."
-------
No copy of the patent was provided and EPA did not request
a copy of the patent in our follow-up correspondence.
c. Applicant;
(1) Petro-Mizer East
Division of Ament Enterprises
33 Pondview Road
Rye, NY 10580
(2) Principals
Charles E. Ament
33 Pondview Road
Rye, NY 10580
914-967-1960
(3) Charles E. Ament is authorized to represent Petro-Mizer
East in communication with EPA
d. Manufacturer of the Product;
(1) Petro-Mizer East
725 Eugene Road
Palm Springs, CA 92264
(2) Principals
Charles E. Ament
3. Description of Product (as supplied by Applicant);
a. Purpose:
"A fuel line device to improve horsepower, mileage, and decrease
pollutants in gas and diesel powered vehicles."
b. Theory of Operation;
"The PETRO-MIZER is a device which, when used in a fuel line
leading to the engine of an automobile or truck, results in
improved fuel efficiency and reduction in the amounts of
polluting emissions. The exact means by which the PETRO-MIZER
acts to improve engine efficiency and reduce pollutants is not
proven. One theory offered is that the magnetic field produced
by the PETRO-MIZER acts upon the electric dipole moments of the
fuel molecules tending to produce a polarization and general
alignment of the molecules. Although the polarization effect is
partially lost before combustion takes place a degree of
alignment remains which serves to facilitate the oxidation
process."
-------
b. Installation - Instructions, Equipment, and Skills Required:
. (1) "Install PETRO-MIZER in the fuel line as near as practical
to the carburetor on carbureted engines, and as near as
practical to the injector pump on fuel injected engines.
(2) "Do not install while the engine is hot.
(3) "Use only factory approved fittings, and hose connections,
or SAE approved equipment.
(4) "Keep PETRO-MIZER at least 1/2" away from any heavy metal
mass, such as engine block.
(5) "If additional support is needed for the PETRO-MIZER,
fasten strap hangers to the copper tube, not the body of
the PETRO-MIZER.
(6) "Upon completion of installation, be sure and check for
fuel leaks before starting engine.
(7) "Upon start up you may encounter higher engine RPM. Adjust
down to manufacturer's specifications."
c. Operation:
"The PETRO-MIZER requires no maintenance or service."
d. Effects on Vehicle Safety;
"After proper installation, there are no special safety hazards."
e. Maintenance:
"No maintenance is anticipated."
5. Effects on Emissions and Fuel Economy (submitted by Applicant):
a. Unregulated Emissions:
"No studies have been made at this time."
b. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy;
"See Olson Engineering Report attached."
-------
6. Analysis
a. Description;
(1) Although the applicant notes that he is unsure of the
exact mechanism, the theory of operation as given in
Section 3b suggests that the alignment of dipolar molecules
can enhance combustion efficiency and, thus, emissions and
fuel economy. EPA is unaware of any information that
demonstrates that magnetically treating the fuel will
affect the combustion process.
The 511 application for a device known as the Moleculetor
made similar claims. The Moleculetor is a hollow cylinder
of aluminum that is installed in the fuel line. The
application claimed that the device aligned the molecules
by inducing a "force field" on the fuel. EPA tested the
Moleculetor and found no emissions or fuel economy benefit
(EPA-AA-TEB-511-81- 11). An article on the Moleculetor in
Car and Driver (February, 1981) contained the following
statement by John C. Hilliard, Assistant Professor of
Mechanical Engineering, Automotive Laboratory, University
of Michigan:
"Hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline have hardly any
dipole (separation of positive and negative charges),
and for this reason, the fuel molecules would not
align appreciably in this type of device. If they
were aligned, the fuel dipoles would certainly be
randomized subsequently-if not in the fuel line, then
in the process of vaporization prior to actual
combustion. Furthermore, even if such an alignment
device did what the Moleculetor's manufacturer claims
this one does, there would be absolutely no advantage
to any aspect of mixture preparation or flame
propagation relating to combustion efficiency or
vehicle fuel economy."
(2) The description of the device provided in Section 3c was
adequate.
b. Installation, Operation, Safety and Maintenance;
(1) Applicability;
The statement of the applicability of the product to
essentially all gasoline or diesel vehicles is judged to be
reasonable.
-------
(2) Installation - Instructions, Equipment and Skills Required;
The installation instructions given in Secton 4b adequately
describe the installation of the device. Installation with
ordinary hand tools can be readily accomplished by the
average do-it-yourself person who is able to service his
own car. The installation is simple and should require no
more than 15 minutes.
(3) Operation;
The device is judged to be automatic and require no inputs
from the vehicle operator.
(4) Effects on Vehicle Safety;
Based on the information provided, the device is judged to
be capable of being fabricated and installed so that it is
safe in normal vehicle operation.
(5) Maintenance;
The statement of the applicant that no maintenance is
anticipated is judged to be reasonable. However, the added
fuel fittings and hoses would require the normal periodic
inspections given to similar components in the vehicle.
c. Effects on Emissions and Fuel Economy;
(1) Unregulated Emissions;
The applicant indicated that these emissions had not been
studied. Since the device does not modify the vehicle's
emission control system or powertrain, the device should
not significantly alter the unregulated emissions of a
vehicle.
(2) Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy;
While the applicant did submit test data in accordance with
the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel
Economy Test (HFET), the test data consisted of only one
test sequence (FTP and HFET) with and without the device.
Moreover, only one vehicle was tested.* These data, were
obtained at Olson Engineering and are listed in Table 1.
