EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-12
               EPA Evaluation of the V-70  Vapor Injector Device
              Under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information
                             and Cost Savings Act

This document contains  several  pages which may not  reproduce well.  Any
questions concerning the legibility  of  theKe pages  should  be.  directed to:
Merrill  W.   Korth,  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office  of   Mobile
Source Air Pollution Control, Emission Control  Technology Division, 2565
Plymouth Road,  Ann Arbor, MI  48105, (313) 668-4299 or ETS  374-8299.
                                      by

                              Thomas J. Penninga
                                   May  1981
                          Test and Evaluation Branch
                     Emission Control Technology Division
                Office  of  Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                       EPA-AA-TES-511-81-12




 6560-26
                      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                             [40 CFR Part 610J
                            [FRL
                       FUEL ECONOMY RETROFIT DEVICES
          Announcement of Fuel  Economy  Retrofit Device Evaluation




                         for "V-70 Vapor  Injector"
AGENCY:   Environmental Protection Agency (1-3PA).









ACTION;   Notice of Fuel Economy Retrofit Device  Evaluation.









SUMMARY:  This document  announces  the conclusions of  the EPA  evaluation




          of the "V-70 Vapor Injector" device under provisions  of Section




          511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings  Act.

-------
                                  3
 BACKGROUND  INFORMATION':   Section  5il(b)(l)  and  Section  5ll(c)  of  the
 Motor  Vehicle   Information  and  Cost  Savings   Act  (15  U.S.C.  20ll(b))
 requires that:


 (b)(l)   "Upon application  of  any manufacturer  of  a retrofit  device  (or
 prototype  thereof),  upon the  request of  the  Federal  Trade  Commission
 pursuant to  subsection (a),  or upon his own motion,  the  EPA Administrator
 shall evaluate,  in accordance  with rules  prescribed  under subsection (d),
 any  retrofit device  to determine whether  the  retrofit  device increases
 fuel  economy and  to  determine x^hether the representations  (if any) made
 with  respect  to  such  retrofit devices are accurate."


 (c)   "The EPA  Administrator  shall  publish  in  the Federal  Register  a
 summary  of  the  results  of  all  tests  conducted  under  this  section,
 together with the  EPA Administrator's conclusions as  to -


           (1) the  effect of any retrofit device  on fuel economy;


           (2) the  effect  of   any  such   device on  emissions  of  air
              pollutants; and


           (3) any  other information which the Administrator determines to
              be relevant in evaluating such device."


    EPA   published   final   regulations   establishing   procedures   for
conducting fuel  economy  retrofit  device  evaluations  on  March 23, 1979
 [44 FR 17946J.

-------
 ORIGIN  0?  REQUEST  FOR  EVALUATION;    On   September  20,  1980,  the  EPA




 received  a  request  from Mr.  Richard Ploch  for  evaluation of  a fuel saving




 device  termed "V-70 Vapor Injector".   This Device  is claimed to  "give  a




 minimum of  10% savings in gasoline."   The  device consists of an  aerator




 which  supplies a  vaporized  liquid fuel  additive  to  the carburetor  PCV




 inlet line.









 Availability  of  Evaluation Report:  An evaluation  has  been made and  the




 results are described completely in a  report  entitled:  "EPA Evaluation




 of  the  V-70 Vapor Injector Device  Under Section 511 of  the Motor  Vehicle




 Information  and Cost  Savings  Act,"  report  number  EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-12




 consisting  of 85 pages including all attachments.









 Copies  of  these  reports  may  be  obtained from  the  National  Technical




 Information Service by using  the  above  report  numbers.   Address requests




 to:









          National Technical  Information Service




          U.S. Department  of  Commerce




          Springfield, VA   22161




          Phone:   Federal  Telecommunication:; System  (FTS) 737-4650




          Commercial  703-487-4650









 Summary of Evaluation









EPA  fully  considered  all of  the  information submitted  by  the  device




manufacturer  in  the  application.   The  evaluation  of  the   "V-70  Vapor




 Injector" was based on that information.   The  Applicant was  sent  two

-------
letters  requesting  additional  informstion  and  test  data.   EPA  did  not

receive a response to either letter from the Applicant.  The EPA is  still

required  to  complete the  evaluation  based  on  the  available information

and publish the results of this evaluation.



The Applicant  submitted insufficient  te<;t  data to demonstrate  that  the

"V-70 Vapor Injector" would improve fuel economy.  EPA testing of similar

devices failed  to show  a fuel  economy benefit.  The  explanations  in  the

application  of  how  the device improves fuel  economy were incomplete.

Additional information  concerning the device  and  the  "V-70 Vapor  Fuel

Additive"  were   repeatedly requested  but  to  no   avail.   Without  this

information,  no conclusions as  to the  safety of  the device  or its effect

on  unregulated   emissions,  could  be  made.   Based  on  the  information

provided by  the Applicant, there was  no  technical  basis to support  any

claims  for  a fuel  economy improvement or  emissions  reduction  with  the

"V-70 Vapor Injector".



FOR FURTHER  INFORMATION CONTACT:    Merrill W.  Korth,  Emission  Control

Technology Division,  Office  of  Mobile   Source Air  Pollution  Control,

Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth  Road,  Ann Arbor,  Michigan

48105, 313-668-4299.
Date                                  Edward F. Tuerk
                                      Acting Assistant Administrator
                                      for Air, Noise, and Radiation

-------
EPA Evaluation  of  the V-70  Vapor  Injector Device   under Section  511  of
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act~"

The following is a summary  of the  information on the device  as submitted
by  the  Applicant and. the  resulting  EPA analysis  and conclusions.   The
Applicant  has  failed  to respond  to  two  letters  requesting  additional
information and  test data.   Therefore,  the  results  of  this  preliminary
evaluation are  based on information  supplied in the initial  application
and will be published according to Federal Register 610.30(c).

1.  Marketing Identification of the Device:

    "V-70 Vapor  Injector.   (If a new marketing company  is  organized,  the
    device will be marketed under the name V-80.)"

2.  Inventor of the Device and Patents:
    A. Inventor

       Ivey Herpin

    B. Patent

       Patent Number 3537434 issued 11-3-70
       Patent Number 3716040 issued 2-15-73

3.  Manufacturer of the Device;

    "Device is currently manufactured by:

       He rule Research and Manufacturing, Inc.
       P.O. Box 489
       Ennis, Texas

4.  Manufacturing Organization Principals;

    Gene T. Rohl - President
    Ivey Herpin - Vice President

-'  -'arkeririg Organization in U.S. making Application:

    Company not yet organized.

6.  Applying Organization Principals:

    Elwood Ross
    Jay Rodgers
    Richard L. Ploch
    Ivey Herpin

-------
7.  Description of Device;

    A. Purpose of the Device (as supplied by Applicant);

       "Attached is a copy  of  patent  //3716040 which outlines the purpose,
       theory  of operation,  and  gives  a  detailed   description  of  the
       construction and operation."  See Attachment A.

8.  Applicability of the Device (as supplied by Applicant);

    "The V-70 will operate on any gasoline operated automobile."

9.  Device  Installation  - Tools  and  Expertise Required  (as  supplied  by
    Applicant);

    "The device is connected to  the  automobile by a  "T"  connector  to the
    'vacuum line between the PCV valve and  the carburetor.   Also, it could
    be connected  through  a spacer plate  under the carburetor.   The unit
    is  held in  place  by  four screws  on  che  base  of  the unit.   Tools
    required - drill, screw driver,  and knife to cut  vacuum line."  Also
    included in  the  application was  a  page; of installation instructions
    (see attachment B).

10. Device Operation (as supplied by Applicant);

    "Instructions  are  furnished  with  each  unit   pertaining   to  the
    installation and operation.  Copy is enclosed."  See Attachment B.

11. Maintenance (claimed);

    "I/hen the liquid level  reaches the  "add" line, one quart  of additive
    and one  quart  of distilled water is added  to bring  the  liquid level
    to the "full" mark."

12. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated) (claimed):

    "'.'c- ^ave  a  copy  of a  test  requested  by  a  company  associated with
    --iri;le  Research  &  Manufacturing,  Inc.  which  was completed  by  >)r.
    Jcr.es C. Cox, Jr. at  Way land  Baptist College.  This  cest  was cone  in
    1972.    We  had  a  preliminary   test   made   by  Scott  Environmental
    Technology, Inc.   This test was done in April 1979."

13. Effects on Vehicle Safety (claimed):

    "The device would not  result  in any unsafe conditions endangering the
    automobile or its occupants or persons  or property in close proximity
    of the automobile."

14. Test  Results  (Regulated  Emissions  and  Fuel  Economy)   (submitted  by
    Applicant):

    "Enclosed  are  test  results  from Dr.  Cox's  1972 test  and  the 1979
    preliminary  test  by  Scott  Environmental  Technology,  Inc.   Other
    preliminary  tests  made   by   individuals  and  potential  corporate

-------
    customers used the gallons  to  miles evaluation, and according  to  the
    information furnished to us, is not  valid."

15.  Analysis

    A.  Description of Device;

       The device  is basically a  controlled air  bleed  device where  the
       air is bubbled through a mixture of water and an  additive  supplied
       by the Applicant.  The  device contains an  inlet  air filter and  a
       baffle  to  prevent flow of  liquid into  the engine.   The  device
       installs into the  PCV - carburetor vacuum line.

    B.  Applicability of the  Device:

       The  applicability of  the  device  to  "operate  on  any  gasoline
       operated  automobile"  is  judged  valid  for  all   gasoline  fuel
       vehicles presently being produced.

    C.  Device Installation - Tools  and Expertise Required;

       The  device installation appears  to  be  straight   forward,  well
       explained,  and  could be easily  carried out  by any  "mechanically
       inclined" person.

    D.  Device Operation;

       The Applicant  supplied  additional  installation instructions,  but
       never explained the  theory of  operation of  the  device.   The  patent
       states that "inducting an additive into the  fuel  system  of a motor
       vehicle to enhance the  combustibility of the fuel  by lowering  the
       flashpoint   thereof,   and   to   reduce  waste  due   to   incomplete
       combustion."  The patent also  claims  the device "insures  a  proper
       ratio between the  carbureted fuel and  additive  vapors."

       These explanations do not  indicate  why the  device improves  fuel
       economy.  The  tlash  point  is  the  lowest  temperature of the  fluid
               lows   ir.f la-;-;able  vapors  to   be  f orr.ed .  It is 'found  by
                the   fuel  slowly and  then  sleeping a  flare  across  the
       surface of the  liquid,  a distinct flash  is obtained at the flash
       point.   The  flash  points  of  most,  gasolines  are   below  0°F.
       Lowering  the.  flash   point  does  not  necessarily  correlate  with
       increased  vehicle  fuel  economy.   The  reduction  of  waste  due  to
       incomplete  combustion is not explained.  The application therefore
       does  not explain  the true  operation of the  device.    The Applicant
       was questioned about  the actual  theory of his device  in a  December
       26, 1979 letter from Charles Gray, Jr.  This letter also asked  for
       clarification of  several other  points  in  the  application and  is
       included as Attachment  C.   The  applicant never  responded  to  this
       letter.

       The second  major  question about the  operation of  the   device  was
       the make-up of the V-70  Vapor  Fuel Additive.  The additive was  not
       described  in  application other  than  that  it  was a  "specially

-------
   prepared  formula  of  oxygen-bearing  petroleum  distillates".   The
   December  26,  1979  letter  also  requested  information  on   this
   additive.

   The analysis of the  operation  of this  device is incomplete due  to
   a lack of information.  The device appears  to be able  to  introduce
   air which has  been bubbled  through a  mixture of  water  and  an
   unknown additive into  the  PCV-carburetor vacuum line.   The effect
   of  this  introduction  is  not   known.   There  appears  to  be  no
   theoretical  reason to  believe  that: "increased fuel  combustion",
   "elimination of vicious carbon build-up", "smoother, longer engine
   life",  "increased  gas  mileage",  or "reduced  harmful  hydrocarbon
   emissions  (pollutants)" would   occur.   Similar  vapor  air   bleed
   devices  tested  by  EPA  showed  no significant  improvement in  fuel
   economy (see Attachment D).

E. Device Maintenance
   Applicant claims  that  the only maintenance  required  is to  refill
   the water-additive reservoir when  it  reaches the  "add"  indicator.
   This appears to be the  only maintenance required.

F. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated);

   The Applicant  makes  no statements about  the effect of  the  device
   on  non-regulated  emissions.  An  analysis cannot  be  made without
   the knowledge  of  the chemical composition of  the V-70  Vapor  Fuel
   Additive.  As  noted  above,  the  required information was requested
   in the December 26, 1979 letter.

G. Effects on Vehicle Safety;

   The Applicant  claims the chemical would  not result, in  any  unsafe
   condition.  The only safety problem  apparent from  the  application
   is  the  V-70 Vapor Fuel  Additive.  Until  the chemical  composition
   is  known,  an  accurate  analysis  of the  device-additive impact  on
   vehicle operation safety cannot  be made.

II. Test Results Supplied by Applicant

   The Applicant  supplied  data came from  two  sources;  Wayland Baptist
   College  and   Scott  Environmental  Technology,   Inc.    There   are
   several  problems  with  the data  which  do  not  allow  a   proper
   evaluation  of  the  V-70  Vapor  Injector.  The  December 26,  1979
   letter  (Attachment C) requested additional information.   No  answer
   was received.  A review of the data is given  below:

   1. The  Scott  Environmental  Technology,   Inc.   test   data  (see
      Attachment  E).  A table of the test results is  given below:

-------
                           10
   Test   Test           HC        CO        NOx        Fuel  Economy
   No.    Type           gms/mile  gms/mile  gms/mile   MPG

    1     Baseline-HFET  .55       12.62     1.17       24.11
    2     V-70 Vapor     .57       15.50     1.11       25.99
          Power - HFET

   % Change              (+)3.6%   (+)22.8   (-)5.1     (+)7.8

There are several problems with this data.  They are:

   a.  The test data  was  run at a  laboratory which  is not on  the
       EPA list  of recognized  laboratories.  Scott  Environmental
       Technology, Inc. is  not  on our list because the  laboratory
       has not yet been checked out: by  EPA personnel  in  the formal
       laboratory recognition process.

   b.  Only  Highway  Fuel   Economy  Tests   (HFET)   were  run.    The
       Federal emission  standards  are  based on  the  Federal Test
       Procedure   (FTP).    .The   HFET   emission   data    is    not
       correlatable to the actual FTP regulated emission  standards.

   c.  Only one HFET was run  in  each  condition.   With unknown test
       repeatability,   the  validity of  the  7.8%  increase   in fuel
       economy is questionable.

   d.  Only  one  vehicle was  tested.    Due to the  differences   in
       engine/vehicle   characteristics  it  is   not  possible   to
       extrapolate the  tests  on one  vehicle  to  all  gasoline fuel
       vehicles.

   e.  Test   laboratories   normally  maintain   about  70  grains
       water/lb.  dry air so as to minimize the humidity  correction
       factor for  NOx emissions.  We do  not understand  why Scott
       Labs  would  permit  the testing when the  humidity  level  was
       24  grains/lb.  dry  air.   The  amount of  water which would
       vaporize in  the  V-70 injector would depend on  the  moisture
       content of the air  coming  into the  device.   Higher  moisture
       content in  the  inlet air could reduce the effectiveness  of
       the device.

   f.  The FTP and HFET test  procedures require the measurement  of
       HC, CO,  C02,  and  NOx background   levels  and  these levels
       are to be  substracted  from the bag results.  The  Scott data
       indicates only HC background levels were measured.

   g.  The testing  indicates a  22.8% increase  in  CO which would
       put many test vehicles over the emission  standard.

These problems were noted  in the EPA December  26,  1979 letter  to
the Applicant.

