EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-
EPA Evaluation of the Wickliff Polarizer 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 these 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 FTS 374-8299
by
John C. Shelton
June, 1981
Test and Evaluation Branch
Entission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
1
6560-2 6
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[40 CFR Part 610]
[FEL ]
FUEL ECONOMY RETROFIT DEVICES
Announcement of Fuel Economy Retrofit Device Evaluation
for "Wickliff Polarizer"
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Fuel Economy Retrofit Device Evaluation.
SUMMARY: This document announces the conclusions of the EPA evaluation
of the "Wickliff Polarizer" device under provisions of Section
511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act.
-------
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Section 511(b)(1) and Section 511(c) of the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2011(b))
requires that:
(b)(1) "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 whether 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 17 946].
-------
3
ORIGIN OF REQUEST FOR EVALUATION: On March 10, 1981, the EPA received a
request from Country Ford Sales, Inc. for evaluation of a fuel saving
device termed "Wickliff Polarizer". This Device is claimed to reduce
emissions and save fuel.
Availability of Evaluation Report: An evaluation has been made and the
results are described completely in a report entitled: "EPA Evaluation
of the Wickliff Polarizer Device Under Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act," report number EPA-AA-TEB-511-81-17
consisting of 38 pages including all attachments.
Copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical
Information Service by using the above report number. Address requests
to:
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
Phone: Federal Telecommunications System (FTS) 737-4650
Commercial 703-487-4650
Summary of Evaluation
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by the Device
manufacturer in his Application. No valid test data was submitted with
the application.
-------
4
Based on this information and EPA's experience with similar devices,
there is no technical basis to support any claims for an improvement in
fuel economy or reduction in exhaust emissions due to the "Wickliff
Polarizer".
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
-------
5
EPA Evaluation of the Wickliff Polarizer 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 supplied
by the Applicant and the resulting EPA analysis and conclusions.
1. Marketing Identification of the Device:
Wickliff Polarizer G-100 for gasoline engines
G-200 for diesel and propane engines
2. Inventor of the Device and Patents:
A. Inventor
Edgar Wickliff
RR #4, Box 159
Shelbyville, IN 46176
B. Patent
Patent pending number 06-174691. Applicant stated "Our patent
pending contains information that is a trade secret." "We feel it
would be detrimental to our business organization to make a
disclosure as you request in your application format, Section 3B."
3. Manufacturer of the Device:
Wickliff Polarizer, Inc.
1501 Miller Avenue
Shelbyville, IN 46176
4. Manufacturing Organization Principals:
Edgar Wickliff - President
Francis Jackson - Vice President
Ellen Wickliff - Secretary - Treasurer
5. Marketing Organization in U.S. making Application:
Country Ford Sales, Inc.
P.O. Box 850
Shelbyville, IN 46176
6. Applying Organization Principals:
Robert E. Wood - President
Dan Wood - Vice President
Mary Jo Wood - Treasurer
Rosemarie Beyer - Secretary
-------
6
7. Description of Device:
A. Purpose of the Device (as supplied by Applicant):
Reduce emissions and save fuel.
B. Theory of Operation (as supplied by Applicant):
"Fuel and air are subjected to several fields of force prior to
combustion. The net result is readily explainable thru a series
of proven physical responses to known and accepted theory of
internal combustion and observations."
C. Detailed Description of Construction (as supplied by Applicant):
See attached diagrams. The applicant stated "We feel it would be
detrimental to our business organization to make a disclosure as
you requested ..."
8. Applicability of the Device (as supplied by Applicant):
All gasoline and diesel powered vehicles.
9. Costs (as supplied by Applicant):
$199.95 for gasoline engines. (Attachment F)
10. Device Installation - Tools and Expertise Required (as supplied by
Applicant):
"The air bars are installed inside the air cleaner so the air will
pass over them before going into the carburetor. They are not to be
installed directly over the carburetor. The fuel polarizer should be
installed in the fuel line prior to any fuel pump and as close to the
engine as possible. Be sure to install fuel polarizer so that fuel
flows through polarizer in the proper direction."
"However, in V-8 engines, a carburetor adjustment is often required
to develop the proper mixture required to avoid "pools of fuel" and
obtain complete combustion."
11. Device Operation (as supplied by Applicant):
"See attached copy - 8B" (Attachment D).
12. Maintenance (claimed):
"Our device requires no maintenance."
13. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated) (claimed):
"We've lowered the emissions on every installation."
-------
7
14. Effects on Vehicle Safety (claimed):
"The only problem that might arise is if the fuel polarizer is not
installed properly or secured properly it could cause leakage in gas
line."
15. Test Results (Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy) (submitted by
Applicant):
The attached test results were performed on a 1977 Ford Thunderbird
at steady state points of 60 mph, 50 mph, and idle (see Attachment B).
16. Testing by EPA:
The applicant failed to supply valid test data, therefore the device
was not tested by EPA.
17. Analysis
A. Description of the Device:
The device is judged to be inadequately described. The applicant
stated "We feel that it would be detrimental to our business
organization to make a disclosure as you request in your
application format." A brief description is contained under
Section 10 Device installation of the application. (Attachment D).
B. Applicability of the Device:
The applicability of the device stated in the application covers
all gasoline and diesel vehicles.
C. Costs:
Wickliff Polarizer is advertised at $199.95 (Attachment F).
D. Device Installation - Tools and Expertise Required:
The applicant did not specifically address the tools required or
the expertise. It appears that mechanics tools and a skilled
mechanic would be required for installation.
E. Device Operation:
The instructions were imcomplete and no mention was made of any
operating instructions being required.
F. Device Maintenance:
The device requires no maintenance.
