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
------- |