2. The Wayland Baptist  College  test data  (see Attachment  F).   The
   testing data  is given  below:   Units   are microgram  per cubic
   meter

-------
                              11
Test
No.
23

25

24

26

Test
Type
1500 RPM
Baseline
1500 RPM
V-70
1000 RPM
Baseline
1000 RPM
V-70
Partic-
CO
120

40

140

50

ulate
100

50

80

50

EC
120

60

80

40

NOx
60

30

70

40

£02
80

30

90

40

      There are several problems with this data.

      a.  This office has never  heard  of that laboratory before.  To
          the best of our knowledge, Wayland Baptist College is  not a
          qualified  independent  laboratory  for  automotive emission
          testing.

      b.  The  test  procedures used  in  collecting  the data  are  not
          described.     The   units   of  measurement   indicate   that
          conventional equipment  and techniques were  not  used.   The
          units  of  microgram/c'ubic  meter  do  not   compensate  for
          varying exhaust volume.

      c.  Only two  states of operation  (1)  1500 RPM  in neutral  and
          (2)  1000  RPM in drive,  were  tested.   This  data indicates
          nothing about transient cycles.

      d.  The  data  conflicts with  the  Scott  data which  showed an
          increase in HC and  CO.

      e.  The data does not  include any fuel  consumption measurements.

      f.  The test vehicle and test equipment were not  described.

      The two  sets of data do not  demonstrate the effect of the V-70
      Vapor  Injector  on gasoline  powered  vehicles.    Further  testing
      would  be  required to  make such a  documentation.   A test  plan
      was  developed  for  the applicant  and  transmitted in  the  EPA
      December 26, 1979 letter.   No response  was received.
J. EPA Testing V-70 Vapor Injector:

   Because  the  Applicant  submitted insufficient  test data,  a  test
   plan  was  developed  which  when   completed  would  demonstrate  the
   results of installing  a  V-70 Vapor Injector.  The  Applicant  never
   responded.   A  second  letter was  sent  December  22,  1980  (see
   Attachment G).  The  Applicant did not respond.   Therefore, lacking
   any data  to  substantiate the applicant's claims, no EPA  testing  of
   the  V-70  Vapor  Injector  was peri.'ormed.   Several  other  devices
   tested by EPA have introduced water or water alcohol mixtures into

-------
                                  12
    the combustion  chambers.   In  sufficient  quantity such  additive can
    extend  the  detonation  limits of  the  engine which  in  turn  allows
    modifications which can improve fuel economy.  The amount of additive
    added by the  V-70 Vapor Injector is  sitated to be about  1.89  ml per
    mile.   At 3785 ml.per gallon, a 20 mile per gallon vehicle would use
    189.25 ml per mile.   The  V-70 Injector mixture  to mixture plus fuel
    ratio is  about  one  percent.   This  value  will  depend  on relative
    humidity of inlet air.  The  EPA testing on other devices noticed no
    change in fuel economy for this small amount of additive.   Therefore,
    it is  unlikely  that  the  1%  additive addition  from  the  V-70  Vapor
    Injector will impact vehicle  emissions or fuel  economy.

16.  Conclusions
    The Applicant  submitted insufficient  test  data to  prove  that the
    "V-70 Vapor  Injector"  would  improve  fuel  economy.   EPA  testing of
    similar devices failed to show a fuel economy benefit.  Therefore, it
    is unlikely  that testing  of the  device  would  show a  fuel economy
    benefit.

-------
                                    13
                           List of Attachments

Attachment A              Patent #3761040

Attachment B              Installation Instructions

Attachment C              December  26,  1979  letter  from  C.  Gray   to
                          Richard C.  Ploch.

Attachemnt D              Evaluation of the  SCATPAC Device

Attachment E              Emission Results  from an  Automobile using  the
                          Frantz Vapor Injector

Attachment F          .An Evaluation of the Econo-Mist  Device

Attachment G              Evaluation of th(>  Turbo Vapor Injector

Attachment H              The Mark II Vapor Injector:  An Air-Vapor  Bleed
                          Device Evaluated

Attachment I              Scott Environmental Technology,  Inc.

Attachment J              Wayland Baptist College Data.

Attachment K              December 22, 1980 letter from M. Korth

-------
                                                 14
                                                                              Attachment A
                                                                                 1 of 5
   United  States Patent
                                                                MM
 1*1  FUEL AJDOnrVE INDUCTO* FOR
     iraaNAL coMMjsnoN ENGINE

 1761  ln~nux:  i^ssr^1-^^
122)  F**,;    A,n.21.mo
121)  Appt. No.: 6
                                                                     3,716,040
                                                                       13,1973
 152]  U-S.O.	123/1!* A, 123/25 R. 123/25 C.
              123/25 E. 123/134. 55/434. 261/124
 |5 I |  Inu CL 	F0» 47/02, FO2m 17/22
 |58|  >Wd at Swc*	123/198 A. 25 C. 25 E. 25.
         123/134; I 37/592; 22Z/564. 464. 382. 195;
         261/124. 122; 55/434. 257. 256. 255. 337;

                                  248/63
 156]
         UNITED STATES PATENTS
3.517.434   ||/i97o   K«TX«
3.450.M6   6,,^,   £ZT-'.i	123/1J4
'.J"l.«»v   9/IWl   L~£  	 	I23/I9SA
W3I.434   6/,9«2   H^r,	2*l/'24
3.MIJ39   J/|963  c^™	123/IMAX
'.«".>«>  .0/1934  T.H   	261/124 X
                    	222/3B2
2.0JJ.7J2  IO/I9JA
1.6*3 ^91   9m2H
I.8V9.476   2/193't
3.333.853
                                          for
                                                                          I23/I»»A
                                                                           '2J/2J.4
                                                                            55/337
                                                                           123/234
                                                      PATENTS OR

                                                   12/1979 F
                                                               ^''TJCATIONS

                                                               	55/4J4
                                                                 "^

                   fT.-.p-' -  •'••'Vl '»•'"»-

-------
                                              3.716,040
                1
A.DWT1VI LNEHJCTO*
                                                                                  v>rw of tN«  container
                                             of tW a«ai»ijM. W
                                   for

inunval  cocabutbo*
         loaula«»i>ti»« \m iliill»ririal
  A pHa** oWct of UM

fu*J addJdr*. MM* M a waJ
eio»Mr» ia
Lai* vaJv* U
         to aa a*raior U
conuau an  am nog  to  a
           by
                                                                                  toon of Uw  d**>c« di»
No. 717.931. fi**4
                                                                  . JO.
                                                           Wvoor for
                                                                                        «ntiU*4 Vacuum
                                                                                        Combwctio* En-
                                                                                                                  °f
                                                                             lo  DOS. 1  Umxi&S 4 of UM
                                                                                  laclwd** a coatmijMr 1*
                                                                             1! rWhri«4 a ck»**  would  b*
                                                                                Co b« i
                                                        Tb* >D«r»bif M' k puJxabiy fabricMMi of a pUttlc
  A furU^r ot>>6t of Ot* Uv*«lk>« U tkM of pin>UU§    aimrUl. vUc* !•  tru ly ..... t for tiM purpo** of ot>-
a tiap!* vad «ff»ctiv*  I»MJM of U4v*cti*t a* uddkii > 30 Mnriafl OM H^ni< tn>«J tfciiitn. but m«y b« fabricaud
        ft*«l tyiU» of a motor wWr«by to wiWac* dM    of fiaM oc a*7 ot^tr »««»t4« m«>*rWl. Ai »*«n in tb«
              of li>* fu«l. by tow«Ha« CM &Mk ^oiM    dr**^,^ e^ caatufatr » UtantUy «l«»>»t»d bvcludio|
            to r»>ai oom-    a On W<*c^» vaS,  panJUt bd« wati* a*d rounded cod
                                                      walk. TtM u^f ir »i»» of th* ooetaMcr wall U formed
  Still i»oii*f c^*cl ofti* U»»*tie>« U OM« of pro«U- 23 wrU M owtwcnU? *A*»d>a| lip 13 to d«fW aa up-
ia}adtrx*b7 v)tic» *xk«r vaporv.cc a«y ootB^Hkbo*    ward); NtWij »<%• nuffec* wio«r tha« lix thlckrvr» of
of w»ur wiOi tcly^U  coabmubU*. ca» b« lnd>irt»U    t)M mm i» ir w»M.
lalo lV* fMl *7«UM« mor« efJ*c*i>W7 DM* fina»»      5Uo> UM  Uuolty »ionj»i*d oonuiner  it fabricated
        dm^Md (M  »uch purpoM w^*c)l piair»0y an    of pixri*, M tko*9> la UM drawing*, and line* the con-
        u  eOwra**  vaporuaOMi of tW a^iMtin  »U- M Chh**r ta t* b* i»H'C*»d to a vacium for Mjatlvc  prei-
m»«u oj»d  in« DWM<  aOcWot COMTO) tiitrxif wjkw^>y    ***•. k< »•? b« «Wir*M* to prorfc»» » brace u> pnvent
to iaur* a proper ratio b«tw«««t UM ca/W*»*»4  f»*t    tb* L»'»a«d cWwction of O*» co«rrofttia|  »K!« watt*, of
            vi»on.                         '           OM ccnti'mir. A bir»ci»j tVi voJuoM e**r»of aod pr*v*»tMs CM f)»w of    oyoinji  or  r*c***«  in  UM  p*da. The p.Kl*  13 are
lK}«kl a^JrtiY* u> tix WLJJ»*.                            pr«J*J*^ry c»i»»»ti»d to Ux >*U walk lo maintaja the
  TV* aov*l  UatMi •• of UM  iavaatkm. &• w»U M *ddi- M brac« xnnitlj1 M tW appropriat* k>calk>ni on tUe con-
lionkJ obr*ca ajkd CM  jtdT^aOa^M li*r»of. wUI b«  u»-    froaMfcf tU» w»Ui.
d«nuxx)  «*<><••  fiUy from  UM  foUowt»f  o«*cHp6o«       Ai be* MM u. FK3S  2 a»d 3. th« cover or closure 1 1
wijo  r»«4   ia  co***dx>«  witk  CM accoMpaayia^    » t»»>ra>f f^t aji4 a fabricated of a wtKabW nvetal.
dr»wi»ij. in »h>c»:                                    TK» 0^9* w»a o<  lW cover i*cluoe»  a d«p*»din|
  FHj  I u * »ki«  cW»a;Jo»*l view of a pr»f»rrcboa.             ep*c*d L»w*rtJ)r U*»r»tro«i. d«IVn-r» a p«ripSe» of tW cievic* M FXi.  1.             d )m*r>««c**d  to r*nu»irxr aad
  FIG  J u * vcnwrij i*ctiO»i] V»«T». Lvkia on lu>« 3— 3    IB  ***»rnt>U4 rtWxxt. ih*  lip  12  of  UK   Uner  b
of FKj . J. ihowinj d«vaii» of UM k*Ut »*»i0 «poij r««an.  for etunplc. lo provide a clo*»d »aaUd
   FK3  4 a > iriajvtrM MClloAal vU». ui.«a o*  INM    uaal.
4 — 4 of FK3. J. iJkowaBj cUuiat of U>4  inUt maaifeM       Tfc« upo*r »urf:>o*  of th« co»«r 11 M  formed  w«U»
     o/ lix co*UJMr araJ) br*c«.                         Urntyrtai'nn ribt  It on  iu upp«r  Mtrfoce. aad  i*
   FKI  S  a a  fri^.»«»UJ7 «»Wf*d Maal «MW. UJU» o« UJM      A  bo*  21  M (CTHVK! abowl a fUWr opdi«n a Mat tor a thr*»o*d fUUr pluj
 ojxj »*U«.                                          ** 24 f»«>r»ca^«J of a tuitabie pUMic maverUl. A tubttaA-
   FK}  7 M a fra^MMaLkry »*cUo**J v>«w. LaXaa o« LUM    tuatry roe«n~il boM 12 provxU* aa outlet opcnmg for the
 7 — 7 o/ FIG 2. thowi*4d«Laikof UM fiU«r p4u^.           ao^jow v»por »&i a ho»ia>g for  a relief valve, aad a
   FX3  3 b a fi ij,»« iinji virw of tn« baffW for IJM owt-    OOM 2-J o-rp >•«<*«  From the cover 1 1 sod  provider* an
 Ul pA>^j« at >wv»d »So*3 UM UM 3—0 of FKJ. 3         inWt oy ««»| to OM coauo/vcr 10 «JM! Xoitwet the inlet
   FUTi  a T i  fmj-nr-ingr rrctifml TM~. tiSta pn I'fti    va>v» amiM'nt? «a 'araa tx prr»e-»Uy
 9—9 of FIG  3. ii»o~ir»; CM reUi»i*j bo**e» fo< CM      Tba ccriii n* cvtiel o«>o.u»j d»flrvrd b) th< bo«* 22
          tobuj. »-*J                                   a«^ •Mtcrmtoi  tUMCtwn u b*M ftom t.i FK3S  2. 3. 6

-------
                                                                                                   3  of 5
                                                     16