-------
8
G. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated):
The device is claimed to have lowered emissions on every
installation, but no data to support these claims were ever
submitted.
H. Effects on Vehicle Safety:
The only problem that might arise is if the fuel polarizer is
not installed properly or secured properly it could cause
leakage in the gas line.
I. Test Results Supplied by Applicant:
The applicant did not submit any test data in accordance with
the Federal Test Procedure or the Highway Fuel Economy Test.
The requirement for test data following these procedures is
stated in the application test policy documents that EPA sends
to potential applicants*. The only test data which were
submitted were results from dynamometer tests at steady state
conditions of 60 mph, 50 mph, and idle on one vehicle. These
results were inconclusive. The test data submitted by the
Applicant are attached (see Attachment B).
18. Conclusions
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by the
applicant in his application. Based on the available information and
EPA's previous experience with similar devices, there is no technical
basis to support any claims for an improvement in fuel economy or
reduction in exhaust emissions due to the "Wickliff Polarizer."
* From EPA 511 Application test policy documents:
Test Results (Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy):
Provide all test information which is available on the effects of the
device on vehicle emissions and fuel economy.
The Federal Test Procedure (40 CFR Part 86) is the only test which is
recognized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the
evaluation of vehicle emissions. The Federal Test Procedure and the
Highway Fuel Economy Test (40 CFR Part 600) are the only tests which
are normally recognized by the U.S. EPA for evaluating vehicle fuel
economy. Data which have been collected in accordance with other
standardized fuel economy measuring procedures (e.g. Society of
Automotive Engineers) are acceptable as supplemental data to the
Federal Test Procedure and Highway Fuel Economy Data will be used,
if provided, in the preliminary evaluation of the device. Data are
required from the test vehicle(s) in both baseline (all parameters
set to manufacturer's specifications) and modified forms (with device
installed).
-------
9
-List of Attachments
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachemnt D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Letter, EPA to Mr. Bob Wood of Country Ford,
August 21, 1980.
Letter, Mr. Wood to EPA, September 12, 1980.
Letter, EPA to Mr. Wood, January 2, 1981.
511 application from Mr. Wood to EPA, March 10,
1981.
Letter, EPA to Mr. Wood, March 18, 1981.
Sales brochure for Wickliff Polarizer.
Letter, EPA to Mr. Wood, June 29, 1981.
-------
10
STEADY STATE MASS EMISSION TEST
vehicle: CF-2
TEST CELL 'C'
BASELINE (
THIS TEST DATA WAS PROCESSED GN MON MAY 12y 1980 ATH0URS
TEST NUMBER: 0-167?
DATE: 05/12/80
BAROMETER: 28.80 IN. HG
DRY BULB4, 74 DEGREES F.
WET BULB: 65 DEGREES F.
RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 62.2 PERCENT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY4. 81.05 GRAINS
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION: 1.029
HC(PPM)
2.7
BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
CO(PPM) NOX(PPM)
1
0.00
C02 (/.)
0.043
SPEED
MPH
60.0
50.0
0.0
(BEAR
D
D
N
HC
1 .06
0.75
3.26
MASS EMISSIONS
CO
9.30
6*. 03
28.44
Automotive Testing Laboratories, inc.
Dennis McClement
Manager/Ohio Laboratory
building 40at ire route 33 po bo 289
5)3-066-4351 ecs liberty cfuo 43319
(GM/MI)
NOX
9.11
5.91
0.02
C02
441 . 1
369.4
55 .6
MPG
19 .33
23.28
80.22^
(v\'-0bAc'
e 5
t
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES*INC.
19900 E. COLFAX? AURORA* COLO. 80011
•/
-------
11
STEADY STATE MASS EMISSION TEST
TEST NUMBER: 01679
DATE: 05/12/80
VEHICLE: CF2
TEST CELL C
WITH POLARIZER •
THIS TEST DATA WAS PROCESSED ON MON MAY 12s> 1980 AT/'l6:08 HOURS
BAROMETER: 28.80 IN. HG
DRY BULB: 74 DEGREES F.
WET BULB: 65 DEGREES F.
RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 62.2 PERCENT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY: 81.05 GRAINS
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION: 1.029
HC(PPM)
BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
CO(PPM) NOX(PPM)
C02(%)
7.1
0.98
0.045
SPEED
MPH
GEAR
HC
MASS EMISSIONS (GM/MI)
CD NOX
co:
MPG
60.0
50.0
0.0
D
D
N
0.71
0.65
/-3.20
5^.81
4.76
28". 81
8.68
5.70
0.03
443.0
371 .3
56.6
19.53-
23.30
79.23
/ &
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES*INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA ? COLO. 800.11
-------
12
STEADY STATE MASS EMISSION TEST
TEST NUMBER! 0-1903 VEHICLE I CF-2
DATEJ 05/30/80 TEST CELL 'C'
THIS TEST DATA WAS PROCESSED ON FRI MAY 30> 1980 AT (1'4:39 /H0URS
BAROMETER: 28.92 IN. HG RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 66.1 PERCENT
DRY BULB: 74 DEGREES F ~ ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY4. 85.75 GRAINS
WET BULB*. 66 DEGREES F. NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION: 1.053
BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
H C < P P M ) CO(PPM) NOX(PPM) C02
3.7 0 1.96 0.048
SPEED
MPH GEAR HC
50.0 D 0.12
60.0 D 0.11
MASS EMISSIONS (GM/MI)
CO NOX
0.00 5.13
0.00 • '8.59
C02 MPG
345.2 25.69
413.7 21.44
7W
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES»INC.
