EPA-AA-TEB-511-83-7
EPA Evaluation of the POWERFUeL Extender System Under
Section 511 of the Motor Vehicle Information
and Cost Savings Act
by
Stanley L. Syria
August 1983
Test and Evaluation Branch
Emission Control Technology Divison
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental °rotection Agency
-------
EPA Evaluation of the POWERFUeL Extender System Under Section 511 of the
Mocor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act requires that EPA
evaluate fuel economy retrofit devices and publish a summary of each
evaluation in the Federal Register.
EPA evaluations are originated upon the application of any manufacturer
of a retrofit device, upon the request of the Federal Trade Commission,
or upon the motion of the EPA Administrator. These studies are designed
to determine whether the retrofit device increases fuel economy and to
determine whether the representations made with respect to the device are
accurate. The results of such studies are set forth in a series of
reports, of which this is one.
The evaluation of the "POWERFUeL Extender System" was conducted upon the
application of the manufacturer. . The device is claimed to improve fuel
economy and driveability and to reduce exhaust emissions and required
engine maintenance. The device is classified by EPA as a vapor-air bleed
device.
1. Title;
Application for Evaluation of POWERFUeL Extender System Under Section
511 of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
The information contained in sections two through five which follow was
supplied by the applicant.
2. Identification Information;
a. Marketing Identification of the Product;
POWERFUeL Extender System
b. Inventor and Patent Protection;
(1) Inventor
Myron Stein
79 Robert Pitt Drive
Monsey, ITC 10952
(914) 352-2240
(2) Patent
"Attached is [a] copy of the patent application"
[Attachment A]
-------
c. Applicant:
(1) Name and address
Myron Stein
79 Robert Pitt Drive
Monsey, NY 10952
(2) Principals
Myron Stein
(3) Myron Stein [is authorized to represent Auto Economy
Venture, Inc. in communication with EPA.]
d. Manufacturer of the Product;
(1) Name and address
Auto Economy Venture Inc.
79 Robert Pitt Drive
Monsey, NY 10952
(2) Principals
Myron Stein
Description of Product;
a. Purpo se;
"Purpose [is] to supply a high octane cleaning fuel on demand."
b. Theory of Operation;
"An EPA approved gasoline additive^ in diluted form is
induced into the combustion chamber when the engine requires a
power boost. This is accomplished through a patent pending
vacuum modulated valve.
(1) vacuum valve closes when engine starts
(2) valve remains closed at idle
(3) Idle vacuum is about 15-20 inches
(4) on acceleration, the vacuum drops to about 3" when the
valve opens and high octane cleaning fuel is induced into
the combustion chamber.
^Although EPA does register fuel additives, such registration does
not constitute an approval.
-------
(5) the amount of POWERFUeL used is in direct proportion to
the need of the engine; when engine vacuum increases above
3", the valve closes."
c. Construction and Operation:
"Attached is a copy of the detailed patent pending drawings."
[Figures 1 through 4 of Attachment A]
d. Specific Claims for the Product;
"(1) significantly lowered undesirable emissions ,
(2) engine power boost on demand
(3) longer engine maintenance interval
(4) less engine wear
(5) cleaner burning engine
(6) allows the use of lower octane gasoline
(7) reduced or eliminated pinging and engine knocking
(8) improved acceleration
(9) all above combined to increase gas mileage or engine
efficiency"
e. Cost And Marketing Information:
"(1) suggested retail price-£39.95
(2) to be sold to automotive aftermarket (manufacturers/
marketers/warehouse distributors."
Product Applicability Installation, Operation, Safety and Maintenance;
a. Applicability;
(1) "The POWERFUeL Extender System will work on all gasoline
operated engines when ported to the vacuum port center of
the manifold.
(2) this system is advantageous in all areas investigated and
have found no area where it is not advantageous"
b. Installation - Instructions, Equipment, and Skills Required:
"no tools or any adjustments to engine required"
c. Operation;
"is automatic, needs no servicing"
d. Effects on Vehicle Safety:
"no safety hazard to persons or vehicle, same category as
windshield washer fluid"
-------
e. Maintenance:
"none for the valve but replenishment of the POWERFUeL fluid
[is] necessary when used up in order to maintain benefits of the
system; in the absence of replenishment, the engine reverts to
operation of a newly tuned and cleaned engine with normal
deteriorations to be expected."