                                               3,716,040
                         3                                                     4
sod 3  The bow 22 extend* upwardly  from the cover    co»er II. a cup-shaped housing 53. h*»:nf » centr..
»nd includes a vtrtical pa*»age 24 therethrough, which    opening  lo accommodate  the  hollow  item 52.  i»
it sealed at the lop by  mernn* of a suitable c»p 27. Inter-    damped in inverted relation between the cylindrical
mediate the eod» of the paj**ge 24 ii  provided »n in-    housing 51 and the upper surface ol the cover 1 1 In *»
wardly extending radial rib 2J defining • seat for a ball  5  sembled, relation. the housing 53 is clamped in scaled
va>»e 29 which i> normally Mated by gravity u> prevent    rel*:ion with the surface of the cover 1 1 ind with the
fluid flow  through the  passage 26  in a  downward    surface  of the cylindrical touting 51 to define a i-ealed
direction. Above the seat 28. the wall of the passage 26    chamber enclosing a suitable air filtering ntaurval 54
it provided with (wo angularly tpaced longitudinal nbt    surrourvJing the hollow item 52
30 for  the purpose of  preventing the ball valve 29 from       The item 52  is provided with one  or  more radial
doting the outlet opening 31                             patugea 55 providing communication  between  (he
  Above the valve »eal 29 within the ptisvage 24 are    pasuge 54 of the stem  52 and the filter housing 53 (He
provided two  right-angularly disposed  threaded  port*    Utter having *t least one peripheral inlet port 57  Ai a
lo receive fittings 33 and 34 for attaching external con-    result of the vacuum created within the container I •
duiu for communication  with the passage 26  At bed    the air  (flow* thereinto through  the inlet  port 57. the
teen in FIG. 4. a flexible tube  35 it connected a I one    filter material 54. I he  radial pa^aagca 55 and central
end  to the fitting 33 secured *• the outlet opening 2 1 .    pauagcu 56 of the »tcm 52. and the inlet pauage 44
the  opposite 'end of which u  connected  to  suction       In FIGS. 3. 4 and 5. is shown a manifold »t*cmM>
filling  of the engine carburetor Another  flexible con- 20 wn>ch includes a flexible tube 40 attached to the lr>»<;
dun 36 is connected  at one end  to the fitting 34, and    end of  (he hollow boo Hem 49. and connected ui HI
the other end U arranged for attachment to the inlet    lower end through  a  T-fitting  I>1  to  an  oval ihap-rd
valve assembly which  will be presently described          manifold 62 wh>ch is secured contiguous to (He boil-".
   At best seen in FIGS. 3 and 8. a baffle 40 coven and  .  wall of the container 10 The manifold 62 is prefer»M>
protect! the lower opening  of the outlet pustagc 26 2) formed of a flexible tubing, which is provided with j x
from the ingress of liquid additive during  movement of    rio of orifices 63 through which the  air entering
the vehicle on which  the inductor unit  U mounted. The    through the vjjve  aj*cmbly 50  a discharged »pw«rdK
baffle  40 it a shallow  dish-liko member, fabricated of a    through the liquid contents in  (he container 19  and
suitable metal for rumple, including a peripheral radi-    emerge* as a vapor in the upper portion of the  con
«! flange 41 which is provided with suitable openings to  *° tainer. The manifold is retained on the conUu»er bot
receive, with  a friction  fit. a  plurality of depending    torn by pair* of contiguous upwardly extending h«.«k^\
bosses 42 on the cover 1 1 for securing lh« b*ffte to Ihe    44 whkh  are spaced  apart relative  to. the  ei(ern.ii
under  surface (hereof. In assembled relation, the flange    dimensions of the  manifold tubing to fricdonally en
41 lict contiguous to the under surface  of the cover.    gaj« ancl reLam the latlcr
and the  baffle and cover defines  u baffle chamber 43       To control the flow of air  enuring the cii»i>mci
immediately below the ou(lel passage 26.                 chamber,  a valve needle 64* u supported  »itHi* the
   The flange  41 it formed with radial corrugations 44    stem pej*age 54 to regulate the  amount of in  cAic'in*
which may  extend pirtUlly or completely  around the    the pi**J»ge from the radial passages 55. The cvluMJ'K*!
periphery  of  the bifflc  and which  defiM. with the    hcnJunf, 51 of the  valve assembly 54 t* closed  b> i c^p
under lurficc of the cover, radial p***Jj-es providing    67 secured in place by a plurality of screwi trringrd
communication between  the baffle chamber 43 and the    through ears formed  on (he csp  67 and  th«  uppci
main chamber of the  container It it through these radi-    perimeter  of the housing 51 . *t best shown m KiCS  2
ul piiuijet that (he additive v»por» fk>w from the upper    and 5 Tht rv«e-dle 64>  is arranged concenlrvciil) ••/ ihf
portion of the msm conlsiner  chamber into the  bs/fk  45  houimj 51 through a  dUphrajm i-3 w_hich  n  cU— >^cJ
chimtxr  4j and the  ptnage 26 Openings or  ilolt 45     between the housing 51 snd the  c^p 47  Trx nccJ*» >i«s
«rc  provided  in ihe lowermost  portion of ihe concave-     a  :hrc-»;led  portvon 69  at  its upp-er end «.h~.i<  >\
cunvei baffle. 10 permit the draining back into the con-     threaded through  a flanged collar 70 and kecurot » . j
tainei  10 of any liquid which  may accumulate within     nut 71  iherehenealh threaded onto the collar 70
 ihe  b»(Tl« chamber 43 due to condensation or for an)  50    A coi'. tprmj 72. comprewed between iht r«.-«.:a-
other  reason  The openings 45 are formed to minimize     w»)| of Lhe cylindrical  housing 5 1 and the nut 7 I  .fge%
 so) direcl  flow  operunj between the  main container     (he diaphragm M into  an  upper  limiting pu»4ituiv
 chsmbtr snd the passage 26 and to defVect any liquid     ajsmsl the cap 47  The upper end of the ntcdW u pro
 which rway Und lo enter in*  b*ffW ctvamber  through     vid*d with a screwdriver ilol whereby (h« n»«v!W m«>
 itKfct  openmp s«»> from the opening of  the pa>u^<  }5 be adjusted ven>c!
 26                                                     tx>n Ox  lower  end of the  needle relative  10 \*« »ca
   The bo»« 23 depends from (he cover 11  defu»»»g an     defiiv»d i,n the tlem p^sujc 56 adjacent to the p-^w.^*-
 mlei pssuje  44 through the cover with Ihe upper po<-     55. Ihe rtccdle being secured in adjusted powtK>«>* n« '
 t»on of trx paMJk^c defining a threaded reces* for secur-     lock nut 73 A tlo*< fining jaiict 74 is vested in ar n
     thr  inlet viUe assembly  The lower portion o/ OK    nulsj recess in (he up^xei -pornon  <.>(  Ihe turn 52
      dcfinet a rvolkxw »um 49 to which M connected a    embraces tKc needle 44> u> s i
 manifolo Juembl) (o be described                       vacuum  chamber from  (he icmamjci  •'  -hr  •••
    An mlei >slve awembly 50. shown in detail in FIG 5.    p**4-»jc 54
 mclu-Jci « cylindrical  housing 51 having a  depending       Vertical movement of the » ».'vc nccJU fcc • rflc» :
 follow i '.em 52 »»hich  u uternally threaded to be cou     by tk< (OkCtxnn  of the ne^»u«c or ••,.  j •»  p • «••
 ple-0 wiihm the  internally threaded reics* of l>>« ml*i    within Uve >»l«c o»*embly  »acuum vh«-- • •»<•  ->•
         
-------
                                                              17
                                                       4  of 5
                                                3.716.040
diapht.gm 4* -•  I  i»>«  upwar.l  I- • '  exerted  on the
diaphragm by (h« .pr.ni 72 TK<  •*••<• *Mbly cap 47
u open at the u.p  u expow  ihe  upper *urfac* o< the
diaphragm to aim .*pr»«rvc «Ji . »nd lo permit accea* to
iht top of the  valve n»cdU ••» f«* manual adjustment
The c»p may b« i'l..«d hv   ...-ut.le piaaiu: cover-76
pru»»ded   »ilh  . ..lanic  p*»'k   iff   maintaining  at
mr^*"*  pi«**-r« «i  th«  upper  «urfac«  of the
diaphragm
  To  proo»%<  '»ci.um wiUtin  lh«   valve  aaaembly
vacuum .Kamrvei  i>vc wall ot the cylindrical houamg SI
it  prO"t>i»*e dow»auo*e of th*  pi«m»n of UM
vehicle engine A vacuum M thereby created  Ml th« tube
Ji which  it connected to the carbureuif  aad a vacuum
u  in (urn  created  wilhm  the container  chamber a* a
rctulr  of air  (Towmg p**t th-e ball valve 29.  which Bfto
from >t* Mat 2-S  utd • vacuum  a cteaiad  wlOim* OM
v«|.e *fc«-»mNv vacuum chamber rhn>ujh the (ubx 34.
  TKc vaNc o»*dk fr4 it rx>r?naMy wfy*d lo lU
      po*JtK>n  within irx valve >«i»i»»Wy 54 lo
     mum fV>» - eff»ct lh« vaponzaUcm of
tbc fcdfhuvi  IKJUX! within  irx container  10.  Th« add»-
(>»t vaput coJUct» it the upp«r portton of lh« chamber
to  b*  drawn inu>  the  twi/TW chamber 43  principal))'
through i hi  r»di»i  patva^ei defined b) the corrujjUion
44  nnd ih« v»f>Oi » drawn through Lh« p««agc  Z4 pM
i(vc oiii -alvc 29 »btch t>  ltft»d from  lu  MUM 24 by Uw
       fk>« Tk-c vvpor W th«n drawn into UK  c*rb%rru>r
        lh-»  lube 3i for mixture  with th* fuel-Mr a»i»-
lurt wrtHui OK c»rbvfeior.
   At  lh-«  vacuum  witNu>  th« valve  xtwrnWy  vacuum
cb«r  akcreaxi. LW dwip^irajm 64 • couw-J  tu move
do»i>ara  thereby tru/vcua-j live  flo*  araa belw*««i Lhe
• iJ»r  ntedie  M  »»J  tS-» ai»oc^»to«in for e»»mp4«.
ific <«i-e  r>«c»Jl« 64 lifu to irxrs«x lh< fk>^< of *ir into
ih.- v.'""*i&«i  *nJ  irvrreby irvcrra^ri the pfr>d«cttot> of
..Jjid-i  . i.po/ »v».iUtvU lo live engine
   1 w '•all . al»c J* acti a* a cN»ck v*Jv» 10  prevent ••<   ^roAur<   butki-up  within   the   contiixf
ch»m>ci   An  rkcwtive  prruurc  build-up,  tuch  aa
m^f r,^ va-u**-d ri »  bwckflrc fur tiample, may rup-
t»>< •*< >.O«L»JIXI ,>r break the Mai Oclween the COO-
l*i^>r Irp  I J .no iNr cuvcf I 1  OuS*r UM drw.«K pro-
>u'<  NuiM up*  hut fo-  Iht  i heck  valve  29. would
rcOuvr •'! >vc>enoy ut iNr unit
   A lec.urc .'I :h« m v c nt x>n  n the pf« •»•*»»<» of the tvaf-
f« aieiiM f-n i>it> rnlinj Irvf  ^Odilivr IwquxJ in  the COn-
 lt>~* • Ir.xx  IV>-.nj  -ii  ilx paaut^t 24 and  thereby
cho*ui|  ')<« )>nj ihr v Itectivrne** f>f
tS-t  .!••   .lijut IK'
    \ n. -hf  irx ip»enlu>n  i> ih< improved
 .n^  • i >. »nj Triif *4«mbi> -hereby ih<  filter how*
 ir.« >\ cvwnu»ily •/' inie jrnl pert of t)>c  v»|\e «Jt«mh)y
15
 pro • ijin,-
              c(TW >»iit .
                                ol the unit
     Another feature of the  irvcn'.ion i» the ^/roMnon of
        ing me AIM integral *»nn the conumer rx>ttom v. jll
   fot .maintaining the vaporinng manifold in the de%ired
   relation contiguoti* to the  container bottom - *l.
3    Although the  invention  hit*  been  dewribrJ  «,:th
   reference  to   a  particular  preferred  embodimer.l.
   change* and modific*:i. r.\ »i|l becoinr  apparent  to
   iho*e tii I led in the art >n view nf the for* joing deacnp-
   tion which u intended in be iti-Mraii-e and not
   of the invention defined in the claim*
     What u claimed M
     1  An inductor for vaporout fuel «ddiiivf» ',./ inter-
   nal combuttion enjinei having a fuel reservoir and  -
   carburetor, the combination composing
     a container for a liquid  fuel Additive and a v> -cr tor
       aealing the rnnlatn n
     a  vaJve aa+ambty   mcludmg  a vacuum  ch^mrvci
       m-cane, and including  a hollow item arranged to he
JQ     fcocurcd in nn opening m uid cover for Communi-
       cation with the interior of u»d Conij.i.rr. a ported
       Mat in utCl  item,  netow uid vacuum  vhambet.
       open to atmcnpWre.
     a manifold dupoeed adjacent to the r>ottom of said
2}     conLainer to  be tubmerged in the IKJUHJ contained
       iherovi. an<:<  connected to uid hull.'., viem. \^id
       ma/iifold ha«nng * ier>ei of outlet orifices therein
       whereby to vaporue the liquid  in uid r»nlamei h>
       the pajajLje of air therethrough,
)Q   a needle in uwl vacuum chamber cttenJtng mtn v^ij
       hollow atom  and operable with  >eipnt  lo  laid
       ported Mat.  a apring biaved  dn»phr.iym vjrr\mj
       Laid needle in taxi vacuum chamber for ai'uatmg
       ujd rt**dle with reapect 10 laid poned >eat
     a vipor outlet  p&Magt  in uid cover opening lo the
       iru>er  wall wirface thereof; baffle meant  on taij
       cover uu*«r  wall  surface overlying i«hJ  pauagc
       op*nmg. ihMldmg UK! vapor outlet pikva^e open-
       ing from the  ingresi of the liquid contained in taid
       container; uid baffle  meant  compnung • Oiih
       »>v*p«d m«ml>er having a peripheral  (.dial flange
       diapo*ed contiguous  to the cover wall turlace «ur-
        rcKjndmg UK!  paxt^gc. uid cover «nj  Jnh
4^      jhaped mernt>er having coa-cnnj mc^nt for readii)
        atlavhing taic mernt>rr ti  »aid  Ci>vcr, iaij rr.cmbci
        arvj  u.>d  cuver  Jcfininj   a  chami^r  directly
        beneath uid outlet pAMjtgc. wid peripheral fl^rgc
        being corrugated lo define radial pau_>get . vminu
50      nicating tatd b^fPc  chambei  with (he  .. ntoiner.
        taid  Ui»h-»h»(xd member having an  opening for
        draining IK)UK! back to the containci
      and a tuciion  Ube for  connecting ia>d  v^por outlet
        pa>&agc and taid >acuum chamber In ihe engine
55      carburetor whereby  to conduct vapor t-> »«id car-
        buretor  and lo aciutie --..d diaphragm and uid
        needle
      2 A» irvduclor iVfvice aa act fonh m claim I
      including aji annular hnunnj memher ci'.utmg with
        laid cover and vatd valve «»*eiT.'M> :o del'me .m an
        nular chambei  wjrrourvjmg L»>d viem  uid portcu
        *eal opening lo u,>d annular  chamt>er. inlef pori
        n>eai;t in  a  will of U.K! ^nn;iiar chamtv: noutmg
        member, and filler me*r.» di*p>wed in »4nJ Annular
        chamber  between >jmj inlet  port meant and  the
        porti of vaid (X'nrd Kit
      3 An inductor d»'v»ce «-i vet fonh n. cUim 2

-------
                                                       18
                      7       .             3,716,040                                                5 of 5

wherein «>d hollow ,tem b proved wilh .,,.„ .                           8
  thread, for threaded  enjAj.ment *llh „, i*^        »rxl reuin wid tubin,
  nilly thr.wl«l op.nin| in «id cover, and wrwn/"      5 A" lftductor d'vic« " »*l forth )p
                            u
                                                                                          of
                bo.lom *.  o                         c   ,     ,
                                              M
                                           JS
                                          50
                                         60

-------
                                                                                                Attachment B
                                                       .,9
INSTALLATION   INSTRUCTIONS    FOR   V-70   SUPER   VAPOR   SYSTEM
        EXAMPLE  A
         EXAMPLE  B
                    CARBURETOR
                     PCV VALVE
                          VALVE
         EXAMPLE   C
                                   3.
    It  is recommended that  the  V-70  Unit  be  installed within the engine  com-
    partment (using the universal  mounting  brackets supplied) where  It will
    not interfere with or come  in  contact with  the engine or any accessory
    already nounted inside  the  engine  compartment.  Install only in  a LEVEL
    position with easy access  to  the black  "Fill" cap and the Automatic
    Metering Valve.  (Example  A)


    The V-70 Unit  should  be connected  to  a  primary source of vacuum at-the
    base of the  automobile  carburetor.  Most automobiles  less  than  5 years
    old are equioped with some type  of positive cronkcase ventilation sy-
    stem (PCV).  This system provides  an  easy access  to  a primary  vacuum
    source. All  PCV systems have  a valve  as a component  part of  these sy-
    stems .  (ExanoIe B)

    Insert  red plastic "T"  fitting supplied into cut  ends of PCV line.  This
    red "T" fitting MUST  be inserted between the PCV  valve  and  the  carbu-
    retor.  Insert third  outlet of fitting  into V-70  hose.   Now  connect the
    V-70 hose  to  V-70 Unit, cutting  off any surplus hose  not needed.
    (Example C)

    On some new  cars  the  PCV valve is  attached to  the carburetor or carbu-
    retor base and the PCV  line attached  to this valve.   When  this  occurs.
    a  competent  mechanic  can supply  a  threaded "T" which  can be  inserted
    between the  ?CV valve and the carburetor tap,  so  that  the  V-70  connect-
    ing hose may  be attached to the  third leg of the  "T".

    On older cars, because  of the wide variations, it is  recommended that
    you have a competent  mechanic attach  the unit  to  one  of the  primary
    vacuum  sources at the base of the  carburetor.