19900 E. COLFAX f AURORA* COLO, 800.11
-------
13
STEADY STATE MASS EMISSION TEST
TEST NUMBER: 0-1994 VEHICLES CF-2
DATEt 06/05/80 TEST CELL C'
THIS TEST DATA WAS PROCESSED ON THU JUN 05, 1980 AT, JX HOURS
barometer: 29.13 in. hg
DRY BULB: 77 DEGREES F.
WET BULBS 66 DEGREES F.
RELATIVE HUMIDITY: 56.3 PERCENT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY? 30.01 GRAINS
NOX HUMIDITY CORRECTION: 1.024
HC < PPM)
13.2
BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
CO(PPM) NOX(PPM)
3 2.94
C02(%)
0 .056
SPEED
MPH GEAR HC
50.0 D 0.83
60.0 D 0.95
MASS EMISSIONS. (GM/MI)
CO NOX
1.66 4.45
2.02 8.00
C02 MPG
340.9 25.64
398.5 21.93
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES»INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA? COLO. 80011
-------
14
Attachment A
August 21, 1980
Mr. Bob Wood
Country Ford
P.O. Box 850
Ghelbyville, IK 46176
Dear Mr. Woodt
This is in response to your telephone request of August 19, 1980 with respect
to the Federal Government's interest in "Polarizer", a device which you claim
increases gasoline mileage and/or reduces exhaust emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency is interested in all possible approaches
to emissions control and improved fuel economy. We analyze all proposals to
determine whether they show promise for meeting emissions standards or in-
proving fuel economy. Because of the large number of proposals which we
receive, we have to limit our testing to those devices which have Bhown signi-
ficantly por.itive results when tested by a competent independent laboratory.
If you are interested in having your device evaluated by the Environmental
Protection Agency, please follow the procedures detailed in the enclosed
documents (EPA Retrofit and Emission Control Device Evaluation Test Policy;
Federal Register, Part 610-"Fuel Economy Retrofit Devices" and Application
Format for use with an evaluation of a Fuel Economy Retrofit Device).
On January 19, 1975, all Environmental Protection Agency responsibilities in
the area of developmental funding of engines or devices was transferred to the
Energy Research and Development Administration, now a part of the Department
of Engergy. Presently, all inquiries pertaining to Federal funding should be
directed to either of the following offices:
Mr. George Thur
Office of Highway Systems
Div. of Transportation Energy Conservation
Department of Energy
Forestall Bldg., Mall Stop 5H063
Washington, DC 20585
It is hoped that this response adequately addresses your request.
Sincerely,
Mr. George Lewett
U. S. Department of Commerce
National Bureau of Standards
Office of Energy Related Inventions
Washington, DC 20234
F. Peter Iiutchins, Project Manager
Test and Evaluation branch
faiclosures
-------
15
Attachment B
COUNTRY FORD SALES, Inc.
September 12, 1980
U S Hwy 421 East P. O. Box 850
Telephone 392-3631 835-2272
SHELBYVILLE, INDIANA 46176
United States Environmental
Protection Agency-
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Subject: Wickliff Polarizer
Attn: F. Peter Hutchins, Project Mgr.
Test and Evaluation Branch
Dear Mr. Hutchins;
In reply to your letter of August 21, 1980 we have
run-extensive testing on the Wickliff Polarizer
(patent pending) at the expense of Mr. Wickliff and
myself.
I feel we have sufficient proof we can reduce emissions,
eliminate odor from diesel engines, improve engine per-
formance and improve gas mileage.
Enclosed you will find copies of four (4) tests that
we have run at the Automotive Testing Lab Inc. at East
Liberty, Ohio. All the testing listed below was on a
1977 Ford Thunderbird with approximately 43,000 miles
and a 351 engine.
Test #1 was run with all the pollution devices of
manufacture has installed
Test #2 was immediately after the installation of
the Wickliff polarizer
Test #3 was run of the same vehicle after being
driven 1200 miles
Test #4 was run on the same with catalytic con-
vertors removed
I would like to bring to your attention the testing
with the polarizer (Test #4) has less emissions and
better fuel economy than Test #1 with the manufacture
catalytic convertors on this vehicle.
Continued
-------
16
Page 2
I have tested numerous diesel engines and every test we
have eliminated the odor created by diesel fuel being
burned in the engine.
I do not have equipment to check the emissions on a diesel
engine :in my service department, but I do know by reducing
smell we are reducing emissions.
I, personally have watched eight hundred to one thousand
Wickliff polarizers installed on gasoline and diesel engines
and in every instance we have had .en increase in RPM on idle,
which means we are getting more horsepower out of fuel injected
into the engine. Every installation has shown reductions in
emissions measured by my own Sun Infra-Red Analyser Machine
model EPA-75-
In response to your request to run additional evaluation test,
I called Automotive Tesing Lab Inc„ and received approximate
cost of the tests you would require and their quote was estimated
between $12,000.00 and $14,000.00 at our own expense. Since I
believe we have already spent in excess of $17,000.00 for testing
plus our time to run tests in my own service department, we feel
&his proves we have a product that would help control our emission
problems for the public and the auto manufacturer as well and
help to save energy.
At this time we are not in the position to spend the money that
is required to run the tests you so require.
In light of the foregoing I would greatly appreciate the
Enviromental Protection Agency proceed immediately to conduct
its owi test on the Wickliff polarizer. Any further delays
will only keep this important product off the market place.
It is my belief the Enviromental Protection Agency has the
responsibility to test this product with no further delays.
Please except this letter as formal request for the Enviromental
Protection Agency to conduct its own testing of the Wickliff
Polari:s«r.
Robert E. Wood, President
Country Ford Sales, Inc.