5. Effects on Emissions and Fuel Economy;
a. Unregulated Emissions:
[Information regarding unregulated pollutants was not submitted
by the applicant.]
b. Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy;
"Effects on Emissions and Fuel Economy: as outlined in 3.d."
[Although not referred to by the applicant, the test data in
Attachment B were submitted with the application to support some
of the claims made for the device.]
The following sections are EPA's analysis of this device.
6. Analysis
a. Identification Information;
(1) Marketing, Inventor, Applicant, and Manufacturer
Identification:
EPA's only comment with respect to these areas is that
subsequent to submission of the initial application, Mr.
Joe Farkas of Auto Economy Venture, Incorporated was
designated the representative to EPA.
(2) Patent Protection:
There are two areas of the patent application (Attachment
A) which were not clarified. First, Figure 2A shows a flow
restrictor (item 46) which differs in design from that
depicted in the installation instructions (Attachments C
and D). Second, Figures 1 and 4 show that two different
installation configurations are possible.
-------
EPA asked the applicant whether his application applied to
more than one design and installation configuration
(Attachment E). The applicant responded (Attachment F)
that only one design is currently available. He also
stated the application applied only to the single valve
installation configuration shown in Figure 1 of the patent
application.
b. Description:
(1) The purpose of the device is to reduce exhaust emissions
and operating cost and to improve vehicle performance. The
claim for a reduction in operating cost is due to reduced
required engine maintenance, improved fuel economy, and to
the savings realized by enabling the engine to run on lower
octane fuel.
i
(2) Based on the information submitted, the theory of operation
was judged to be adequate in that it enabled EPA to develop
an understanding of how the device is designed and is
supposed to function. It appears the device is a vapor-air
bleed device which meters an additive (composed mostly of
alcohol and water) into the engine's induction system only
during periods of hard accelerations. Thus, this device
differs from injection systems which pump water as a liquid
into the engine during all modes of operation. The
inducted additive is said to cause a) a change in
combustion temperatures (and thereby reducing detonation
and dieseling problems and thus allowing the use of lower
octane fuel), b) an increase in power output, and c) a
cleansing of the combustion chamber.
In EPA's judgment there is considerable question that this
device will produce all the benefits claimed by the
applicant. The amount of water/alcohol vapor introduced by
this device is very small (one pint per 1500 miles); too
small to likely produce a significant effect on the
combustion process. Some other devices that introduce-
larger amounts of "liquid" water in conjunction with
adjustments in engine parameters have produced modest
improvements in fuel economy. In that situation the larger
amount of water lessens the engine's tendency to detonate
and permits operation at a more advanced ignition timing
setting, which results in improved fuel economy. Water
injection at these higher rates lowers oxides of nitrogen
emissions but when ignition timing is advanced to improve
fuel economy, a major portion of the oxides of nitrogen
reduction may be lost.
-------
There are two generally accepted concepts as to why water
injection reduces oxides of nitrogen and lowers the fuel
octane requirement of the engine. One theory maintains
that in the combustion process, the inert water molecules
intersperse among the molecules of fuel and oxygen and make
it more difficult for the fuel and oxygen to get together
for combustion. The speed of the reaction is thereby
decreased lowering the peak combustion temperature and
lessening the tendency to detonate or form oxides of
nitrogen. The second theory maintains that as the water
vaporizes in the combustion chamber the fuel/air mixture is
cooled which ultimately results in a lower peak combustion
temperature. In any case, the end result is less
detonation and lower oxides of nitrogen.
In a recent study, it was found that the addition of
significant amounts of water as liquid caused essentially
no change in fuel economy. 1 If the water is vaporized
prior to entry into the combustion chamber, there will be
even less benefit for two reasons. First, the vapor
displaces some of the oxygen which decreases the volumetric
efficiency. Second, because the water is already
vaporized, there is little evaporative cooling of the
fuel/air charge and there is little benefit from the
cooling phenomenon discussed above. During World War II
liquid water injection was used on aircraft to improve
takeoff performance. In this situation a large amount of
water lowered cylinder head temperatures, and thus
permitted takeoffs at higher intake manifold boost
pressures. The increased takeoff power was due to an
increased quantity of fuel/air charge that resulted from
the higher boost pressure, not due to the water injection
itself.