    Fill the V-/2  Unit with FUEL  ADDITIVE and water according  to directions
    on side of .V-70  Fuel  Ad'iitive container.  Under normal  conditions your
    V-70 SUPER VAPOR  POWER  UNIT is ready  to give you  super  service.
                                       (Use distilled water,
                                       Check PCV hose ends.   If  aged  suqqest use of c I ar.ps  to  assure  tight,
                                       fi rm connec t i on .
                     TEST  V-I'O TO «AXE SURE METERING

                  VALVE  IS SET TO GIVE 8EST PERFORMANCE


The Automatic Metering  Valve  is  set.at the factory; however,  it  is possible
that a snail  final  adjustment may  have to t>c <-. a d e  to  compensate  for the
variation of  different  engines.

With the engine  idling  smoothly  in neutral there should  be  a  steady stream
of air bubbles  fro-  the inside of  tnc aerator over almost 90$  of  its entire
length.

To determine  t ha t :-•«  unit is  p rose r I v adj us:c J . first "-ake  sure  the PCV
v .1 I v e  is o 3 e r a t • "• c  r r o 3 e r I y .   u i ; .1 a  ». a r .1 en r. ire and  the Unit  connected.
indue* a load o-  r h e  encire  (set  Si-.ikei and sut the drive selector into .
'drive', a c c c '• •: -- o : c  : ^ c e n T i •• " t ' :> - 1 v , n o ' -J i n - t M e i> r a '< ; to - o ~ e  certain
: r: C car  r c - J • - -  ; ; 3 : : o ~ j r v ) .   •'• ,  : •• -  c* n c i • e i <• o c c c ! ^ r o : c d  t ^ e a -j : o •-..-. t i c
- e t c r i m v o : v i  - I i I  o s e n  a - d  •..<•_  .-ill g - t i r, c r •; a s « J aeration  within t h e
Unit.  u' -> e -  •. ? -  e:o?  .1 cccler.•>:•-. c  : - e e^cine ' ; o k e  foot  off accelerator).
the a e r a t ? o ".  t? i ,\ 1  drop  i .- - .• i i j : o ! v  to the level  of  aeration  obtained
with the e-^iie'"  '-cle*.  If :nls does not h^yoori. havtf the  PCV  valve
changed  or aoJL-iteJ  V/  a  qujfiriori nerson.

Wnc^ a va:'-.-'- - o ^; •_•  is  avail  jalc.  th; operation yf  the  PCV  valve  can be
checked, i i-  :-.j:  :'-t  engine   .-o-jlo have a vaco'jr reading of aop rox i ma t e I y
twenty in-^ei o'  -erc-^v  ^rie1 '2'ing  in neutral.   tf  the vacuuff is below
t-c.-ty ir.jiei o •"  -e.-c'.rv  a •> ~  ; ~ e ? C V  valve is operating  proserly, check
t*.e ti.-ii^ of t*?  ^_t.o-r-b*le.  !•  ^ay need advartc'^c.

Vith the 3CV  .?'/c  o^erjtin;;  prr»^?rlv and the cncine  idling,  loosen the
loc^ nu: .->;•• r  ;-?  -e;  cap  ov tnr  of  the Autc-otic  Meterin5 V^lve while
noldino  I ~ •.'  rra?- "cojle  sto'iic-.^rv.   Screw the needle  do~'f ^rtil the
* * r a t i o • •"'.•- :-•-•  ;-5'de  of  u^e  aeration tube ^lo-s and  is  rot seratino
J"f entire  l«;-:t-.   rrien  scrf-v twe Srass neerilt" -*»ut verv slowly (without
c»erti'c :•-•  ; s«-  pressure  O'' tse  -eedle) to t'-c 3 o i r. t  where  you  first
set oerat:.--  : , c -  r-:  of  the  I «•- : t h  of the aerator.   Hold the screw and
set tie  lrc~  -.:  i -:  roolace  i-.t red CJ3.
                                                                                                                  V
                                                                  :: •. ret b v

-------
                                      •••••••/••    .  •  - -. -;   -..Attachment •••&:••-..:.-.;:
                                     ;"':-: "•"  ' .--, " .' ..'.'. :•'•< .'l'-jjf.::5:'r-:.:r:::"-'-:':
                                     20" "	           	' '   ""'""
~!ecenbcr  26,  1979
>-JT. Eichsrd L.
129UO  Preston toad
Suita  715, L.B. 4
Jallaa,  Texas 75230

liear ilr. Flocb:

VV.is in  in rc.8j.x.'a.*te  to your September 20, 1979  letter vUicu requested
U'A to tee; the "V-70:< vaporiser.

As was explained in  the Policy Paper previously sent to you,  the EPA
uous tot certify or  approve retrofit fuel ecooooy devices.  When requested
by tire the Fedaral Trade CouEidssiou, the iPA Adainistrator, or the
'uiuu£actv;rer of a device, the EPA will evaluate a device. In  tha case of
the nanufacturer laakiag the request, v;« ere raqiiired to lieit EPA tasting
to a coafiraatory role, i.e. ce.^tiug by tiic L?A to ccnfina
civcaiued by aa indcpcadjut ^•bor^cory.  Dua to  tlui r.u?al>* r^ctin,- lr-y t.He "PA.   Thin
                            ..;-..;:  i'-/rciic  ^-'..ce.

        t;as requiring ."J.ditioiial  iafornatica.

      j«!-.r.cri?tlon of the Device

      1. a. Please cuUiit ialcrjoatioa oa t!
-------
                             21
2.   Please Indicate anoutxt of fluid injected per  fflaount of
     fuel consuoed  i.e.  Ib. fluid/ Ib. fuel.

3.   Please indicate why you believe addition of water vapor to the
     inlet air will reduce fuel coususption. The actual theory of
     operation of your device is cat explained  in  your application
     for evaluation.

4.   There are acverci problems wi!:h the  test data supplied. Riese
     problems, given below, do not allow  a  proper  evaluation of
     "Y-70" Vapor Injector.

     a.   The Scott Laboratory Data

          1.   This tent data wa» run at  a  laboratory which is not
               on our list of racoezxwdcd Laboratories.  Scott Labs
               la not ou our lint because the laboratory has never
               been checked out by EPA personnel.

          2.   Only HFh'i' cycle tests were run.   The Federal ctaission
               dtanuarUs arc based or. the Federal  Test Procedure
                (FTP). The IIFET eaissiou data is not correlatable  to
                the  actual FT? regulated emission standard?.

          3.   Only one UFiJT was run in each condition. With a 5Z
                teut repeatability, the test validity of the 7.3%
                incrciaac in fual c-coaor.y it  questionable.

          4.    Only one vehicle was tested.  Iftie tc the differences
                in eagine/veiiicle characteristic?, it i* not possible
                to extrapolate the Lusts ou  one  vehicle to a 1.1
                     iao fueled vch.1.clet<.
           5.   Test lal*o.T£l-f.ri33 u^iriiilly ciaii\tP.isi <;bout 70 grains
                vaucr/U: :'r; In  to  tj;  f.-:;  nlu1';c.:;- t;;c !»ui-:J.dity
                correct: I."..: f .:tcr 101:  ..w';-: .".••-! r.-ylo-:;;,  Wc^ dc net
                • ;uuL:rsLj.;i :  :•>• ';co s.t. '.n^s v.?j.V.'. periuiL Ce^(:::.nr v::£a
                the. hvivaiai-ry i-.ivai  ««;a 2./: graias/lb. dvy eir.
           6.   Vile F-T un'J ii'FrTi  tea:, procedurs.*1. require  the
                of HC, CO, C0?  iad  NOx background 3.evel»  aad  these
                levela are tc 'be  subtract;^ f ron the bag  results.
                The Scott data  indicate* culy !IC background levels
                were caasurcd.

           7.   While a 7.82 increase in fuel eccaony was noted in
                the teets, a 22.8%  increase in CO was also noted.
                Such an increase  in CO, if realistic* would put nany
                cars over the emission standards.

-------
                             22
          Uaylaud Baptist Collese To«t Data

          1.   This office  Las not lieard of that laboratory before.
               Ilia Way land  Baptist College is not.  therefore,  to
               the b«9 c  of  our knowledge, e qualified  independent
               testing laboratory for automotive oadssion  testing.

          2.   The test  procedures used in collecting  the  data arc
               not described.   The units of aeaaureaant  indicate
               that conventional equipment and ncthods were not
               used.

          2.   Only two  state* of operation (1) 1500 UPM in neutral
               and (2) 1000 K?M in Erive, were tested.  This data
               indicates nothing about transient cycles.

          4.   This data conflicts vith the Scott  uata vhich shoved
               an  iacreane in HC and CO.
ru;er,_<.:::ti£.dftd Teat Proef«;u to Dafiue T'ucl ilco-.xn^y  and liaisoiou Effects
of "V-70" Vapor Injector.

1.   Vest Vehicle Selection
     'Ihree  docoKtic veliicleo with cccunul&ted nileag« betwceoa 4,000
     and  70,000 toilet* should bet chosen.   Csre should bo Utkau in
     selecting the vehicles to cover  the  range of claioed device
     opplicebilit:;/. (}J:ar;:pLc; cue C-cyliac'er, oiic 6-cyliuder
     ous  -.-c
      '.-.'CP t  V^.l ule in g p t.-c t ion s nd .-\c! j ac^taea^: prior to :ja£&Iir.:3 Tenting

      a.    Tl,« veaicic.-i t--!v.?-;tlu be Ptt  to  all i-iaufactursirc epp.cificstioru?.
      ;:• .    CUeck li.-j^ii.c fcr any salfunctiouB iacludijiij a e;ope
           chftd'out.  Correct Any cu"ilfurs.ctioi\s re ted.
      ::«    ?>u Rur-.-1 to c'.cc;. ;:"LC! ^ut^^ctic cboV..^ au.^ ?x-L vulvu ("c_
           p^rte.
      c.    Kcplace a.ir filter ^ixJ ?CY valve -«ith vehicle manufacturers
                  riil.^d parts.
                  en^iuu oil «uid filter.   li»e iippropriate tanuf*:cturer
               tsaeiided products .
           Ilecord all scttiu^^, ^djustucnts, rcadinga, oointeoance
           and vehicle data.  Include: this data in th« test. report*
           supplied to rTA.
           Close control nust be kept of these vehicle* during the
           tent program.  All iMinten>ancet adjutftneats, dilease
           accumulation, Bociif icntioas,  and testing oust be  deacribad,
           dated, and initialed by  tbe testing laboratory personnel.

-------
                             23
3.   Baseline Testing

     a.   Two (2) 1V75 Federal  Test Procedures (FTP) and two (2)
          Highway Fuel Econony  Testa (HFST) should bo performed on
          each vehicle.

     b.   Documentation of  all  tests, including void tests oust be
          supplied by the tee tins laboratory.
     c.   No veiiicltt aodifications, or adjuetaants should be toade
          after baseline tee ting is begun.

4.   Device luetcHatiou

     The "V-70" Vapor Injector  should be installed on all three
     vehicles pur  tka installation instructions supplied to the EPA
     with the application for evaluation (eee enclosure) with  the
     following iteic modification to avoid confuting the test result*:

     a.   Part 3, Paragraph 6-Do tL,a optisiiratioa rsatine en all 3
          vehicles.
     b.   Part 3 Paragraph  7- Do uot replace the PCY valva  (this
          was done previously)
     c.   Part 3 Paragraph  &- Do not advance the tlnlng.

5.   DfcviCtt Testing; With Parameters Adjusted

     Upoa cosaplatfon  of device  installation, each vehicle ehculd b«s
     tcscei  twice  ueinj; the 1975 Fexl&rsl Test Procsd'ire and rjicc
     usJUig  the iilphwcy  Fuel acoaotsy Icot.  "Siese tasta give the
     effect* of  the device  witii fluid.

t.   i>frvrica 'Ae»tin^;  without fluid

           C  all  cf tUe  fluid fraa  {ie "V-70" Vapor Injector Sy*tes
                  *.:c.kc no orhv.r vehicle isdi.Cici'.t.j.os.s. TcKt  the
                      "dvy::  ccaoitlc--::.  tv.o  (I") t;i:.".!s-«. CD r.ha 197.;
                              --    --  '           -;           '''
                c:/ 'j'est.  Thiise tcr»j:.s siv*  ttic  «::tiucifr  oi  the
           operated dry.

 7.    Data Ba port las

      Tne r«»ult3 of the vtiliiclfc iru^^ctious, nalntensnec, and testa
      should be tabulated aud ae&t  to Mr. F. Peter Hutcuic*, 2365
      Plyaauth Eoad, Aua Arbor, Hicliijuin 4? 105.

 8.    Notification of Intent

      Pluawt notify Kr. liutchina (313-666-4340) a» to which independent
      laboratory will be doing the  tea ting  aad  the expected
      and coopletiou dutec of tlio  tasting pro gran prior to initiation
      of the tasting.

-------
'inc. results of this teptir.3 proyrta should clearly dctfiuc the benefits
or penalties of  the "V-70 Vapor  Injector" for both eaiasions and fuel
economy. Iliii dcta woulJ provide  tPA the opportunity to make a clear
tViluatioa of the device.  A  list  of laboratories wiiich should bo capable
of performing these teetn wap included in the "SPA Policy Paper on
     ut; of retrofit Devices"  previously stcut to you.
Hie tasty run on  the Ittrk II  device were rua at tl»e request of the
/udsiuis UMtor.  The V-70  Vapor Injector does not appear to be very
dissimilar frou the Mark  II.   Therefore, testing of the V-70 Vapor
Injector a» a "nev technology'1 device L»,  xirifortunataly, not indicated.
Upon cowrie tion of the  Pu^^eateJ test prograi"., confimatory tasting at
thcs E?A laboratory ia ;'^ui /jrbor vill be performed if eo indicated by the
data.

If you hnvc 325:25051'lynouthF.d: 12/26/79

-------
                                       Attachment D

                  25
                                          74-6 REM
  Evaluation of the SCATPAC Device
             July 1973
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Air and Water Programs
Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                             26
Background

The ECT Division was contacted by a representative of Cedar
Rapids Engineering Company, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, concerning
their retrofit device for automobiles called SCATPAC.  After
being shown test results performed by Olson Laboratories
which showed significant reductions of CO, HC, and NOx on a
vehicle with the device installed (as compared to baseline),
the ECTD agreed to perform testing of the device on an EPA
owned vehicle.

Device Tested

SCATPAC is a vacuum vapor induction system which is attached
to the PCV line.  Manifold vacuum draws air through a liquid
solution of undisclosed chemicals into the base of the car-
buretor.  Vapors from the solution are thus introduced into
the manifold.  The device comes with all necessary components
for the retrofitting to any vehicle with a PCV line and
installation time takes less than fifteen minutes.

Test Program

A 1970 Plymouth Valiant 225 CID from the EPA fleet was used
for the test program.  Four emission tests* were conducted,
two without the device and two with  the device installed.
Before any testing, the vehicle was  tuned to the manufacturer's
specifications for timing and idle rpm.   Idle CO, 1.75%, was
not changed.  Two tests were then conducted in this  stock
configuration to be used as the baseline results.  The SCATPAC
device was then installed and idle CO was adjusted to 1.75%
so that the enleanment effect from bleeding the vapors into
the PCV line did not influence the emissions  (it  had dropped
to about  1.50%).  The vehicle was then tested twice  more.

Test Results

The test  results are presented in the Appendix of this report,
and are summarized below.   In addition to emission results,
fuel economy was calculated for  each test using  a carbon
balance technique.
 *A11  testing  was  performed according  to  the  1975  Federal  Test
 Procedure  as  outlined  in the  November 15,  1972, Federal Register
 for  light  duty vehicles.

-------
                                    28
Baseline
SCATPAC
Test    HC
 No.    gpm

16-530  2.07

16-531  2.12

Avg.    2.10




16-542  2.17

16-547  1.94

Avg.    2.05
APPENDIX
CO
gpm
29.
29.
29.
33.
30.
32.