-------
Page 3
cc: Birch Bayh
363 Russell Building
Washington, D. C.
2o510
Enclosures
-------
18
Attachment C
February 2, 1981
KtV BobrWood
Country Ford
P.O. Box 8.50
Shelbyville, IN 46176
Dear Mr. Wood:
Mr. John Chaille of the Indiana Department of Commerce Energy Section asked
that I send you another copy of the documents to be used in applying for an
EPA evaluation of the VJickliff Polarizer. These are the same documents that
Peter Hutchins sent with his letter to you on August 21, 1980. You
acknowledged receiving the letter from Mr. Hutching in your return letter
dated September 12, 1980.
Your letter of September 12, 1980, included some test data but did not include
an application for an EPA evaluation. The test data was not acceptable to EPA
because it was not run by the Federal Test Procedure. Steady state points of
60 mph, 50 mph, and idle were used with no data collection under transient
operation. I have discussed these problems with Mr. Dan Williams during our
several telephone conservations.
The Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congessional mandate to
evaluate fuel economy and emission control devices. While the EPA does not
actually "approve" such devices, it does conduct evaluations for the purpose
of increasing the common knowledge in the area. For this reason, the outcome
of any testing by EPA becomes public information. It ie this information
which may be cited although no claims can be made that any EPA findings
constitute "approval" of the device or system.
Enclosed with this letter is a packet of materials which you will need to
apply for an EPA evaluation of your device. This packet consists of 1) an
application format, 2) a document entitled "EPA Retrofit and Emission Control
Device Evaluation Test Policy" and 3) a copy of the applicable Federal
Regu ILations.
In order for the EPA to conduct an evaluation of your device, we mist have an
application. Once you have reviewed all the documents in the packet, you
should prepare an application in accordance with the guidelines of the
application format. A critical part of the application is the substantiating
test data. The required test results will have to be obtained.at a laboratory
-------
19
of youir choice. Such testing would he conducted at your expense. A list of
laboratories? which are known to have the equipment and personnel to perform
acceptable tests has been included in the enclosed packet. If you desire, we
can assist in the development of a satisfactory test plan.
There are, however, several aspects concerning testing at an outside
laboratory which I would like to bring to your attention at this time:
Minimum Test Requirements - Although different types of devices may
require a more complex test plan, the minimum we require involves two
vehicles and two test sequences run in duplicate. The vehicles should be
selected from those listed in Table 1; if possible. Each vehicle is to
b« set to manufacturer's tune-up specifications for the baseline tests.
The tests are conducted in a "back-to-back" manner, once with the vehicle
in baseline condition and again with the device installed with no vehicle
adjustments between tests. If installation of the device also involves
soine adjustments, e.g. timing, fuel-air mixture, choke or idle speed,
another test sequence with only these adjustments should be inserted
between the first and last. Also as a minimum, the test sequence shall
consist of a hot-start LA-4 portion (bags 1 and 2) of the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP) and a Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). The details of
these tests are contained in the enclosed packet. Although only a
hot-start FTP is required to minimize the costs to you, you are
encouraged to have the entire cold-start test performed since any testing
and evaluation performed by EPA will be based on the complete FTP and you
may wish to know how a vehicle with your device performs over this
official test. As a final requirement, the personnel of the outside
laboratory you select should perform every element of your test plan.
This includes preparation of the test vehicle, adjustment of parameters
and installation of the device.
Submission of Data - We require that all test data obtained from the
outside laboratories in support of your application be submitted to us.
This includes any results you have which were declared void or invalid by
the laboratory. We also ask that you notify us of the laboratory you
have chosen, when testing is scheduled to begin, what teste you have
decided to conduct, allow us to maintain contact with the laboratory
during the course of the testing, and allow the test laboratory to
directly answer any questions at any time about the test program.
Cost of the Testing - The cost of the minimum test plan (two vehicles,
two te6t sequences in duplicate) described above should be less than
$.2000 per vehicle and lees than $4000 for the total test at any of the
laboratories on the list. You will have to contact them individually to
obtain their latest prices.
Outcome of the Testa - Although it is Impossible to accurately predict
the overall worth of a device, from a small amount of testing, we have
established some guidelines which will help you determine whether the
test results with your device should be considered encouraging. These
values have been chosen to assure both of us that a real difference in
-------
20
3
fuel economy exists and that we are not seeing only the variability in
the results. The table below presents the minimum number of cars that
need to be tested for varying degrees of fuel economy improvement
assuming a typical amount of variability in fuel economy measurement.
For a minimum test plan which was conducted on a fleet of two cars, the
average improvement should be at least 8%. If at least an 8% difference
iu^average fuel economy can be shown, then v;e would be able to say
stastically at the 80% confidence level that there is a real improvement.
Similarly, we would expect a minimum of 5% improvement for a fleet of 5
vehicles. Test results whicli display a significant increase in emission
levels should be reason for concern.
Minimum Fuel Economy Improvements versus Size of Test Fleet
Fleet Size Average Improvement Required
2 8%
3 7%
4 6%
5 5%
10 4%
25 2%
Once we receive your application, it will be reviewed to determine if it meets
the requirements listed in the format. If your application ie not complete,
we will ask you to submit further information or data. After any missing
information has been submitted, your application will be reconsidered and once
it meets our requirements, you will be advised of our decision whether or not
EPA villi perform any confirmatory testing. Any EPA testing will be performed
at no cost to you and you will be given the opportunity to concur with our
test plan. Once this testing is complete, an evaluation report will be
written. If no further testing is required, the report will be written solely
on the basis of the test data submitted and our engineering analysis.
Despite the current backlog and increasing number of inquiries regarding fuel
econcciy device evaluations, the EPA intends to process your application in as
expeditious a manner as possible. We have established a goal of twelve weeks
from the receipt of a complete application to the announcement of our report.