There is a popular concept that introducing water in any
quantity and any form is beneficial to the operation of an
internal combustion engine. As a result many vapor
injection or steam injection devices have been submitted to
EPA for evaluation. In most cases the amount of water
introduced is insignificantly small. Regrettably, none of
the vapor devices produced significant benefits and only
one water injection device produced fuel economy benefits
and that was at the expense of increased emissions.
Bruce D. Peters and Russell F. Stebar, "Water-Gasoline Fuels — Their
Effect on Spark Ignition Engine Emissions and Performances", General
Motors Corporation Research Labs, SAE Paper 760547, June 1976.
-------
Most of the same arguments given by EPA for water are also
valid for alcohol. The most important being that because
the amount of alcohol added to the engine is very small, it
is not expected to have a significant impact on neither the
combustion process nor engine performance. Additionally,
because alcohol contains oxygen it is expected to have an
adverse effect on oxides of nitrogen emissions.
(3) The description of the POWERFUeL Extender System given by
the applicant was judged to be adequate. The reader should
note that the device consists of both a mechanical bleed
device and a fluid. Samples of the device which were
submitted to EPA, were found to be well designed and
constructed using appropriate materials. During EPA's
examination of the two sample devices, it was noted that
each contained seemingly identical flaws, namely holes in
the plastic fluid line and incorrect air bleeding of the
control valve. EPA asked the applicant to clarify these
apparent problems (Attachment E). The applicant responded
(Attachment F) that the holes were intentional and were
designed to prevent syphoning and hydraulic lock when the
engine was turned off. Additionally stated was that the
apparent air bleed problem was due to the valve being dry
and that it should function properly when fluid runs
through it.
(4) The applicant makes several claims for the device in the
application (Section 3.d.) and in Attachment D. However,
the claimed fuel economy benefits did not include specific
improvement percentages. When asked about this, the
applicant responded (Attachment F) the range was from 0-20
percent. Further, it is not clearly stated that all
benefits claimed will not occur on every vehicle. Also not
stated is that some benefits can only occur during certain
driving conditions, i.e., severe accelerations (manifold
vacuum less than 3 inch Hg.). The following are EPA's
comments with respect to each benefit claimed.
Benefit Claimed Comment
(a) Cleaner Engine: If introduced in sufficient
quantity the fluid could cause a
cleansing of the combustion
chamber (including spark plugs)
for all vehicles. This would be a
greater benefit for vehicles using
leaded fuels and/or running very
rich air/fuel mixtures and/or
driven short distances at low
speeds. However, data were not
submitted showing the device could
indeed cause a cleansing of the
engine.
-------
(b) Increased power
and improved
acceleration
(c) Increased fuel
economy (because
spark plugs stay
in "new" condition
longer)
(d) Eliminates rough
idle and hard
starting (when
related to spark
plugs)
(e) Allows use of
lower octane
fuel (by removing
carbon deposits
within the
combustion chamber)
Likely to occur only if the proper
rate of fluid bleeding occurs dur-
ing severe accelerations (3 inch
Hg. or less) and if accompanied
with certain engine parameter
changes, e.g., ignition timing.
The acceleration rates needed to
operate the device seldom occur
for some vehicles, therefore these
benefits will be limited.
"New" spark plugs have electrodes
which are clean and properly gapped
and configured (square ends and
lacking any metal transfer). At
best, the device can only keep the
plugs clean and cannot prevent the
normal deterioration (increased
plug gap, metal transfer, and
rounding of electrode ends) due to
other causes (e.g., heat).
Therefore, unless fouling is a
problem, the plugs will likely
deteriorate at their normal rate
and will not stay in "new"
condition significantly longer.
Thus, fuel economy improvements,
at least for the reasons given by
the applicant, are unlikely to be
realized.
If rough idle and hard starting
are caused by spark plug fouling
and not due to the other causes of
spark plug deterioration discussed
in item (c) above, then the device
may be beneficial due to the fluid
cleansing action.