12
16
14
98
17
07
CO 2
gpm
357
354
355
352
.341
346

.5
.1
."8
.1
.3
.7
NOx
gpm

5.44

5.74

5.59
  Fuel
Economy
  mpg

21.3

21.4

21.3
5.31    21.2

4.73    21.8

5.02    21.5
  * US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING Of FICE:  1979- 651-112/010,

-------
                                           Attachment E

                    29
                                          72-5
Emission Results From An Automobile
  Using the Frantz Vapor Injector
          September 1971
          John C. Thomson
      Office of Air Programs
  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY

-------
                             30
Background

As part of a continuing evaluation of retrofit devices for used
cars, emission tests on the Frantz Vapor Injector system was
run.  Emission reductions for hydrocarbon (HC) of up to 371,
carbon monoxide (CO) of up to 44%, and nitrogen oxide of up
to 351 were claimed.  The device was installed on a vehicle
supplied by a Louisville, Kentucky newspaper at the newspaper's
request.  The installer was not told of the purpose of the
installation and it is assumed that this was a typical conversion.

Device

The .device, tested was a vapor injector "system produced by the
Sky Corporation, Stockton, California.  This system added a
mixture of air and a vaporized chemical to the positive crank-
case ventilation line with the amount of vapor-air mixture
dependent on the manifold vacuum.

Test Program

The device was tested on a 1968 Ford Falcon equipped with a
200 cubic-inch six cylinder engine and manual transmission.
This engine was also equipped with the original air injection
pump.  Two different test procedures were used in evaluating
the emissions from this device and the vehicle was tested under
three differing conditions.  The first four tests were with the
vapor, injector as installed by Frantz and the recommended fluid
used.  Two of these used the 1972 Federal emission test pro-
cedure  (LA4) which is a non-repetative self-weighting test
using the constand volume sampling system.  This procedure
required the collection of a representative sample of the total
exhaust from the vehicle.  The second two tests used the 1971
Federal emission test procedure  (7-mode) which is a continuous
tailpipe monitoring test using a repetative driving cycle.
In this test certain portions of the exhaust are measured and
weighted according to the amount of driving typical under these
conditions.  For both sets of tests, carbon monoxide  (CO) and
carbon dioxide  (CC>2) were measured using nondispersive infrared
(NDIR).  For the 7-mode tests hydrocarbon (HC) and oxides of
nitrogen  (NOx) were analyzed using NDIR also.  In the LA4 tests
HC was measured using flame ionization detector  (FID) and NOx
using chemiluminesence.  The amount of fuel used for each test
was measured and reported in kilograms.  A single 7-mode test
using the  injector with the fluid removed was run to determine
the effect of the fluid.

One 7-mode and one LA4 were run after removing the vapor injector
and returning the vehicle to baseline condition.

-------
                              32
                          Table I

         Emission Results from a 1968 Ford Falcon



               HC       CO         NOx          Fuel used
               gpm      gpm        gpm          (total kg)

                         (with vapor injector installed)

LA4            2"9      27"       "4.0          1.4

LA4            2.3      28         2.0          1.3

7-mode         2.5      25         4.0          1.1

7-mode         3.1      27         3.9      .    1.1

                         (with- vapor injector-fluid removed)

7-mode         2.3      24         2.7     •     1.1

                         (with vapor injector removed  - baseline)

LA4            3.5      38         4.0          1.6

7-mode         2.7  •    28         3.7          1.1

-------
Background

     The Emission Control Technology Division (ECTD) was contacted by
the General Services Administration (GSA) concerning a vapor injection
device for use with automobile engines.  The device is called the Econo-
Mist and is a product of the FAP Corporation of Albuquerque, New Mexico.
GSA had received information that the Econo-Mist reduced hydrocarbon
and carbon monoxide emissions and increased fuel economy.  At the
request of GSA, ECTD agreed to test the device.  A sample of the device
was brought to the EPA laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan by FAP
Corporation personnel on January 13, 1975.

     The Environmental Protection Agency receives information about many
devices for which emission reduction or fuel economy improvement claims
are made.  In some cases, both claims are made for a single device.  In
most cases, these devices are being recommended or promoted for retrofit
to existing vehicles although some represent advanced systems for
meeting future standards.

     The EPA is interested in evaluating the validity of the claims for
all such devices, because of the obvious benefits to the Nation of
identifying devices that live up to their claims.  For that reason the
EPA invites  proponents of such devices to provide to the EPA complete
technical data on the device's principle of operation, together with
test data on the device made by independent laboratories.  In those
cases in which review by EPA technical staff suggests that the data
submitted holds promise of confirming the claims made for the device,
confirmatory tests of the device are scheduled at the EPA Emissions
Laboratory at Ann Arbor, Michigan.  The results of all such confirmatory
test projects are set forth in a series of Technology Assessment and
Evaluation Reports, of which this report is one.

     The conclusions drawn from the EPA confirmatory tests are necessarily'
of limited applicability.  A complete evaluation of the effectiveness of
an emission control system in achieving its claimed performance improvements
on the many different types of vehicles that are in actual use requires a
nuch larger sample of test vehicles than is economically feasible in the
confirmatory test projects conducted by EPA.  _!/  For promising devices
it is necessary that more extensive test programs be carried out.
JL/  See Federal Register 38 FR 11334, 3/27/74, for a description of the
    test protocols proposed for definitive evaluations of the effective-
    ness of retrofit devices.

-------
                                               Attachment F

                  33


                                    EPA-AA-TAEB  75-19
            An Evaluation of  the
              Econo-Mist Device
                 March  1975
 Technology Assessment and  Evaluation Branch
    Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
       Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                        36
                    ECONO-MIST
T« PCV
             10
                                IS* 7
                    27.  30 i
                 W?
                        /
                       12
            .^13

              11
   *:i
                   I    I
                            I J I
                           ^
                s^-
                               32
r* "*",f **•'",>
^y=ib=rf-
                50


-------
                                38
                        TEST VEHICLE  DESCRIPTION

            Chassis model year/make - 1970 Plymouth Valiant
            Emission  control system - Engine Modification
Engine
 type	4 stroke Otto  Cycle,  OHV,  in-line  6 cyl.
 bore  x  stroke	3.40 x 4.12  in./86.36 x  104.78 mm
 displacement  	  225 CID/3688
 compression ratio   	  8.4:1
 maximum power @  rpm	145 hp/108 kW  @  4000  rpm
 fuel  metering	•.  .  1-V carburetor
 fuel  requirement	  94  RON gasoline

 Drive Train

 transmission  type   	  3 speed automatic
 final drive ratio   	  2.76:1

 Chassis
                                    unitized construction, front  engine,
 type	re;ar vfieel arive              °
 tire  size	FR 78-14
 curb  weight	  .  2920 lbs/1325  kg
 inertia weight	  3000 Ibs
 passenger  capacity  	  5

 Emission Control System

 basic type 	  positive crankcase ventilation, engine
                                    modification

mileage on vehicle at start of test program:  17,850

-------
Conclusions

     The changes•in-emission and fuel economy which were noted on the
test vehicle are attributed to the enleanment effect of the Econo-Mist
device and might be matched by bleeding more air to the carburetor.
This could be accomplished by leaning out the idle mixture and/or
the primary jets,  or increasing the flow through the PCV line.

     Accumulating over 300 miles on the device.did not yield any
improvements compared to the results when the device was initially
installed.

-------
                                  41
                                Appendix


                                 Table I
                        '75 FTP Composite Results
                     Mass Emissions, grams per mile
                     Fuel Economy, miles per gallon
Test Type

Baselines (no device)


Device Baselines


Device with 300 miles



Device with no fluid
HC
1.89
1.76
1.61
1.52
1.64
1.50
1.67
1.55
1.65
CO
13,5
10.4
9.33
9.72
9.57
6.82
11.0
8.45
10.4
co2
422
419
397
389
396
410
398
404
411
NOx
5.54
6.32
6.54
5.49
5.54
6.08
6.41
5.33
6.58
Fuel Ec<
19.8
20.1
21.3
21.7
21.3
20.8
21.1
21.0
20.5

-------
                                  43
                                 Table III
                            EPA Highway Cycle
                    Emissions Results and Fuel Economy
                     Mass Emissions, grams per mile
                      Fuel Economy, miles per gallon
Test Type

Baselines (no device)


Device Baselines


Device with 300 miles


Device with no fluid
HC
.94
.92
.89
.84
.90
.92
.95
.98
CO
2.28
2.34
2.01
2.17
- 1.86
1.87
2.05
2.27
co2
312.4
313.0
296.3
305.5
305.8
309.6
309.5
305.5
NOx
7.01
6.74
7.09
6.17
6.23
7.10
6.72
7.75
mpg
27.8
27.8
29.4
28.5
28.5
28.1
28.1
28.4

-------
                                            Accacnmenc
                   44
                                             73-22 RBM
Evaluation of the Turbo Vapor Injector
              March  1975
      Test and Evaluation  Branch
 Emission Control Technology  Division
    Environmental Protection  Agency

-------
                             45
Background

TVI Marketing Inc. of Lexington, Michigan, requested that
EPA test their Turbo Vapor Injector device.  Results of
testing at Olsen Laboratories showed substantial reductions
in carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbon (HC) emissions.
The Test and Evaluation Branch scheduled testing of the
device.

Device

The Turbo Vapor Injector is a vacuum vapor induction system
which is attached to the PCV line.  Air.is drawn through an
alcohol-and-water based solution into the base of the car-
buretor.  The device comes with instructions so that it can
be retrofitted to any car including older vehicles without
PCV lines.

Test Program

A 1970 Plymouth Valiant, 225 CID, from the EPA fleet was used
for the program.  Seven tests were conducted, two without the
device  (baseline), three with the device properly attached,
and then two more with the fluid bottle empty so that only
air was drawn into the PCV line.  These last two tests were
conducted at the request of the sales representative who
delivered the device to the EPA laboratory.

Prior to the testing, the Valiant's carburetor was set at
21 CO and 650 rpm at idle, and was not adjusted again through-
out the testing.  All testing was performed  in accordance
with the 1975 Federal Test Procedure  (FTP).  Full details
of this procedure are found in the November  15, 1972 Federal
Register, Volume 37, Number 221, Part II.

All tests were conducted using the standard  dynamometer  inert:
 •caiiing for  the Valiant vhich is 5,000 pounds.  Test, fuel was
 Ir.uo'iene Clear  (lead-free standard "est fuel).

Test Results

The test results are presented in the Appendix of this report,
In addition  to emission results, fuul economy was determined
using a carbon balance method.  Emission  and fuel consumption
results are  summarized as follows:

-------
                                47
                             APPENDIX
          TVI Test Program  -  1975 Federal Test  Procedure
    Baseline
Test No.
1-6-330
16-333
AVERAGE
TVI Device
Test No.
16-338
16-341
16-344
AVERAGE
TV I Device
Test No.
16-347
16-350
AVERAGE
HC
gpm
2.27
2.19
2.23
HC
gpm
2.23
1.99
2.17
2.13
(Bottle
HC
gpm
2.15
1.97
2.06
CO
gpm
33.55
31.19
32.37
CO
gpm
28.01
25.82
26.59
26.81
Empty)
CO
gpm
29.48
26.86
28.17
                                    CO.,
                                    gpfn


                                    352.7

                                    406.2

                                    379.4
                                    CO?
                                    gpni

                                    417.5

                                    420.2

                                    411.1

                                    416.2
                                    C02
                                    gpm

                                    397.5

                                    413.3

                                    405.4
NOx
gpm


4.36

5.78

5.07
NOx
gpm

6.30

6.44

6.50

6.41
NOx
gpm

5.79

6.45

6.12
   Fuel
Consumption
   mpg


20.9'

18.9

19.9
   Fuel
Consumption
   mpg

18.6

18.81

18.93

18.82
   Fuel
Consumption
   mpg

19.4

19.0

19.2
* Ui. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979- 651-112/0096

-------
                      48                              Attachment H

                                                 76-13     GS
          The Mark II Vapor Injector:
      /n Air-Vapor Bleed Device Evaluated
                 January 1976
 Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch
     Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
      Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                    49
Background

     The APO Mark'II Vapor Injector marketed in the United States by APO
of America, Inc., Dallas, Texas is essentially an induction system air-
vapor bleed device.  It is the fifth device of this basic type to be
tested by TAEB in the past five years. ' ' '   The general conclusions
of the four previous air-vapor bleed device tests were that fuel economy
improvements if any, were small and were attributed to enleanment of the
air fuel mixture as opposed to the effects of the added vapors.  Similarly
exhaust emissions changes were minor and were typical of the results of
enleanment of air-fuel ratios near stoichiometry.  The Mark II contains
several variations on the_basic vapor bleed device theme which could
alter its performance relative to other devices of this type.  In light
of these variations and an interest in the Kark II exhibited by the
public and some sectors of the government, EPA evaluated the device.

     The Environmental Protection Agency receives information about many
devices for which emission reduction or fuel economy improvement claims
are made.  In some cases, both claims are made for a single device.  In
most cases, these devices are being recommended or promoted for retrofit
to existing vehicles although some represent: advanced .systems for meeting
future standards.

     The EPA is interested in evaluating the validity of the claims for
all such devices, because of the obvious benefits to the Nation of
identifying devices that live up to their claims.  For that reason  the
EPA invites proponents of such devices to provide to the EPA complete
technical data on the device's principle of operation, together with
test data on the device made by independent laboratories.  In those
cases in which review by EPA technical staff suggests that the data
submitted hold promise of confirming  the claims made for the device,
confirmatory tests of the device are  scheduled at the EPA Emissions
Laboratory at Ann Arbor, Michigan.  The results of all such confirmatory
test projects are set forth in a series of Technology Assessment and
Evaluation Reports, of which this report  is one.

     The conclusions drawn from the EPA confirmatory tests are neces-
sarily of  limited applicability.  A complete evaluation of the effectiveness
of an emission control system in achieving  its claimed performance
improvements on  the many different types  of vehicles that are  in actual
use requires a much larger sample of  test vehicles than is economically
feasible in  the  confirmatory test projects  conducted by EPA.   For
promising  devices  it is necessary that more extensive test programs be
carried out.

     The conclusions from  the EPA confirmatory tests can be  considered
to be quantitatively valid only for the specific  type of vehicle used  in
the EPA confirmatory test  program.  Although  it  is reasonable  to extra-
polate the results  from  the EPA confirmatory  test to other types of

-------
       hose  to  Vapor Jet
          mounting bracket
                                                             carburetor
                                                        \Mark  II reservoir
                                                         •   •—
        Figure 1   'lark  II  install;.tion  on  1971  Vega (air cleaner removed).
               choke valve
hot idle compensator
top air bleed




     idle channel  restriction





      idle tube




     float bowl
 lower  idle  air  bleed
      throttle valve
                                                         main metering -et
              idle  discharge  hole
                                 /
                                                             to  Mark II  reservoir
                                                 Vapor  Jet
         Figure 2  Schematic of Vega carburetor showing  idle circuitry


                        with Mark II  Vapor Jet installed.

-------
                                  53
     According to Mr. Allen Best, the technical advisor of APO, the
composition of the Econo Mix by volume is 65% methanol, 34% acetone,  and
1% propylene glycol.  The benefits of the vapors of Econo Mix-water
mixture claimed in the Mark II owner's manual are a decrease in required
octane number of the gasoline used, increased fuel economy, increased
power, elimination of carbon deposits, extension of engine life, and
reduction of exhaust emissions.  EPA evaluates devices in terms of their
effects on vehicle emissions, fuel economy, and occasionally performance.
Additions of methanol and water to gasoline are known to increase the
octane number of fuel and additions of methanol under certain conditions
to increase power.  Therefore, it was felt desirable to conduct a pre-
liminary evaluation of the possible benefits of the APO device based on
information available in the technical literature concerning the various
constituents of the APO fluid and measurements of the operating variables
of the device.  This evaluation is presented in Appendix I.