The attainment of this objective requires very precise scheduling and we are
depending on the applicant to respond promptly to any questions or to submit
any requested data. Failure to respond in a timely manner will unduly delay
the process. In the extreme case, x«e may consider lack of response as a
withdrawal of the application.
-------
21
I hope the information above and that contained in the enclosed documents) will
aid you in the preparation of an acceptable application for an EPA evaluation
of your device. I will be your contact with K?A during thi6 process and any
subsequent EPA evaluation. My address is EPA, Motor Vehicle Emission
Laboratory, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. The telephone
nuniber is (313) 668-4200. Please contact me if you have any questions or
require any further information.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth
Senior Project Manager
Emission Control Technology Division
Enclosures
cc: P. Hutchins (letter only)
John Chaille (complete package)
-------
22
Attachment D
U S Hwy 421 East P. O. Box 850
Telephone 392-3631 835-2272
SHELBYVILLE, INDIANA 46176
March. 10, 1981
EPA
Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 46105
Subject: Application
Attn: Merrill Korth
1. Title Application of Evaluation of A Fuel
Economy Retrofit Device Under Section 5Hof
the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act and in addition an Application for Eval-
uation of an "Rnri ssion Control Retrofit Device
2. Marketing Identification of the Device:
Wickliff Polarizer G-100 for gasoline powered
vehicles and D-200 for diesel and propane
powered vehicles.
3. Identification of Inventory and/or Patent Protection:
a. Edgar Wickliff R R #4- Box 1^9
Shelbyville, Indiana 4-6176
b. See attached letter
4-. Identification of Device Manufacturers:
Wickliff Polarizer Inc.
1501 Miller Avenue
Shelbyville, Indiana 46176
5. Identification of Manufacturing Organization's Principals:
Edgar Wickliff - President
Francis Jackson - Vice President
Ellen Wickliff - Secretary-Treasurer
6. Identification of Organization Making Application:
Country Ford Sales, Inc.
P. 0. Box 850
Shelbyville, Indiana 46176
Cont'd
-------
23
Page 2
7- Identification of Applying Organization's Principals:
a. Robert E. Wood - President
Dan Wood - Vice President
Mary Jo Wood - Treasurer
Rosemarie Beyer - Secretary
b. Robert E. Wood or Dan Williams our the company
representatives to contact for any communications.
8* Description of Device
a. Purpose of the Device: Reduce emissions and save fuel
b. Theory of Operations: See attached letter
c. Detailed Descriptions of Construction and
Operation: See attached diagram
9. Applicability of the Device:
All gasoline and diesel powered vehicles
See attached drawings as you will see diesel unit
is larger in size than gas
10. Device Installation:
The air bars are installed inside the air cleaner so
the air will passover them before going into the
carburetor. They are not to b3 installed directly
over the carburetor. The fuel polarizer should be
installed in the fuel line prior to any fuel pump
and as close to the engine as possible. Be sure to
install fuel polarizer so that fuel flows through
polarizer in the propsr direction.
11. Device Operation:
See attached copy - 8B
12. Device Maintenance:
Our device requires no maintenance
13. Effects on Vehicle Emissions (non-regulated):
We've lowered the emissions on every installation
-------
24
Page 3
14-. Effects oil Vehicle Safety
The only problem that might arise if if the fuel
polarizer is not installed properly or secured
properly it could cause leakage in gas line.
15- Test Results (regulated Emissions & Fuel Economy)
Waiting acknowledgment of receipt of application
and further instructions regarding further test
procedures per Merrill Korth.
Respectfully,
Country Ford Sales, Inc.
REW:rb
cc
U. S. Congressman Dave Evans
Phil Brown - Attorney, Wickliff Polarizer Inc.
James M. Robison - Attorney, Country Ford Sales, Inc.
-------
25
¦r
U S Hwy 421 East P. O. Box 850
Telephone 392-3631 835-2272
SHELBYVILLE, INDIANA 46176
March 10, 1981
EPA
Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Attn: Merrill Korth
Dear Merrill:
As per our conversation and in regards to our patent
pending number 06-174591. We feel that it would be
detrimental to our business organization to make a
disclosure as you request in your application format,
Section 3B. Our patent pending contains information
that is a i*rade secret.
Please consider this as a formal request to procede
with our application and for EPA to deal with Section
3B as you see fit.
Sincerely,
Dan Williams, Representative
Country Ford Sales, Inc.
DW:rb
-------
26
Tire WICKLIFF POLARIZER - An Analysis of Function:
Operation: Fuel and air are subjected to sever;;] fields of force prior to
combustion.
Result.: Increased efficiency of combustion resulting in an increase of
horsepower and not only a reduction in visible exhaust trace but also
reduced emissions of CO, HC, and NOX. '
Theory: The net result is readily explainable thru series of proven
physical responses to known and accepted theory of internal combustion and
observations.
/
1) Polarization of fluids: The acceptance cf the idea that fuel and air
could be polarized by exposure to an externa] force has its roots in the
Theory of Ferro Magnetism. This was expounded upon in the translation of
the Russian text of Vonsovsky * and Turov. This examination expounds on
the Heisenberg exchange resulting in an internal field of aligned atoms.
/
/
The effect is the production of a permanent magnetic moment created by the
movement of outer electrons moving into /quantum states of higher principal
quantum number. This state, effectively then, has broken down the fixed
valence electrons that partake in the bonding process of the fuel com-
pounds. These "active" states create the condition for freer association
of fuel and air particles.