Carbon deposit buildup can cause
combustion pressures and temper-
atures to rise to levels that
result in knocking (detonation) and
after-running (dieseling). This is
achieved by at least three
different means. First, deposit
build up reduces the combustion
chamber volume which in turn
increases the compression ratio
with a consequential increase in
mixture temperature during the
-------
10
compression stroke. Second, the
deposits do not allow efficient
transfer of heat from the
combustion chamber, through the
cylinder walls and into the
coolant. Third, heavier deposits
can cause hot spots which can have
a heating effect on incoming
mixture. This results in the last
portion of the unburned mixture to
rise to higher temperatures than
would be the case without the
deposits. The increased
compression ratio, the hot spots,
and the insulating effect often
work together to cause detonation
and dieseling. A common cure for
these problems is to use higher
octane (and more expensive) fuel
than that recommended by the
vehicle manufacturer. Carbon
deposit removal by use of the
device would allow a return to
lower octane fuel and, therefore,
a reduction in operating expense
could be realized. However, EPA
expects that on a national fleet
basis, the actual savings will be
insignificant because 1) most
vehicles run satisfactorily on the
fuels specified by the
manufacturer and 2) of the
vehicles that are using higher
octane fuel because of detonation
and dieseling problems, some will
not be able to switch to lower
octane fuel (even with the device)
because the problems are caused by
other factors (e.g., air-fuel
ratios, ignition timing, spark
plug type, cylinder head gasket
protrusion, etc.) which are not
affected by use of the device.
Further, even without the device,
for some vehicles detonation and
dieseling can often be eliminated
merely by having a qualified
service facility change certain
engine parameters (for which the
vehicle manufacturer has received
prior EPA approval).
-------
11
(f) Eliminates most
knocking and
dieseling
(g) Eliminates engine
hesitation
(h) Significantly
lowered emission
rates
EPA assumes the term "knocking" to
mean detonation and that it does
not include knocking attributable
to mechanical components such as
connecting rod bearings, piston
skirt, etc., which the device
cannot cure. With respect to
detonation and dieseling, please
refer to item (e) above.
This may be true in some instances;
however, the device may also cause
hesitation if fluid bleed rates
are not correct during severe
accelerations. Because of the
minimal bleed rate involved with
this device, this is not expected
to be a real problem.
With large bleed rates, the device
would likely cause a decrease in
oxides of nitrogen during heavy
acceleration operation, an
increase in hydrocarbons, and
little change in carbon monoxide
levels. However, the bleed rates
with this device are not expected
to cause significant changes in
any of the emission levels.
EPA agrees the device could
theoretically have some impact on
maintenance intervals and engine
life. However, the actual
magnitude of the benefits are
difficult to predict without test
data.
In summary, for those vehicles which never get subjected to
manifold vacuum levels of 3 inch Hg. or less, the device
will not function and consequently there are no benefits.
For other vehicles, the device will function occasionally
and may cause some of the benefits claimed. Whether the
benefits are significant is difficult to ascertain without
appropriate test data. The primary reason for this is that
the benefits achievable with any vapor-air bleed device are
dependent on how well the unit is matched to each engine
design/calibration and also on the composition of the fluid
used. Because the device only functions during hea'^y
accelerations and also considering the bleed rate involved,
(i)
Extended
maintenance
intervals and
engine life
-------
12
EPA does not expect significant benefits to be realized
with this device. Potential purchasers should also be
aware' that the applicant gives a warranty against
manufacturing defects but does not give a guarantee with
respect to the benefits claimed.
(5) The cost of the device, as given by the applicant, is
$39.95. EPA estimates that installation time would not
exceed 15 minutes and assuming a shop rate of $20 per hour,
the installation cost would be approximately $5. Thus, the
total cost would be approximately $45. I_f_ use of the
device did result in as much as a 10 percent improvement in
fuel economy (and assuming a cost of $1.40 per gallon of
fuel), a vehicle averaging 20 mpg would have to be driven
approximately 13,000 miles to recover the cost. This takes
into consideration the replacement cost of the fluid of
$4.95 per pint which is required approximately every 1,500
miles (according to Attachments D and F). Because most
purchasers will be able to install the device themselves,
the actual mileage for recovering the cost would be
slightly less then predicted.
After the cost of the device was recovered, the purchaser
would still have to recover the cost of each bottle of
fluid purchased thereafter. In this case, the payback
mileage would be approximately 750 miles. Because of the
periodic cost of fluid, the hypothetical device savings of
10 percent would actually be an effective savings of about
five percent.