*The requirement for test procedures is stated in the policy documents
that EPA sends to each potential applicant. EPA requires duplicate test
sequences, both 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
test results which have been collected in accordance with standardized
procedures are acceptable as supplemental data as long as the results are
statistically significant.
-------
Table I
FTP and HFET Results for the Petro-Mizer
1980 Ford Fairmont
FTP (grams/mile) FTP HFET
H£ C0_ NOx MPG MPG
Baseline .41 3.83 .89 17.65 24.25
PETRO-MIZER .22 3.24 .96 18.66 26.65
Percent Change -46 -15 +7.9 4-5.7 +9.8
These results indicated the device had hyrocarbon, carbon
monoxide and fuel economy benefits but nitrogen oxide
penalties. However, due to the variabilities associated
with this type of testing, this limited amount of data is
insufficient to substantiate the claims for the device.
The data from the two trucks from the Zellerbach fleet did
not include evidence that they were collected under
controlled test conditions. For example, there was no
indication of how the vehicles were operated (routes,
drivers, weather conditions, etc.) during the test period.
The chassis dynamometer testing by Clayton Engineering and
Cummins Diesel Engines, Inc. were relatively uncontrolled
and do not show that the device improved emissions, fuel
economy, or power. The Clayton data showed an increase in
maximum horsepower at 3000 rpm but did not identify which
tests were with or without the device. Also, more than a
month of vehicle operation occurred between these tests and
the engine parameters had changed, e.g., idle rpm increased
from 550 rpm to 800 rpm. The Cummins data showed
essentially no difference in power.
Although the preceding data submitted by the applicant was
useful in our preliminary evaluation of the device, these
data did not substantiate the claims for the device nor
justify confirmatory testing by the EPA. The applicant was
advised of these data shortcomings and requested to conduct
an appropriate test program at an independent laboratory
(Attachment A). The applicant did not undertake chis
testing (Attachment B).
-------
As noted in Section 6a(l), 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 PETRO-MIZER. EPA
previously tested and evaluated a similar product known as
the Super-Mag Fuel Extender (EPA-AA-TEB-511-82-3) and
provided a copy of the report to the applicant (Attachment
M). This device showed no emissions or fuel economy
benefit.
7. Conclusions
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by the
applicant. The evaluation of the PETRO-MIZER device was based on
that information, EPA's engineering judgement and the results of the
EPA's experience with similar devices.
The information supplied by the applicant was insufficient to
adequately substantiate either the emissions or fuel economy benefits
claimed for the device.
EPA testing of Super-Mag and Moleculetor, two devices similar to
PETRO-MIZER, showed no emissions or fuel economy benefits. EPA is
unaware of theories or data which could explain why exposing a
hydrocarbon fuel to a magnetic field prior to induction into a
combustion chamber would affect the combustion process and, thus,
emissions or fuel economy. We have concluded that there is no
technical basis to justify an EPA confirmatory test program on the
PETRO-MIZER device or to expect that the device would improve either
emissions or fuel economy.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; Merrill W. Korth, Emission Control
Technology Division, Office of Mobile Sources, "nvironmental Protection
Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, (313) 668-4299.
Mote:
In report no. EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-9, EPA evaluated a different product that
is marketed under a name similar to PETRO-MIZER. This device, known as
the PETROMIZER SYSTEM, consisted of a carburetor base-plate adapter and
fuel pressure regulator.
-------
10
List of Attachments
Attachment A Letter of May 14, 1982 from EPA to Charles E. Ament of
Petro-Mlzer East acknowledging receipt of the 511
application for PETRO-MIZER and requesting independent
testing of the device.
Attachment B Letter of September 20, 1982 from EPA to Charles E.
Ament of Petro-Mizer East reiterating need for device
testing. This letter also notified applicant that EPA
would shortly close out the evaluation if test data
wasn't provided.
-------
ATTACHMENT A
11
UNITED STATES £N .':c?C\V:£-\'-iL = =
AS
-------
12
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 June 15. Please indicate what testing you plan to undertake and which
independent laboratory will perform the testing. If you have any ques-
tions or require further information, please contact me.
As you may know, EPA has previously evaluated other similar devices.
Enclosed is the Section 511 evaluation of the Super-Mag Fuel Extender, a
device which appears to be similar to PETRO-MIZER. Even if you do not
consider this device to be similar, you may find this report useful as an
example of EPA test programs and 511 evaluations.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Enclosure
-------
13
ATTACHMENT B
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
. " ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
September 20. 1982
K OFFICEOF
AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION
Mr. Charles E. Ament
Petro-Mizer East
Division of Ament Industries
33 Pondview Road
Rye, NY 10580
Dear Mr. Ament:
We still lack appropriate test data to support your claims for "PETRO-
MIZER" models MKI and 3-J-80 as emission and fuel economy retrofit
devices. As I explained in our earlier letter and telephone conversa-
tions, we are obligated to publish our evaluation in the Federal
Register. We cannot delay that action indefinitely and have begun to
prepare our evaluation. Therefore, I must ask you again to provide the
information we need or we will have to complete our evaluation and pub-
lish our conclusions with the information at hand.
Because of the inordinate amount of time that has passed since we first
received your application and the difficulties encountered in getting the
information for us to analy2e, we are faced with the need to establish a
deadline. That deadline is October 29. At that time, we will conclude
our evaluation, with or without the requested information. We believe
that that date allows enough time for our review of your plan and the
conduct of the program at an independent laboratory. As we stated pre-
viously, at least two or three vehicles should be tested. If the data
from the independent laboratory indicate a meaningful fuel economy or
emissions benefit, EPA may perform confirmatory tests.
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 our requirements, please contact me immediately at (313)
668-4299.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
------- |