.IT.. Exptl . Theor. Phys.(USSR) 1953, S.V. Vonsovsky and E.A. Turov
Consideration: While the basic theory of electromagnetic induced effects
j;ave ri:;e to the preceeding theory, we must interpret from the effect known
as crystalline anistropy to explain how the "polarizer" is effectively
"d i recti on.i 1 ized" . This alignment does not necessarily create new hydro-
carbon chains, but more explainably aligns the induced magnetic moment into
a dipole relationship within itself: This "magnetic" alignment then
permits rapid bonding with the respective oxidizing media.
Physical Principals of Magnetism, Morrish.
2) Lubricating qualities: The quantum change in particles that have be^n
treated and the subsequent reduction of energy »""v, creates a physica I re-
duction in the density. The pressure induced by the polarization process
as fluid passed through the interacting fields has been attributed to and
is directly proportioned to the measurable change of density.
The phenomenon discribed was expounded upon in the Relativistic Principal
of Virtual Power. In the section dealing with Polarization, Magnetism,
Ohmic Loss, and Heat Flow, the author yeneral i.zed on moving po'larizable and
magneticable media to discuss irreversible effects, such as heat loss and
changes in viscosity. .
-.v-.v-.v Electrodynamics of Moving Med ia, Penfieid & Ilaus, M.I.T. Press, 1967.
-------
27
Observation: Orico having been polarized, oil tends to become "tighter" and
increase its lubricating qualities. The color of certain hydrocarbon fuels
have been observed to take on a "golden hue". This can be readily attrib-
uted to the change of density and induced energy level, but no anaLyfiis has
been completed to establish these causes, however, the results seem consis-
tant to the known cause/effect relationships discussed previously.
3) Emission Control: The increased oxidation causes several effects.
First, rapid and complete oxidation causes more rapid and total combustion
of fuel. This physical occurance is measurable in tiie creation of a hotter
flame. This increased temperature is of a shorter duration, i.e. burn time
is reduced. This effect is the key to understanding the resuLting measui-
able improvements in engine performance.
The faster burn and more efficient combustion will create a more concen-
trated force, driving pistons with more force, but for a shorter duration.
This would typically lead to an observable effect of increased R.P.M.s upon
"polarization".
Heat disemination is promoted in two ways: 1) the first due to the more
increased expansion in gas as the piston is driven faster, and 2) iLimiuj-
tion of "hot spots" as efficient and evenly distributed combustion ditfuses
heat over a broader area of cylinder wall and head.
The production of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide are a product of incom-
plete combustion. These are theoretically minimized or eliminated by.
increasing oxidation and increasing temperature. In our model, we see
both. Normal to an increase in temperature, however, is the increase in
the formation of nitric oxide. This is referred to as the Zeldovich mecha-
nism for nitrogen fixation. The presence of water vapor is also suspected
to contribute to production of NOX due to the availability of hydroxyl
radicals. N*+ OH ^ NO + H*
However, the demonstrated effect of polarization is a net reduction in
measurable NOX. Although it appears to be inconsistant, it is explainable.
While there is a higher temperature produced, the length of time of burn is
significantly reduced. Additionally, the heat is more rapidly diffused via
increased gas expansion and conductance to a greater available surface
area.. Water vapor is reduced by the molecular activity during polariza-
tion. And finally, there is the elimination of "hot spots".
-W~;-Ar Combustion Formation & Emission of Trace Species, Edwards, Ann Arbor
Science, 1974
Observation: Elimination of Black Smoke in diesels under loaded condi-
tions.
The net effect is that while there is a momentary increase in NOX produc-
tion, the total emitted is less than that generated by a "longer burn".
Production of NOX is directly proportionate to increase in temperature and
the length or duration of time and inversely proportionate to expansion of
gas and resultant cooling. "The longer the time that high temperatures are
sustained in a combustion system, the longer the quantity of Nitric Oxide
that can be expected to form". Pg. 52, Combustion Formation & Emission of
Trace Species.
-------
28
"Conversely, since nitric oxide formation continues well into the post
flame region, rapid quenching of the post flame gases by heat removal or by
gas expansion will tend to reduce nicric oxide formation in combustion
systems". Ibid, Pg. 51.
Observation: Polarized engines will tend to reduce or eliminate 1IC and CO.
Readings on a Sun analyser confirm this. Laboratory testing confirms a re-
duction in NOX. Most all engines will reflect an immediate increase in
R.P.N.s. However; in V-8 engines, a carbui^i^or adjustment is often requir-
ed to develop the proper mixture required to avoid "pools of fuel" and
obtain complete combustion. Further, temperature of exhauct is reportedly
reduced by 25° to 50°F range on diesel tractors and engine operating temper-
ature readings /on buses are reportedly reduced almost 20°F.
4) Improved A'tomization: The polarization of fuel and air in a mixing
chamber will provide compatible molecules. As described earlier, bonding
has been brol/en down resulting in decreased density and hence, smaller
particles an/i droplets. The decreased droplet size theory values the
increase inysurfa-ce per unit, increased evaporation rate, improved mixing
of fuel and' promotion of oxidation. Again, the net effect is the increased
rate of combustion, increased power/unit/second and hence, reduced pollu-
tants:. J-
/
-------
29
VJ\CKUFF POLKRiiEft.
ACTUAL SIZE
FLO vl
DIESEL . KWD PROPANE EMGIMES
-------
G\$OL\N£ ENGINES
MR 6 f\R
TWO RE.Qu\0.5D FOR 0\ESEL
. ONE REQUIRED FOR, G>t\S,Olr\t^E
-------
31
Attachment E
J* \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
° « ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE or
March 18, 1981 air. noise and radiation
Mr. Robert E. Wood
Country Ford Sales, Inc.