Installation, Operation, Safety and Maintenance;
(1) Applicability;
EPA finds no problem with the applicant's statement
regarding the applicability of the device.
(2) Installation - Instructions, Equipment and Skills Required;
The installation of the device should not be a difficult
task and only a basic knowledge of engines and simple tools
are required.
(3) Operation;
Based on the design of the device, EPA has judged that
action by the driver is not required in order for the
device to function properly.
-------
13
(4) Effects on Vehicle Safety:
EPA judges that the device should not pose any safety
related problems providing that the device is designed and
manufactured to specifications given in the application and
that it is installed as described in the instructions.
(5) Maintenance:
Based on the information and the sample devices provided,
EPA agrees with the applicant that, aside from the
replenishment of the fluid, the device should not require
any maintenance. With respect to other engine components,
EPA cannot ascertain without data whether their maintenance
will be significantly affected.
d. Effects on Emissions and Fuel Economy;
(1) Unregulated Emissions:
The applicant did not submit any data with respect to
unregulated exhaust emissions. Although data were not
provided, it is EPA's engineering judgment that based on
the design of the device, the POWERFUeL Extender System is
unlikely to significantly affect unregulated pollutants.
(2) Regulated Emissions and Fuel Economy;
The applicant did not submit test data in accordance with
the Federal Test Procedure and the Highway Fuel Economy
Test. These two test procedures are the primary ones
recognized by EPA for evaluation of fuel economy and
emissions for light duty vehicles.* The -data submitted to
EPA (Attachment B) appeared to be from a single test on one
vehicle using an automotive diagnostic analyzer.
Consequently, the data did not adequately represent the
varying speed and load conditions of in-use vehicles nor
did it provide for a statistically sound test program. For
these reasons, the data did not meet the Agency's minimum
*The requirement for test data following these procedures is stated in
the policy documents that EPA sends to each potential applicant. EPA
requires duplicate test sequences before and after installation of the
device on a minimum of two vehicles. A test sequence consists of a cold
start FTP plus a HFET or, as a simplified alternative, a hot start LA-4
plus a HFET. Other data which have been collected in accordance with
other standardized procedures are acceptable as supplemental data in
EPA's preliminary evaluation of a device.
-------
14
requirements. The applicant was asked (Attachments E and G) to
submit additional test data and EPA helped develop a test
program for the device. However, the applicant did not submit
any additional data. Subsequently, the applicant notified EPA
he would not be testing the device for several months and
therefore the Agency decided to complete its evaluation using
all available information. The applicant was advised that any
test data or additional information would be accepted as part of
a new application.
e. Test Results Obtained by EPA;
EPA did not test the device for this evaluation for three
reasons. First, the information submitted to the Agency did not
adequately support the claims made for the device. Second, EPA
has tested similar products which showed no significant
benefits. Third, the applicant notified EPA that additional
supporting test data would not be submitted for several months.
7. Conclusions
EPA fully considered all of the information submitted by the
applicant. The evaluation of the POWERFUeL Extender System was based
on that information and on EPA's experience with other similar
devices. Although, in theory, the introduction of alcohol and water
could have a favorable effect on an engine's cleanliness, power and
maintenance requirements and could even* allow some vehicles to use
lower octane fuel, data were not submitted to substantiate that the
POWERFUeL Extender System could cause these benefits. Additionally,
the device is not expected to significantly change exhaust emission
or fuel economy levels. Further, for those vehicles in which the
device will seldom come into operation, the benefits will be
limited. Thus, there is no technical basis for EPA to support the
claims made for the device, to perform confirmatory testing, or to
continue the evaluation on its own..
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT; Merrill W. Korth, Emission Control
Technology Division, Office of Mobile Sources, Environmental Protection
Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, (313) 668-4299.
-------
15
List of Attachments
Attachment A Copy of the Patent Application (provided with 511
Application).
Attachment B Copy of supporting test results.
Attachment C Copy of installation instructions submitted with
application.
Attachemnt D Copy of pamphlet enclosed with sample devices.
Attachment E Copy of letter from EPA to Auto Economy Venture,
Incorporated, November 4, 1982.