Test Procedure

     Exhaust emissions tests were conducted according to the 1975 Federal
Test Procedure ('75 FTP), described in the Federal Register of November'15,
1972, and the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET), described in the
Federal Register, Volume 39, Number 200, October 15, 1974.   Both of
these tests are conducted on a chassis dynamometer and employ the Constant
Volume Sampling (CVS) procedure, which gives exhaust emissions of HC,
CO, NO  and CO  in grams per mile.  Fuel economy is calculated by the
carbonxbalance method.  The fuel used, was  Indolene unleaded 96 RON
gasoline.

     The vehicle was tested in three different configurations: baseline,
with the Mark II installed but without any fluid in the jar, and with
the Mark II functioning with fluid.  The second configuration was tested
in order to separate the effect of the fluid vapors from the effect of
the air bleed.

     Before the baseline testing,  the vehicle was tuned to manufacturer's
specifications.  The carburetor idle mixture adjustment was ad j vested  to
lea- best idle, which for this vehicle resulted in a 0.2T  idle  CO.   The
idle ~i:-:ture was adjusted to  Lean  best idle after the  installation of
tr.= Mark II in each  configuration  tested.  In both cases  the  idl • CO  v,-as
again 0.2%.

     The test schedule plan was  two  '75 FTP's and two  HFET's  for each of
the following test  conditions:

     1.  Baseline
     2.  Mark II installed but without fluid
      3.  Mark II with fluid
     4.  Mark II with fluid after  1500 miles of operation  on  the
         durability  driving schedule  described  in the  Federal  Register
         Vol. 37, No. 221, November  15,  1972
     5.  Mark II without fluid after  mileage accumulation
     6.  Baseline after mileage  accumulation

-------
                                                      Figure  3

                                           '75  FTP Composite Fuel Economies

                                                  by individual test
g
(0

M
O
w
01
g
c
o
o
0)
D
d.
     30.0
     25.0
     20.0
     15.0
     10.0
      5.0
               Before mileage

                accumulation

                                                             °
                                                   After
 (~) - no device




 [T| - Mark II "dry1




 ^ - Mark II




	 mean value
                            miles

                                                                                              -O-O-Q-D
                                                                                                               30
                                                                             25
                     J 20



After valve  replacement
                                                                                                                  Oi