Shelbyville, IN 46176
Dear Mr. Wood:
We have reviewed your application for an evaluation of the "Wickliff
Polarizer" using the information provided. Before your device can be
fully evaluated by EPA, we require the following information:
1. A copy of the patent application and information regarding the
contents of the unit so that we may determine if any harmful
materials are present or •if any toxic compounds are likely to
result from its use. We also request more information on how the
fuel is polarized as it passes through the unit. You have not
submitted enough background data to allow us to understand the
operating principle of the device.
2. Detailed instructions on the installation of the device complete
with drawings and tools required for installation.
3. Data from exhaust emission tests on a minimum of two vehicles.
Duplicate tests are required both before and after the device is
installed. This is a total of at least eight' hot-start tests.
These tests must be performed at an independent laboratory recog-
nized by EPA. I am enclosing an updated list of these labora-
tories. Please refer to the information I sent you on Febru-
ary 2, 1981 for details on the procedure to be used in gathering
data at private laboratories. I am prepared to assist you
further once you have made appropriate arrangements with a
laboratory. We would like to comment on your test plan before
testing begins.
4. A letter from the manufacturer of the Wickliff Polarizer indi-
cating that your company is authorized to act on his. behalf in
applying for a 511 Evaluation.
In order to maintain our overall schedule for evaluating fuel economy
retrofit devices, we need to know when we will receive the above informa-
tion. Please contact me by April 10 with your estimate. The test
results and other information should be submitted to us by May 15.
-------
32
I hope this information and that contained in the enclosed documents will
be helpful in the preparation of an acceptable application for an EPA
evaluation of your device. Please contact me if you have any questions
or require further information.
Sincerely,
CO .
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Enclosures
cc. J. Shelton
511 File "Wickliff Polarizer"
-------
| IINTTOCIDUCIfSIG
B
!M
A
T
i
O
N
A
L
M
Ik
Y
a—i
S3
T
EEE
M
1
N
g»
im
Attachment: P
SHELBYVI LLE, INDIANA
-------
THE ORIGIN OF THE WICKUFF POLAiUZER
Edgar WtcAliff Is an inventive, imaginative *4 6ur sighted individual.
Twenty yew ago he predicted th« pollution mi energy would sometime
during tie span of W» life lie of great concern » *11 people. He rKopM then
die coming of poUumn-induced health haaard* and fuel shortages wMdi art
so prevalent today.
With tie* potential problems clearly in mind, he devoted time and
dedicated. his efforts toward reducing potiution and conserwsg fuel
particularly on tie fuel-powered engine. The dedication of Ma time, wort
experimentaftkm, sad analysis fed to the development of the WICKUFF
POLARIZER.
Installation of the WICKLIFF POLARIZER m mm fuel powered engine*
has produced the following 'benefits;
* More efficient fuel consumption.
~ Reduction of friction leading to reduced engine west and thereby
pfakmpni engine lift,
it Reduction or elimination of nosaous poll usants from exhaust ty^eitit.
The benefits, when considered as a whole, invariably result in less fuel
consumption and increased fuel mflbage.
too
HYDROCARBON
BC
High hydrocarbon* unbent e wasted,
unburned gasoline. About mal levels
usually ait cauw«dl by ignition or
msehankal problems that emi»«
rwafiriflg,
CARBON MONOXIDE
CO
ll%li carbon monoxide wiiettes
ineftlctntly burned psoitis,, usually
caused by over-rfch fit#! mixture, dirty
4tf iitanrr, plugged P( V systems,
sticking choke or improper carburetor
adjustments.
-------
15
RESULTS OF IN DEPEND*.Nr \ ABOftAP)KV
STEADV STVTE MASS EMISSION rEST
Icsi Results Rc*ore and After
Installation otdic Wl( Kl ! I I POLARIZER
On a 1 97 7 f urj Thufuies bird
Equipped with a 551 V-8 Entitle, Automatic Transmission
With 43.000 Miles on SpeudointUT
BKFOH i:
_1.
AFTER
IK i
CO
NOX
CO,
J. Oh
30
«m i
: -Ml.!
0.71
5.SI
8 i'-'B
443.U
After IVririi: Privrn 2.0IW M!l« W%tt the WTKf IFF WW AMUR,
!c«S Results Were as follows,
AT 60 MPH
\ I "!! Mi-i :
HC
| CO
NO\
co,
! i
: .1100
H ^9
413,7
0.12
.000
3. '! >
MS, 2
1
CADILLAC IMP iOVES MILEAGE
I iaau!l*d * "WICK* r f POL.ARIZJm" . 'WU'Ki if?' f'r.l A i" *
I WO Dedgr D-30Q-.pick-up xrac& mm! Mctcttrd tl»«
mileagf from 10.5 to 13.2 fopg-
REDUCED- CARBON BUILD Of
i pullrct my play befott kimin tntt yivtn^ tot*
l.fc % swig® pt-t ittfek-jad had « problem <»>
fnujoenily. Ait*? inuatJaaon of "WlCKilf :f
KftARlZtR" «} ratiea^r Us J'3-to r»p§
«i it la ftsix * (jmw ».¦«¦ dbrvc sa « t»t* ito^d
STATE AGENCY TEST
A Stint Agetn, r
-------
—
• s
36
CHART YOUR OWN
FUEL SAVINGS POTENTIAL
JMwrtff IS.000 Miles Per Year
Average Cost Prr Gallon of Fuel; II J®
Bawd on CUR«nt Average Mik-s Per Gallon
MPC,
Maw
IV?.
13%
m
11*
2%i:,
V!H
A5'V
4«%
mn*
i
¦mm*
s
sm;-
t
MPC*
s
IPCS*
WG*
l
MPe*
»
MRS*
$
MPG*
¦
20
91
127
156
m.