Attachment F Copy of letter from Auto Economy Venture, Incorporated
to EPA, December 3, 1982.
Attachment G Copy of letter from EPA to Auto Economy Venture,
Incorporated, December 28, 1982.
-------
.16
ATTACHMENT a
FLUID INJECTION SYSTEM
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates generally to fluid
injection systems and more specifically to a fluid injec-
tion system having a novel valve and used in conjunction
5 with an antidetonant fluid for improving the combustion
process of an internal combustion engine system.
It is well known that the function of the carbure-
tor in an internal combustion engine system is to produce
the hydrocarbon fuel and air mixture needed for operation
10 of the engine. In the carburetor the fuel is distributed
in the form of tiny droplets in the stream of air. As a
result of heat absorption on the way to the cylinder,
these droplets are vaporized so that the fuel/air mixture
enters the combustion chamber of the cylinder in the form
15 of a flammable gas.
The burning of the vaporized fuel/air mixture
during the process.of combustion in internal combustion
engine systems produces both nonpollutting by-products of
..carbon dioxide and water and pollutants including unburned
20 hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide. Some of
these pollutants form deposits on the intake valve, inside
of the combustion chamber and spark plugs and result in
less efficient use of fuel, rough idle, hesitation, hard
starting, misfires, and backfires. Continued formation of
25 these deposits increase the effective compression ratio of
an engine so that higher octane fuel is needed to attain
desired combustion and thus sufficient power. It has been
-------
-2- ^ 17
determined that removing c-.rbon deposits from the valves
and combustion chambers of "dirty" engines lowers the
octane requirements of a given engine by an amount esti-
mated to be over ten percent. It has also been found that
5 cooling the intake charge increases the power and
lessens the engine knock for fuel of a given
octane rating.
The above findings have led to the deveftspment
of injection systems that administer an additive to the
10 fuel or antidetonant to cleanse the engine's combustion
chamber of carbon buildup and cool the temperature of the
intake charge. Known systems inject water, methanol,
ethanol, other alcohols and combinations thereof with
varied results. The use of some alcohol mixtures have
15 had negative results, namely the formation of pollutants
due to inadequate oxygen during the combustion process.
Water additives have been found to cool the intake charge
to the extent of causing the reduction of the power out-
put and sometimes resulting in too much cooling with
20 increased unburned carbon by-products.
Up to the present time the injection systems
used to introduce the antidetonant have been inefficient.
Most injection systems are of a constant flow design so
that there is no control of the antidetonant resulting in
25 too much additive being introduced when the engine is
idling and not enough when the engine is at its peak
demand (as during rapid acceleration). Sophisticated
electronic control systems have been developed that con-
trol the flow of additives, but they are very expensive
30 and require highly qualified technicians for service and
installation and, further, make no provision for the extra
oxygen required to burn the additive. Up to the present,
no service-free low cost injection system has been
developed to provide control of additive injection based
35 on engine demand.
An example of prior art attempts is exemplified
by water feed injection system disclosed in U.S. Patent
1,119,042 issued to James R. Ricketts on December 1, 1914.
-------
18
-3-
In the Ricketts' patent, moisture is introduced into the
manifold at a point between the carburetor and internal
combustion engine to improve the combustion. The moisture
in the form of steam is used to form a cushion effect to
5 stop engine knocking and increase the power generated. In
the Ricketts1 patent a vacuum valve is disposed between a
supply of water and the engine such that as suction is pro-
duced in the manifold the valve is closed. As the work of
the engine increases so that less vacuum is produced, the
10 valve is opened so that the water may be drawn into the
manifold. Other U.S. patents such as U.S. Patent 1,101,147
issued to Thomas F. Sawyer on June 23, 1914 and U.S. Patent
819,239 issued to L.J. Marks on May 1, 1906 show examples
of valves used in gasoline engine systems to introduce
15 into the system mixtures of fluid to improve the operation
of the engines. In none of these systems does the flow of
additive vary directly with the load on the engine.
Alternative known systems such as that disclosed in U.S.
Patent 4,119,052 issued to William T. Trevaskis on
20 October 10, 1978 introduces the antidetonant to the com-
bustion chamber in a vapor rather than liquid form. Not
only is this type system less efficient, but none are
known to be totally responsive to engine demand.