-------
         Figure 5
'75 FTP Composite Emission

3.5
•i n





2.5

2.0


l.b

1 • U


n

A
A

~~~~^~~~~~ ^K
AT


A A
A **

O
Offc l<^\
^ I5D
dffi '
rfc
CI
Jj|_ rv n "El
_ *-•' 11 LI
U B

accumulation

A A A A
A A A - 	 ^"^ 	 • — • A.
A A Zk ^
A A



0
0
3 3 U U 0
®
't' •' /ii^ tfflfe
p *^


..., 	 H — B- -rm— Tl — IB- r— i M r-i Lil . r— i. ™ ^"^
[ ^ "• "• U ^\-M ^f -Q LJ [J — "— ' QJ-
Affpr 1500 mil PS •- ^>-

Symbol Key
HC CO NOx
O A F) ~ no device
0 A B ~ Mark XI
3 A H - Mark II "
— mean valu


A :

A A A A ^

A

O
v./
* • 0 3
0 3
	 !••
n
LJi
• • n
fl
— - After valve • %-
replacement

dry"
a










(U
in
B
n)
M
60

2^
0)
ai
-H
X
O
a»
1 w>
o
4-1
0
                                                                            Ln

-------
                           59
                      fable  3
                 Highway Cycle  Result*
  'Mass emissions, grains per mile  (^r«m per klloawter)
Fuel  economy, miles pei  gnllon (llCtfra per 100 kilometer)
Teat
conf Icurat Ion \\C
Before ntle.igt. nccumul.it ion
Mark 11 0.91
0.88
0.88
Mark 11 "dry" ' 0.90
0.91
0.90
no d"vlco ' 0.88
0.88
0.88
Mark II 0.75
0.86
After 1500 miles
Mark II 0.89
0.87
0.92
0.91
Mark :i "dry" 0.89
0.96
1.00
no device 0.93
1.00
1.02
! . 03
- - 1.01
*.ft*r valve r?D : -ice~i'".t
Mar'.- :'. 0.81
0.88
0.36
0.75
0.83
0.90
.•>.• dr. irt O.R9
0.93
M.irV : 1 ".|r /" 0.88
0.88


(0.57)
(0.55)
(0.55)
(0.56)
(0.57)
(0.56)
(0.55)
(0.55)
(0.55)
(0.47)'
(0.53)

(0.55)
(0.54)
(0.57)
(0.57)
(0.55)
(0.60)
(0.62)
(O.S8)
(0.62)
(0.63)
(0.64) -
f f . ~ 'j }

(0.50)
(0.55)
(0.22)
)
(I).5K)
(0.55)
(0.55)
CO

8.97
8.40
9.16
8.10
8.12
8.46
8.30
8.31
3.0:
5.84
7.55

9.66
7.88
8.60
8.'75
7.78
9.62
10.10
7.15
8.30
8.66
10.18
3.55

9.10
8.01
7.31
7.70
7.92
8.89
7.97
9.07
8.31
7.90

-
(5.57)
(5.22)
(5.69)
(5.03)
(5.05)
(5.26)
(5.16)
(5.16)
(4.93)
(3.63)
(4.69)

(6.00)
(4.90)
(5.34)
(5.44)
(4.84)
(5.98)
(6.28)
(4.44)
(5.16)
(5.38)
(6".33)
( - 30 )

(5.66)
(4.9S)
(4.54)
(4.79)
(4.92)
(i.51>
(4.T.)
(5.VO
(5.16)
(4.91)
CO.
—~f
207
205
210
211
210
210
210
206
206
222
221

213
223
227
217
222
222
222
204
224
216
225
22C

236
211
185
?26
205
208
207
207
216
215


(129)
(127)
(131)
(131)
(131)
(131)
(131)
(128)
(128)
(138)
(137)

(132)
(139)
(1*1)
(135)
(138)
(138)
(138)
(127)
(139)
(134)
(140)
(131: >

(147)
(131)
(115)
(140)
(127)
(129)
(179)
(I2'i)
(J34)
(134)
NO*

1.55
3.32
3.37
3.33
3.32
3.<0
3.U
3. '56
3. 38
3. H6)
3:V7

3..12
3.l>6
3.li4
3.112
3.W
3- '.6
3.:!5
3.06
3.i8
3.J4
3.55
••. ,5

3.07
3.04
2.45
3.40
2,94
2.9 .
3. Yj
2.K'j
3.51
3. 56


(2.21)
(2.06)
(2.09)
(2.07)
(2.06)
(2.11)
(2.12)
(2.09)
(2.10)
(2.40)
(2.34)

(2.06)
(2.27)
(2.26)
(2.06)
(2.14)
(2.15)
(.2.02)
(1.90)
(2.10)
(1.8?)
(2.21)
U.2-.1
.' ~ "• 1 '

(1.91)
(1.89;
(1.52)
(2.11)
(1.83)
(J.HO
(7.21)
(1.77)
(2.18)
(2.21)
Fuel t

39.6
40.1
39.1
39.2
39.3
39.2
39.3
39.9
40.0
37.9
37.7

38.4
37.2
36.5
38.0
37.4
37.0
36.8
40.6
36.9
38.2
36.4
37.2

35.1
39.2
44.8
V: • 9
40.3
39.4
31.9
VI . '.
38.2
38. 5
iconomy

(5.94)
(5.87)
(6.02)
(6.00)
(5.99)
(6.00) '
(5.99)
(5.90)
(5.88)
(6.21)
(6.24)

(6.13)
(6.33)
(6.45)
(6.19)
(6.29)
(t.36)
(6.39)
(5.80)
(6.38)
(6.16)
(6.46)
(6.33)
1 6 . . : '

(6.70)
(6.00)
(5.251
(6.38)
(5.84)
(5.97)
(5.91)
(1.V7)
(6.16)
(6.11)
Temp.

68.0
63.0
68.0
65.5
66.0
66.0
68.0
65.0
6f 0
65 5
69.0

70.5
72.0
66.5
65.0
70.5
6S.O
71.0
69.0
71.0
73.5
7C.O
7'. . 0
? ; . 0

77.0
?: .0
. 71.0
7!/ . 0
69.0
h7.5
70.0
hV . "i
74.0
74.0
Rel.
hum.

76
61
61
64
52
58
55
52
58
45
55

42
44
51
52
47
53
53
47
46
43 .
46
'-'>

56
49
1.6
'.n
51
j j
76
48
33
31
B.I T 0 . P ,

2.;. 57
2... SO
2.1.43
21.46
2S.47
2i.46
:s.«e
:,.4s
:-. .44
; '.34
; ..83

: -.91
29.09
29.01
28.84
29.16
28.93
:?.99
:J.IB
:s.9'.
23.70
28.75
? r . ~ 5

29.12.
25.07
21. Ot.
.'9.21
29.13
2V.03
7V.08
.'is. 87
29.05
29.05

-------
                                          61



                                        Table A

                             "75 FTP Fuel Economy Statistics
                                                                        Significantly
Test Sample
configuration
size
Mean
mp
•B
Before mileage
accumulation
'no device
Mark
Mark
After

II
II "dry"
2000 miles

no device
Mark
Mark
II
II "dry"
2
3
2


2
3
2
25.
2A.
25.


25.
25.
25.
3
9
8


8
8
9
Standard dev.
mpg

+0.3
+0.3
+0.1
- , , ,

+0.1
+0.7
+0.0
%

+1.
+1.
+0.
' *• •
+0.
+2.
+0.
Percent
different at
improvement t 90%

1
3
3

3
6
0

-
-1.
+2.

+2.
+2.
+2.


6
0

0
0
A

-
+1.21
-1.38

-1.38
-1.52
-1.66
confidence

-
No
No

No
No
No
All percent improvement and t tests conducted with no device before mileage
accumulation used as the base sample.   The t tests were calculated using
an overall standard deviation of +0.36 mpg for the '75 FTP fuel economy.
                                        Table 5

                          Highway  Cycle  Fuel  Economy  Statistics
                                                                          Significantly
Test
configuration
Before mileage
acr.uzulat ion
:.„ o = vi;i
Mark II
Mark II "dry"
After 2000 miles
no device
Mark II
Mark II "dry"
Sair.ple Mean Standard dev. Percent 4 d
size mpg inp£
3 31.7 -.0.,;
5 38.5 +1.0
3 39.2 +0.1
2 39.6 +0.4
3 39.6 +0.6
2 38. A +0.2
ifferent at
% Improvement t 90% confidence
+ 1.0
+2.7 -2.1 +1.72
+0.1 -1.3 +0.96
+0.9 -0.3 +0.17
+1.5 -0.3 +0.19
+0.6 -3.3 +2.23

No
No
No
No
No
 All percent improvement and t tests conducted with no device before mileage
 accumulation used as the base sample.  The t tests were calculated using an
 overall standard deviation of +0.6A tupg for the Highway Cycle fuel economy.

-------
                                   63
     Table 7 gives the levels of change that were necessary to be con-
sidered significantly different at 90% confidence with the observed test
variability and different sample sizes.  This shows that a sample size
of 7 is required to be able to detect with 90% confidence a difference
equal to the standard deviation.  Sample sizes of this order can be
obtained in this analysis if all the before mileage accumulation tests
are grouped and compared to all the after 2000 miles tests.  This grouping
should reveal any overall shifts in emissions or fuel economy with
mileage accumulation and thus reveal any long term benefit of the Mark
II.  Table 8 shows the results of this grouping for the emissions over
the '75 FTP and for the fuel economies over the '75 FTP and HFET.  Under
the column titled "Comparative Statistics" are given the percent change
in the group means, the t test score and the resolution of the same t
test null hypothesis as used in Tables 4, 5, and 6.

     The CO and NOx emissions showed reductions of 7% and 8% respec-
tively but just missed being significantly different from test-to-test
variability.  The  '75 FTP fuel economy improvement of 2% was found
significantly different.  From this there appeared to be a slight but
real improvement: in the 75 FTP fuel economy after mileage accumulation
with the Mark II.  There was no corresponding improvement in the HFET
fuel economy.

     Any fuel economy benefits that would rusult from the alteration of
the combustion chamber deposit, would be expected to be reflected in
both the 75 FTP and HFET.  Thus it was difficult to envision a long term
effect of the Mark II that would tend to improve only the low speed
stop-and-go type driving fuel economy.

     Table 9 shows the combined city/highway fuel economy of the test
vehicle in the different configurations  tested.  Also shown is the fuel
consumed and its cost over a period of one year of average driving,
assuming the annual mileage of 10,000 miles and gasoline cost of $.60/
gallon".  The Mark  II after mileage accumulation showed a savings of
S2.58 over the no-device configuration before mileage accumulation.
The price of th- Mark II with Vapor Jet  is listed at $47.90.  The
owner's manual recommends refilling the  Mark II with Econo Mix  ($1.95
for a 15 oz. can)  every 90 days, yielding an annual operating expense of
$7.80.  Thus, at least for the  test vehicle the Mark II does not appear
economically justifiable.

-------
                                   65
                                Table 9
Configuration

Before mileage
accumulation

no device
Mark II
Mark II "dry"
After 2000 miles

no device
Mark II
Mark II "dry"
                      Composite
                    fuel economy
30.2
29.7"
30.4
30.6
30.6
30.3
                  Gasoline used
                    per year
                     gallons
                                                       **
331.1
336.7
328.9
326.8
326.8
330.0
                Gasoline
                cost  per
                   year
                                                                      ***
$198.66
$202.02
$194.34
$196.08
$196.08
$198.00
     Performance oj: the vehicle was not spe.cifically examined, but the
vehicle was unable to maintain the hard acceleration occurring from 180
to 200 seconds into the transient cycle of the '75 FTP.  Figure 6 shows
this section of the driving cycle, with the; cross hatched area represen-
ting the difference between the prescribed speed time trace  (upper
curve) and the vehicle's actual speed time trace.  The "WOT" on the
trace was written by the driver indicating that the throttle was wide
open.  Had any power improvements occurred, the vehicle would have been
better able to follow the prescribed trace and the cross hatched area
would have been smaller.  Since no noticeable changes in this area were
produced by any of the configurations tested, it was concluded that no
r.criceable changes in vehicle performance occurred.
      Composite  fuel  economy
                                  .55
                            .45
                               '75  FTP  F.E.
                         Highway F.E.
 **
     Annual mileage  10,000 miles
 ***
      Gasoline  cost  of  $.60/gallon

-------
                                   67
     The test results show that all configurations tested yielded the
same emissions and fuel economy within test-to-test variability.   By
combining all tests before mileage accumulation and comparing them .to
all the after-2000 mile tests, a significant 2% increase in '75 FTP fuel
economy was observed with mileage accumulation.  There was not a cor-
responding increase in HFET fuel economy.  Throughout the testing
sequence no improvements in vehicle performance were observed.

     Based on the results from the test car, the operating expenses of
the Mark II exceeded the savings in fuel by a factor of three.  It is
the conclusion of the analysis that the purchase price and operating
expenses of the Mark II do not appear to be justified by the insignifi-
cant changes in emission levels and minor fuel economy improvement
produced by the Mark II.

-------
                                        69
                              Appendix I

            Preliminary analysis of Mark II Vapor Injector
     The purpose of this preliminary analysis is to determine the approxi-
mate concentration of the various vapors in the carbureted air fuel
mixture, and to compare them to concentrations, reported in the literature,
known to produce measurable effects.

     Mark II Econo Mix fluid is 65% menhanol, 34% acetone and 1% propylene
glycol by volume.  This is mixed one PCrt to two parts water by volume.
As only the vapors of this mixture are used and the vapor pressure of
propylene glycol is low "(less" than '1 ran of Hg at 100 F), we" will not
include it in our analysis.

     Water vapor is normally added to i.ir-fuel mixtures because it is
present in the air.  The effects of increasing humidity are fairly well
known.  It lowers the octane requiremert of the engine, i.e. it acts as
a knock suppressor.  Potter et al  fourd that at: 70 F a change in
relative humidity from 30 to 60 percent decreased the required motor
octane number (MON) of the fuel for an automobile engine from 88 to 86.
Ingamello, Stone, Gerber and Ungelman  found studying eight automobiles
that the effects of humidity changes on required octane number was
linear with the equation:

          A O.N. = - K AH (grains/lb absolute humidity)

K was observed to vary from 0.04 to 0.09 for the cars tested with an
average of 0.045.  This is in  good agreement wii:h Potter, yielding a 1.4
O.N. decrease versus the 2 from Potter for the !)0% change in relative
humidity at 70°F.

     As a diluent, water vapor also decreases  the charge density and
indicated thermal efficiency.  Slight  power improvement is possible with
increasing humidity if the engine was  previously spark limited and can
take advantage of the increased octane number  by increasing spark advance
.'nd/or  increasing charge density  (opening  the  throttle more for a
rv.-.r^a:. iy aspirated engina) .
                                    9
     Nichols, El-Messiri and Newhall   investigated the effects of inlet
manifold water injection on oxides of  nitrogen (^missions.  They found
that at air-fuel ratios near  stoichiometry, 30 '.:o 50 percent reduction
of nitric oxide  emissions were observed with a water to fuel weight
ratio (W/F) of 0.50.  The effects of water injection on percent reduction
of NOx appeared  linear in the  range of W/F = 0 - 0.5.  The effectiveness
of water in this regard was attributed primarily to its high latent heat
of vaporization  resulting in  lower peak combustion temperatures.

     Obert    investigated injections of liquid water and water-alcohol
mixtures into the intake manifold as a means of knock  suppression.
While effective, it required  large  amounts of  water, around  50%  of  the
fuel volume.  This  technique  has  been  used for airplane engines  during
take-off.  Much  of  the effectiveness of  this method has been  attributed
by Obert to  the  high  latent  heat  of  vaporization of  the  liquids.

-------
                                   71
we will use an air flow of 1.4 cubic feet per hour, reservoir temperature
of 100 F and an absolute pressure in the bottle of 20 in. Hg in our
calculations below.

     Calculation of weight of air, water, methanol and acetone delivered
per hour by the Mark II:

Assumptions

     1.  Air entering bottle is at 80°F and at 50% relative humidity.

     2.  Fluid mixture obeys Raoult's Law, i.e. each component's equili-
brium vapor pressure above the liquid is equal to the vapor pressure of
the pure-component-'s. equilibrium vapor-pressure at that temperature
times the mole fraction of that component in the liquid mixture.

     3.  The vapor-liquid concentrations are in equilibrium after
bubbling.

     Given the Econo Mix composition of 65% methanol, 34% acetone and 1%
propylene glycol, mixed with 2 parts water; the resulting mixture per
litre is:

          water             667 ml
          methanol          217 ml
          acetone           113 ml
          propylene glycol    3 ml

                           1000 ml
                                               Moles/litre    Mole fraction
                                              pure  component     in mixture
Component
water
methanol
acetone
-roovltne glycol
Density
g/litre
1.00
0.79
0.79
1.04
Molec. Wt.
18.0
32.0
58.1
76.1
                                                  55.6
                                                  24.7
                                                  13.6
                                                 .842
                                                 .122
                                                 .035
                                                 .001
 Absolute  pressure in bottle is  20 in.  Hg  cr  510  nan Hg.
 Component

 water
 methanol
 acetone
 propylene  glycol
 air
Mole fraction
  in liquid
Vapor pressure of
 pure component
at 100°F in mm Hg
Partial pressure
 above mixture
Mole fraction
in air vapor
   mixture
.842
.122
.035
.001
	
49
230
380
1
— _
43.3
28.1
13.5
0.0
425.
.085
.055
.026
.000
.834
 Total
                                       510
                                         1.000

-------
                                   73
     Thus we see that considering the vapor components contributed by
the Mark II as part of the fuel, they represent a very small fraction:
only 0.30% on the Highway test, 0.37% on the '75 FTP and 0.80% at idle.
This checks well with the observed consumption of 550 ml of reservoir
fluid during the accumulation of 1600 miles.  With a composite fuel
economy of 30.A mpg, 52 gallons or 200 litres of gasoline were used
yielding a 0.28% by volume addition of the reservoir fluid.

     Water addition due to the Mark II amounted to at most 0.22% and of
that, slightly" over 50% was the original humidity of the air entering
the Mark II.  Assuming an overall stoichiometric air fuel ratio, this
amounts to a 1.4  grains of water addition per pound of incoming air.
This is equivalent to a humidity change of a little less than one relative
humidity point at 80 F.  Using Ingamells et al  equation for the effect
of humidity on octane requirement we can expect a decrease of 0.06 O.N.
due to the water contributed by the Mark II.  This small change in O.N.
'is riot measurable. "  Using the linear relationshipgOf water addition to
percent reduction of NOx observed by Nichols et al , we would expect a
0.2 to 0.3 percent reduction in NOx emissions due to the water additions
of the Mark II if this water were in a liquid state when it entered the
intake manifold.  Since the Mark II adds only water vapor the benefits
of the high latent heat of vaporization are lost.  Thus the actual
effect would be smaller than the 0.2 to 0.3 percent reduction above,
which is already way below our test-to-test- variability.  Most important
of all however is the fact that normal day-to-day weather variations
produce humidity changes that dwarf those produced by the Mark II.

     The maximum methanol addition of 0.32 volume percent  is an order  of
magnitude  smaller than reported additions of 5% that produced a  .1  to
1.5 octane number change.  Assuming that the effects of methanol  addition
to gasoline are linear with the percentage of volume addition, we can  .. „
estimate the emissions changes over the  '75 FTP from the Wigg and Lunt
data.  That is 3. 15% by volume addition of methanol to  gasoline resulted
in a 36% increase in HC, a 50% decrease in CO, and a 24% decrease in
NOx.  Thus we might expect a 0.8%  increase  in HC, a 1.1% decrease in  CO,
and a 0.5% decrease in NOx.  Again with th«: Mark  II the  effect  of the
high latent heat of vaporization of methanol  is lost  so  the  effect  on
NOx would  be  less.  These  small changes aro not measurable  on  the '75
FTP because of  the  test-to-test variability.  Methanol  additions  of
0.25."! are. routinely added  tc production vititer gasolines by  sctr'e  oil
companies"1"  to  prevent  ice crystal  formation  in the fuel.   This  small
addition is not known  to have  any measurable  effect on  any engine
variable.
 A                               1.00 density H20        Ib.  gasoline
   .0022 vol.  fraction H20 x .739 density o£ gasoline *  15  lb.  air
 7000 grains/lb.  = 1.4 grains H-O/lb. air.

-------
     Since the fuel economies of this report are calculated by the
carbon balance method the carbon added by the Mark II is counted.  In
the calculation, a carbon-to-hydrogen ratio and a density typical of
gasoline are used.  This creates an error if a gasoline is used that is
not typical.

     For the '75 FTP we can determine the error in the calculated fuel
economy which resulted when 0.28% of the fuel was not typical gasoline
but was acetone and methanol.
               1                    2                          3
            Density          (Grams of Carbon)              Volume
Fuel     grams/gal-lon     (Gram molec. wt. of fuel)  1x2  fraction  1x2x3

Gasoline     2798
Methanol     2990
Acetone      2990

                                                      Total            2420

Percent error =  (1 - 0.,,, ) x 100 = 0.12%
.866
.375
.620
2423
1120
1850
.9972
.0015
.0013
2416
1.7
2.4
That is the calculated fuel economy is 0.13% higher than actuality.  At
25.0 mpg this error amounts to  .030 mpg, or beyond the significance to
which we report fuel economy.

     If the methanol and  acetone were not considered as fuel during the
'75 FTP, the calculated fuel  economy would be  ,..   2416 N   .. nri _  _ .,_„
                                                  ~ 2423   X     ~   •*•*''
higher than actuality.

     For 25.0 mpg  this amounts  to  .072 mpg.  This then is the magnitude
of change we would expect by  ignoring the iiuel content of the Mark II
vapors, measuring  only the volume  of gasoline  consumed and dividing it
into the miles  traveled,  as  the typical motorist  might do.  Even  though
this is technically  incorrect it still represents a very minor  change  in
fuel economy.

     Not discussed above  is  the possible  long  term effects of  the  device
such as altered combustion chamber deposit quality or quantity.   In
evaluating aftermarket devices, TAEB is not. particularly concerned with
these changes unless  they affect the emissions,  fuel economy,  or  per-
formance of the vehicle.

-------
                                                                      Attachment I
                                       77                               1 of 10         I
                                                                                        f
                            SET  1808 01 C579                                           j
                                                                                        i
                                                                                        F
                            TECHNICAL REPORT                                            £
                                   ON                                                   !;
                                                                                        ?
                            FUEL ECONOMY TEST                                           {
                                   FOR                                                  ['
                      V-70 SUPER VAPOR POWER DEVICE                                     ''
                              Prepared For:

                             Mr. Elwood Ross
                         Product Promotions Inc.
                         Route  3, P. 0. Box 516
                          Roanoke, Texas   76262
                               Kay  3,
                   SCOTT  ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY,  INC.
                   Plumsteadville,  Pennsylvania  189A9
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.

-------
                                         78

SET  1808 01 0579

                             1 . 0  INTRODUCTION
          On April 18, 1979, Scott Environmental Technology, Inc. performed
two preliminary highway fuel economy tests under contract to Product Pro-
motions Inc. (Sponsor).  The tests were performed on a late model automobile
to determine the fuel saving and pollutant reducing capabilities of "The
V-70 Super Vapor Power" device.  These preliminary tests were also performed
to determine the feasibility of further testing.
          The test procedure used was that developed by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) which simulates non-urban (open highway) driving
conditions.  The vehicle was tested first in the stock condition to provide
"baseline" exhaust emission and fuel economy data.  The vehicle was then
retested for exhaust emissions and. fuel economy after the device was installed
for a direct comparison between the results of the two tests.  The remaining
sections of this report describe the test vehicle, device, test procedures