1»5
4,4
•MS
•' -
S,ff
244
«
hm
fjt
,«1
3Wi
V*
103
133
jr»4
its
¦4M
Il§
CIS'
257
5.7
J0K
359
7.6
410
IS
]«.s
141
m
*4*
206
231
i7(
5.4
311
6.3
379
1.2
41*
1?
114
22t
.•rL^r-s
14"
;*»
1*4
1 21
¦7>A*7
:i8
0%
252
%tf
2§1
vt
353
:&»
4lt>|
f»,§
4 VI
16
122
158
2.56
I OS
3MJ4
132
|#t
26i
305
4.«
4.T
f 4
4HS
IS
130
1.95
i m
\%m
20€
m.-
•47
,3fe3 '
286
MS
111
4.5
3ft
f,JS
4*S
52®
14
W
139
mi:
1 HI
IH
223
*1 JCdfc'
;#*TO
165
3.08
306
3.50
MB
4.1.
4iH
4««
5.6
55?
13
ijr-
150
t.m
195
240
M?
2IS
3J5
PS
J.f
450
:«i*
815
5.2
12
: ti:
115
21?
ii,4;
12B
314
a. e>4
3.8
45}
J.6
495
42 '
4.»
660
n
1*1
17J
Ittt
ZM>
Am
284
2Ȥt
331
2.42
390
•J.: §'m"
441
S..1
SSf
¦$M
«T"W --W
iai
m..
10
its
i,t'
254
Li
512
M ,
37 i
'm
429
1-5 | *h»
J*
*&!
.. mp ™.
o« >
:ko
PPG* = Miles Per Gallon tacrmte
I
WfCKUFP MUiftait
Mmkmted ®jj
INTBKNATIOMAL FUEL SYSOM&. JNf
2770 £«l Slat# *«»d 44
rr -1^ Vl4|, Ift,ji3|rta Aft) Jim
Phmw p! I)
rtralft!
mmmmmrn
-------
37
Attachment G
O
V-
£.
'<¦
'O
'•¦r
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
June; 29, 1981
Mr. Robert. E. Wood
Country Ford Sales, Inc.
P.O.. Box 850
Shelbyville, IN 46176
Dear Mr. Wood:
In my letter to you of March 18, 1981, I explained the requirement for
testing of "Wickliff Polarizer" by an independent laboratory recognized
by KPA. I also presented several other questions to you at that time. I
asked that you respond to my letter by Kay 15, 1981. We have not
received your response. Since you have not supplied EPA with appropriate
test data for the "Wickliff Polarizer", we have insufficient data to
support your claim for its emission reduction or fuel economy benefits.
Under the provisions of Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and
Cost: Savings Act, EPA is required to evaluate your device on the basis of
available information and publish the results of our evaluation in the
Federal Register . We have begun to prepare our report.
Please contact me immediately if you do not understand this course of
action. My telephone number is (313) 668-4299.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth, Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
cc. 511 file (Wickliff Polarizer)
J. Shelton
-------
38
i' W1CKLIFF PeiAiJIie
I'M!
I'
* Reduces. Exhaust Emissions!
•' ; Improves..Fuel.. Economy!
""V-^r Improves Engine Performance!:
- ~ increases Spark Plug Life! !
- fe.Eliminates Exhaust Odors In Gas
> . ,
J j . ' " and Diesel Engines! "-:-:
: [! Doss All This By Creating a More
! I ' Complete .Burn Of Fuel Irt Engine!
. S : SNTR0BUCTORY &
-f. OFFER
•f 'DIESEL SLIGHTLY HIGHER
~ INDEPENDENT LAB. TEST RESULTS:
! > - .
BEFORE tmnounoMS
POLARIZATION HC-p/75
AFTER
POLARIZATION , HC-0.12
CUIOH HOHOIIOt
CO-6.W
CO-O.OO
wnit oifflt
N0k-5.9I MPG 23.28
NO* 5.13 MPG 25.69
4-
i
i
* TEST WAS PERFORMED FOR BOB WOOD COUNTRY
: , FORD ON A T-BIRD WITH 43.000 MILES AT 50 MPH.
OUTPUT OF EMISSIONS SHOWN IN GRAMS PER
-/ ¦ ' ' MILE, v ; '-' '; '
Available At These Fine Dealers:
.Country Ford3ales_
Eostgole Chrysier Ply.
Dick_Krieg Motors
_D ave_M c Intire^ Chev.
__0wen Reed Chev.
_ Schoettmer Ford Sales
Scrlptore_Br°$."Chrysler .
• PjyiriO'jfh '
5? r i ptureC hrys !er -P ly m o u t h
--Danny Scripture Chev.
Jack Shields Ford ^
- Jock Smart ford
Jim Southworth Inc. .
HeckamanBuick__ ; ...-
_JA c Car r o] IC he v r o I ct-01 d s
foxworthy Ford
^ Shefbyville
317-835-2272
' Indianapolis
* ' 317-352-9361
Lafayette
317-474-1434
Indianapolis
317-297-4040
Frankiin
7 317-736-5141
Edinburgh
812*838-2963 '
Gfssnsbur'*
\ - 812-663-6101
Shelbyville
317-398-9716
Connersville
317-825-3102
* casiTe,7?T^TWIJT.f58a!w
^ Greenwood
-1 r ,317-881-2 541
Marion .
317-662-2561
v~ Anderson
-pi:? 317-649-1253 ::
X Elwood
' r /T 317-552-9811
Indianapolis
: 317-846-4241 '/¦
" o ¦ 1 •
- -W
------- |