and the results obtained.

                       2.0  TEST VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
          The fuel economy tests were performed on a 1978 Chevrolet Monte
Carlo (VIN:  1Z37A8B451044) equipped with a 305 cubic inch V-8 engine  and
2 barrel carbureizor, automatic transmission and air conditioning.  It  was
also equipped with the standard General Motors emission control equipment.
Mileage of the vehicle prior to the baseline test vas 28772.6.

                         ".0  INSCRIPTION OF D.-.VICE


                   or ' s  ovi.ce,  call*..."!  'T:^-.
cf a "Le:-:an Plastic Reservoir" on which  is mounted a metal  plate  cover.   This
cover has incorporated in it, a  "hose and check valve connection",  a  "metering
device" and a "two stage aerator".  Also included with  this device  are two
one-quart containers of a liquid containing methe^nol  (percentage  of ir.ethanol
unknown by Scott), one of which  is poured into the reservoir along  with two
quarts of distilled water.
 Scott Environmental Technology Inc.

-------
                                        79
SET  1808 01 0579.

          A vacuum source is required for  the operation  of  this  device.   The
source of vacuum recommended by the manufacturer  is  the  primary  intake mani-
fold vacuum port that is normally connected  to  the positive crankcase venti-
lation (PCV) valve with a flexible hose.   This  hose  was  severed  at  its mid-
point and two of the three connection points of the  plastic tee  (supplied
with the device) was connected to each of  the severed  ends  of  the hose.
Using this vacuum source, air is drawn in  through the  "metering  device",
creating a bubbling or aeration action in  the liquid solution  contained  in
the reservoir by the "two-stage aerator".
          The fluid mixture -in the reservoir, called "V-70  Vapor Fuel
Additive,  is a specially prepared formula of oxygen-bearing petroleum
distillates which when added with water  produces  the vapor" for  this system
of vapor injection.

                    4.0  DESCRIPTION OF  TEST PROCEDURES
          The procedure utilized for the fuel economy  tests was  the 1976
Federal "Highway Fuel Economy Test"  (HFET).  Thin test procedure (Figure 1.0)
was developed by the EPA specifically to assess fuel economy of  a vehicle
during non-urban driving.  The HFET was  constructed  from actual  speed-versus-
time traces generated by an  instrumented test vehicle  driven over,  and  averaged
from, a variety of non-urban roads v;hich preserves  the non-steady-state
characteristics of real-world driving.   The  average  speed during the test is
48.2 tr.ph and  the test length is  10.2 miles approximating average non-urban
r.rip Ir-nprh.  The testing was performed  on Scrtts chassis dynar-.-.Tneter T'here,
. .:::. .4!-. t'r-;'= csi of  !I •.-.'hc«? L: ^r.d a \.-JC.r::: tr.kc, the  icri;^ tV:r i',-~  vehicle
would actually encounter on  the  road are reproduced.  The vshicle's exhaust
is collected, diluted and thoroughly mixed viih filtered background nir, nnd
a known constant volume flow is  obtained by  the use  of a positive displacement
pump.  This procedure is known as  Constant volume Sampling (CVS).   The
constant volume sampler is used  to  collect the  exhaust emissions during  the
test.  A portion of  the exhaust  gas mixture  is  collected in Tcdlar bags  for
 Scott Environmental Technotosy Inc

-------
  8
  8
U/
  o
LJ
UJ
'•
   II
  •L
                                                                      EPA Highway Cycle
                                                                      (used  in Highway Fuel  Economy  Test)
                                                                                                     00
                                                                                                     o
           100.00    300.00
300.00    103.00
    St'CONOS
SCO.00    800.00    700.00    600.CO
                                          FIGURE  1   OFFICIAL FEDERAL  TEST CYCLE

-------
                                             81

    SET  1808 01 0579

    subsequent analysis.  After the sample has been collected,  it  is  transferred
    to analyzers where the concentrations of hydrocarbons  (HC),  carbon  monoxide
    (CO), carbon dioxide (C07) and oxides of nitrogen  (NOX)  in  the sample bag
    are determined.  The analyzers provided for  the determination  of  HC concen-
    trations by flame ionization detector (FID), CO and C02  concentrations by
    non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) analysis, and NOX concentrations by  chemi-
    luiainescence (CL) analysis.
              The initial or baseline test was performed with the  vehicle in
    its normal, or stock configuration.  An inertia weiight of 3500 pounds was
    selected on the chassis dynamometer, the vehicle accelerated up to, and
    stabilized at, 50 tnph and the road load adjusted to the  EPA specified setting
    of 12.3.  The vehicle was decelerated to 0 mph  (idle)  and the  HFET  was per-
    formed.   The vehicle was operated over two  (2) complete  cycles.  The first
    cycle being only a warm-up for the second cycle which  is used  for the exhaust
    measurements.
              After completion of the baseline  test, Scott personnel  installed
    the Sponsor's device following the instructions supplied with  it.  No
    adjustments were made to the engine or emission control  systems other than
    installing the tee fitting in the PCV valve  vacuum line.
              The vehicle was tested the second  tine with  the device  installed
    following the same procedures as. during the  baseline  test.

                                 5.0  CALCULATIONS
              The conceritrririorr-; of HC, CO, CO^  in-3: >'0V nr-i  obtJijnc-!  bv •':':<:•-
    ::•-: ting t:.r : ^ckgi'ciir.c; 1-:. v:: 1 i ci die g £.= -'.:;•  ;Tr:::.-. ch-.v. r. ;;u.\-r^ :'-  v::-: ^a~::. ]•:
    b-jgs.  I fie ri?uJta::t: values are referred to  at.  corrected concentrations.  The
    grans per mile figures are obtained from calculations  using the corrected
    concentrations and the total volume flew during each  of  the three test phases
    to arrive at & mass value for each pollutant (HC,  CO,  C02 and  N0y)•  Once the
    mass emissions for each test phase are known, the  emissions in grams per mile
    are calculated using the following formula:
Jy Scot t Environmental Technotexjy Inc

-------
                                           82

    SET  1808 01 0579

              Yvm - <°'43 Yct + °'57Yht + Ys> * 7'5
    where
              Y   = weighted mass emissions of each pollutant, i.e. HC,  CO  or
                    NOX in grams per vehicle mile.
              Y   ™ mass emissions as calculated from  the "transient"  phase of
                    the cold start test, in grams pe;r  test phase.
              Y^t - mass emissions as calculated from  the "transient"  phase of
                    the hot start test, in grams per test phase.
              Ys  • mass emissions as calculated from  the "stabilized" phase
                    of the cold start test, in grams per test phase.
    The cold start and hot start bags are weighted 0.43 and  0.57 respectively.
              Detailed explanations of the calculations can  be found  in the
    Federal Register.

                                   6.0  SUMMARY
              Exhaust emission concentrations as collected in the  integrated bag
    samples, were calculated using appropriate instrument calibration factors.
    This "rav" concentration data was then converted to grams of pollutant  per
    test mile (based on a 10.242 mile test).  This data, including all measured
    parameters used in the mass emission computation:;  for the HFET,  is included
    in Tables 1.0 and 2.0.
              Fuel economy for each test was  calculated using the  procedure cut-
    l:'r.od earlier in Federal f^^is'.er "clur.io  41. :.'-.::..'-ar 21':,, Part  6'A0 ''F^-i'l r'.-L••--.:
    or Motor Vehicles", November 10, 1976.  The  urban  fuel consumption rates for
    each test are included at  the bottom of Tables 1.0 and 2.0.
              The data presented in Table 3.0 summarizes the vehicle exhaust
    emission and fuel economy  tests performed.   The  exhaust  emissions are pre-
    sented  in grams per mile  (GPM) for total  hydrocarbon  (HC),  carbon monoxide
    (CO) and oxides of nitrogen  (NO ).  Fuel  economy measurements  are shown in
                                   X
    miles per gallon  (MPG).
<$>
Scott Environmental Technology Inc.

-------
                                           33
SET  1803 01 0579
                              7.0  DISCUSSION
          The data in Summary Table 3.0 show that the Sponsor's "V-70 Super
Power" device improved the fuel economy of the vehicle for the highway
economy test by 7.8% but it also increased the hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide emissions by 3.6% and 22.8% respectively as compared to the base- —
line test.
          The tests described in this report indicate that the device pro-
duced improved fuel economy from the test vehicle.  However, great care   	
must be taken in interpreting results obtained from any tests involving a
single vehicle.  The data cannot be extrapolated to estimate the effects
of the device on other vehicles or on the overall vehicle population.  Valid
conclusions regarding the general effectiveness of this device cannot be
rendered until additional tests on representative vehicles are performed.
           To fully determine the efficiency of this device, Scott recom-
mends further tests consisting of at least: •
           1.  Five FTP's and HFET's before and after device installation
               on the same automobile.

or         2.  Accumulate mileage on original test :ar to determine  if
               device shows improvement with time.

or         3.  Item number 2 of the SET Proposal No. 0112-03-2179-15 of
               April 6, 1979.

.•jr         4.  All of t:.c rbove.
Scott Environmental Technology !nc

-------
   B \N K
                                           84
             Scott Environmental Technology Inc
             PLUMSTEADVILLE, PA. 18949    PHONE: 215-766-8861    TWX: 510-665-9344
 Vehicle    1978 Monte Carlo
IviN
1
License
j Trans.
Carb.
i Engine
"
'Analyst
1Z3748B451044
- PA 3fcO-400
Automatic
' ! bbls.
V-8 CID
D. Gulick



2
305

                                      TABLE 1.0
                                HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
                             EXHAUST EMISSION DATA SHEET
                                  Odometer:
                                  Finish    28795.9
                                  Start _
                                  Miles
                                            28777.3
                                  Idle rpm	'500  (D)
                                  BIT       4CBTDC
                                  Driver
                                           S. Stranlck
                                                            Date
                                            4/18/79
                                                            Project
                                                            Run
                                                                      1808-01
                                                            Device   Baseline
                                                            Dyn. Load 12.3 RHP  @  50 MPH
                                                            Dyn. Inertia    3500//
                                                            Calculator   D. Gulick
1 Dry Bulb Temp., F 	
 Vet Bulb Temp., F 	
JGr. Water/Lb. Dry Air
 (K) Factor 	
I (T) Sample Temp., R _
j
        COMPONENT
'ppa HC  dil.
 ppa KC  Air
 -~o r!C  e::h.
 •j,pr  CO exh.
j2 C02 exh.
i
'ppn  NO	
     N0
i ppo NOX
' (pp= NO ) (K)
i       x
                  96.33
                   1037
                   1.81
                  72.65
                  38.60
                  24.114
	73
	52
	24^
 0.8066
    576
                                            Barometric Press.,  urn Hg
                                            CVS Pump Press.,  mm Hg _
                                            (P) Sample Press.,  mn Hg
                                            (V) CVS Pump Disp., CFR _
                                            (N) CVS Pump Revolutions
                             DILUTE EXHAUST MEASUREMENTS
                                   PVN/TM               FACTOR
                              531.42211
                              511.42211
                              531.42211
                               531.42211
                                                     11.34S r. 10
                                                     22. ^05 -< 1.0_
                                                     36.022 x 10
                                                              -D
                                                               -5
                             37.628 x 10
                                                               -6
                                                                      748.07
                                                                      15.24
                                                                      732.83
                                                                      0.3107
                                                                      13769
                                                                       GRAMS/MILE
                                              346.49
1.17
               CO,
               NO
                       MADISON HEIGHTS. MICHIGAN  /  SAN BERNARDINO, CALlFORNiA

-------
J.-3
                                85
Scott Environmental Technology Inc
PLUMSTEADVILLE. PA. 18949   PHONE: 215-766-8861    TWX: 510-665-9344
  1978 Chevrolet
                           TABLE 2.0

                      HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY

                   EXHAUST EMISSION DATA SHEET
Vehicle Monte Carl°
VIN 1Z3743B451044
License PA 3H°-400
Trans. Automatic
Carb. 1 . bbls.
Engine CID
Analyst D- Gulick
Dry Bulb Temp. , F
Jet Bulb Temp. , F
^r. Water /Lb. Dry Air
!K) Factor
'T) Sample Temp. , R
COMPONENT
~3 HC dil. 99.93
" i:C Air 5.67
;•:. ;'.C •::•::-., -^ • 31
?m CO exh. 1276
CO? exh. 1.65
pa NO
•>m NO,
pm 1JOV 68.69
jpa KO^) (K) 55.41
?G 25.99
Odometer: Date
Finish 28816.4 Project
- start 28797.9 Run 2
4/18/79
1803-01

Miles ~ Device V-70- Vaporizer
2 ' Idle rpm 50° ^ Dyn. Load
12.3 RHP !? 50 MPH
305 BIT ^ BTDC D^. infertia 3500*
Driver s- Stranick Calculator
3 Barometric Press., nm Hg
52 CVS Pump Press., ran Hg
2/1 (P) Sample Press., ma HS
°'8066 . (V) CVS Pur:? Disp., CFR
:>78 CO C,TS Pu:;p Revolutions
DILUTE EXHAUST MEASUREMENTS
PVN/TM FACTOR
530.429--'. il.3.-'. x ]0"G
530.42944 22.905 x 10"6
530.42944 36.022 x 10"2
530.42944 37. 628 x 10~6

D. Gulick
748.07
15.24
732.83
0.3107
13791
GRAMS/MILE
0.5" HC
15.50 CO
315.27 CO.
- -- t.
1.11 NO

              MADISON HEIGHTS. MICHIGAN /  SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA

-------
                                           86


SET  180S 01 0579


                                 TABLE  3.0

             SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY FUEL ECONOMY TEST  RESULTS
   Test           Test           Fuel Economy      HC        CO       NOX
   No.            Type               (MPG)         (GFM)     (GPM)     (GPM)
                                                               •
    1      No device                 24.11         0.35      12.62     1.17
           (Baseline)
           Device              .      25.99         O.!i7     .15.50  ....1.11
           (V-70 Vapor Power)
     Percent Change                 +7.8%       +3.6%     +22.8%   -5.1%
 Scott Environmental Technology Inc

-------
                                                                 Attachment J
                                                                  lof3
             WAYLANu  BAPTIST   COLLEGE

                                                          Plainvievi Texas 79072

Depannent of Cheraisoy

                                                         March 24, 1972
    i-ir. Virgil A. Archer, President
    General Magnum., Inc. .
    265 Garden hall, Exchange Park
    ?. 0. Box 45440                             .
    Dallas, Texas  75245

    Dear Kr. Archeri

        Accompanying this  letter you will please find the results, /jiven in
    summary form, of my chemical analysis of the two Exhaust Emission Samples
    which were taken March  22.  These saaplcs were taken after the V-70 had
    been installed on the vehicle and represent the effect of such installation.

       .You will also find, by way of comparison, the results of namples, taken
    on February 20, prior to the installation of the V-70,  I believe that these
    results will show a considerable decrease in pollutants has been achieved as
    a result of the installation of the V-70.

        I certify  that all work was done by me.

        Thanking you for this opportunity to be of service, I am,

                                                      Ycurs very truly,
                                                  J ernes C.  Cox, Jr., Pn.D., LL.3,
                                                    Professor of Chemistry

-------
                                       be
Dr, Jathes.CT. Cox, Jr., Head, Department o:   >..enistry,  V/ayland  Baptist College

Education*  B. o. summa cum Iqude (Chem., H.ith), W. Ya. Wealeynn College, 1940
            M. S. (organic chemistry), University of Delaware, 1947
            Ph.D. (physical organic chemistry), Univeroity of Delaware,  1949
            LL.B. (honors), University of Maryland, 1955
            Advanced Studyt Washington College of Law, American University,
                           George Washington University

Research Fellowships! DuPont Fellow, 1946-1949
                      Carnegie Fellow, 1949-1951           '      . *
                      Texas Fellow, 1959-1964

Consultant! DuPont, Texaco, Continental Oil, Cities Service, Gulf States Utilities, -
           Anderson Chemical Co.

Lectureships*  Texas  Academy of Science Visiting Lecturer, 1961-196J
                National  Science  Foundation Lecturer,  1961, 196J

Professorshipsl  University  of  Delaware,  1946-1949
                 Wesleyan, 1949-1951  (Dept. Head)
                 Middle Tennessee State University,  summer, 1950 (Visiting Professor)
                 U.  S. Naval Academy,  1951-1955
                 Larnar University, 1955-1965 (and Research Director)
                 '.*••.•.* #:•*•. ty of BAf;hdr\d, IHA*,  1966-1967 (Visiting Professor)
                 Or.-u Roberta University,  1965-1968 (Dept. Head and Division Director
                 *ayland Baptist College,  1968-present (Dept.  Head)

 Research Experience!  DuPont, 1940-1945 (nylon synthesis, acids synthesis, analysis)
                 Anderson Chemical C., summer 1949  (water purification)
                 DuPont,  stunner 1946). (dyes)
                 DxiPont,  summer 1961 (elastomers)
                 Texaco,  summer 1962 (fuel additives)

 Ph.D. dissertation topici  Oxidation (combustion)

 Publications« more than  100 in field   Booksi six

 Abstractor, CHEM. ABSTRACTS, 1948-present, more-than 10,000 published abstracts
 Abatractor, ACTA CHB4ICA SCANDIKAVICA, 1952-1962

 Editor, THE  COiiDEHSER,  1957-1965

 Director, Gulf  States Project (water  pollution), 1957-1965
                                                              j
 Honorsi  Outstanding  Professor Award,  1962
          Piper Professor Award,  nominee 1970,  1971

 Listed  (Biocraphy)»   WHO'S WHO  IK SOUTH  AND SQUTHWkST,  LEADEHS  OF Al-lEHICAK SClisNCB,
         AMEHICAN MEW  OF SCIKj;CE,  DICTIONARY OF INTERNATIONAL  BIOGRAPHY, WOilLD  WHO'S
         WHO IN SCIENCE AND  COHHEHCE,  WORLD WHO'S 'WHO  IN FINANCE AND  INDUSTRY,  WHO'S
         WHO IN AMERICAN EDUCATION, WHO'S WHO IN AMERICAN COLLEGES  AND UNIVERSITIES,
         COMMUNITY LEADERS 0? AMERICA, WHO'S VUO IN METHODISM,  OUTSTANDING EDUCATORS
         0? AMERICA, others.

-------
                                    89                                3 °f 3
                                                March 24, 1972
                                                , Page 3
                     EXHAUST EMISSION TE£STS
COMPARED WITH SAMPLE 23 (1500) RPM,  IN NEUTRAL) WITHOUT V-70

Participates                        100 Micrograms per cubic meter
Hydrocarbons                      120     '"       "     "'    "
Oxides of Nitrogen                   60     '"       "     "     "
Sulfur Dioxide                      80     "       "     "     "
Carbon Monoxide                   120     "       "     "     "
'SAMPLE 25 "QS'OO RPM, IN NEUTRAL)  WITH V-70

Particulates                        50 Micrograms per cubic meter
Hydrocarbons                       60     ."        "     "     "
Oxides of Nitrogen                  3O     "        "     "     "
Sulfur Dioxide                      30     "        ".     "     "
Carbon Monoxide                    40     "        "     "     "
COMPARED WITH SAMPLE 24 (1000 RPM, IN DRIVE AND BRAKINGWITHOUT V-7

Particulates                        80 Micrograms per cubic meter
Hydrocarbons                       8O     "        "    "     "
Oxides of Nitrogen                  70     "        "
Sulfur Dioxide                      90     "        "    "     "
Carbon Monoxide                   140     "        "    "     "
 SAMPLE 25  (1000 RPM,  IN DRIVE AND BRAKING) WITH V-70

 Particulates                        50 Micrograms per cubic meter
 Hydrocarbons                      40      "        "    "     "
 Oxides of Nitrogen                  40      "        "    "     "
 Sulfur Dioxide                      40      "        "    "     "
 Carbon Monoxide                   50      "        "    "     "

-------
                                   90                            Attachment K


       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY

                      ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
Deceniber 22, 1980                                                 OFFICE OF
                                                            AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION

Mr. Richard L. Plock
12900 Preston Road
Suite 715, L. B. 4
Dallas, TX  75230

Dear Mr. Plock:

On December 26, 1979 we sent  you  a  suggested  test plan for obtaining data
from  an independent  laboratory  on  your  device,  the  "V-70  Vapor  Injec-
tor".   Since  we have  not  heard  from  you, we  have assumed  that  you are
withdrawing your request for an evaluation at the EPA laboratory.

Recently EPA reevaluated their policy  on  the  amount of data required from
an independent  laboratory  before an EPA  evaluation would  be considered.
Instead of  duplicate cold-start  tests on  three  vehicles as  required  in
the past  we  now require duplicate -hot-start  tests on  only  two vehicles.
I am  enclosing  a  description of  the new  test  policy along with an appli-
cation  format  in  case you  may  wish to reapply for an EPA  evaluation  of
your device.

We would  appreciate a  response  from  you  informing us of  the action you
plan to take on this matter.  If  you do not:  plan  to apply for EPA testing
we would like to close out our file on your device.
Sincerely,
              uj
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch

Enclo-sure

-------