It has further been known that the use of intake
25 manifold pressure as a measure of critical need can be
used as the controlling force for determining when anti-
detonant is to be added to the fuel/air stream. As pointed
out in the April, 1949 (Volume 3,. Number 2) issue of the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAZ) Quarterly Trans-
30 actions by C. H. Van Hartesveldt, the.principle of using
antidetonant only when needed has been known in both air-
craft and automotive use. In that article an antidetonate
injection unit is disclosed mounted on the carburetor of
an automobile internal combustion engine system for dis-
35 charge of the additive into the main venturi. While the
article recognizes the importance of- maximum delivery of
the antidetonant at full throttle (maximum engine demand),
the structure of the disclosed injection unit does not
-------
19
-4-
provide for an optimum increase of antidetonant as the
engine reaches full demand. On the contrary, at full
throttle the amount of antidetonant actually decreases as
shown on Figure 7 of that article.
5 None of the prior art systems disclose a simple
mechansim that allows optimum control of the antidetonant
directly related to engine demand. With the present day
emphasis on anti-pollution control.and engine economy
resulting in overall decreases in stock engine perform-
10 ance and as a further result of the reduction of gasoline
octane ratings/ it is readily apparent that the avail-
ability of an improved antidetonant injection system is
highly desirable.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
15 An object of the present invention is to provide
an improved fluid injection system for use in conjunction
with an internal combustion engine system.
Another object of the present invention is to
provide an improved valving configuration for use in a
20 fluid injection system.
A further object of the present invention is to
provide a unique antidetonant injection system for use in
an automobile combustion engine wherein antidetonant is
introduced during the combustion process in amounts
25 directly responsive to engine load demand.
A still further object of this invention is to
provide a antidetonant injection system having a novel
valve that is responsive to performance characteristics
of an internal combustion engine to control the amount of
30 antidetonant being introduced into the combustion chamber
of the engine during the combustion cycle.
Yet another object of this invention is to pro-
vide an antidetonant injection system that may be added
to existing automobiles to improve the engine performance
35 of the internal combustion engine during the combustion
process.
Still another object of this invention is to
-------
/ -5-
20
provide an antidetonant fluid injection system having a
novel valving configuration responsive to performance
characteristics of an internal combustion engine so as to
control the amount of antidetonant and air mixture to the
5 engine during the combustion cycle.
These and other objects of the invention are
provided through the use of a fluid injection system
having a novel valve and including an antidetonant fluid
reservoir mounted on the chassis of the automobile. The
10 valve is inserted in the existing vaccum connection
between the PCV valve or its equivalent and the intake
manifold of the carburetor with the valve inlet connected
to the reservoir of antidetonant fluid. The valve hous-
ing is constructed so that the valve passage is opened in
15 increasing amounts as engine demand is increased and a
mixture of the antidetonant and air allowed to pass
through the valve outlet into the intake manifold to be
mixed with the mixture of fuel and air prior to entering
the combustion chamber. The antidetonant is a proprie-
20 tary mixture including lightly based hydrocarbons, sur-
factants and water that results in a decrease in the
temperature of the intake charge and a decrease in the
carbon by-products normally associated with the combustion
process. The decreased intake manifold temperature fur-
25 ther results in a combustion charge that has an increased
density and greater potential for expansion. In addition,
the conversion from liquid to vapor during the combustion
process consumes heat at the rate of 600 calories per gram
of liquid at a very critical instant allowing a slower
30 than normal increase in combustion temperature to a lower
than normal temperature peak. The main passage of the
valve, designed to be closed when the engine is idling,
allows varying controlled amounts of antidetonant to flow
proportional to the amount of engine load demand or accel-
35 eration. The inclusion of a check valve ball positioned
in a specially constructed chamber in the main passage
having circular cross sections of varying diameters is
responsible for the precise control of the flow of
-------
-6- 21
antidetonant related to engine demand. The walls of the
generally tubular shaped chamber are designed to gradually
diverge so that as the distance from the valve.seat is
increased, so does the diameter of each circle represent-
5 ing the chamber's cross section. This critical structural
design feature of the chamber allows more area and hence
more antidetonant and air to flow around the ball/ through
the main passage of the valve and into the intake side of
the carburetor as the ball moves away from its valve seat.
10 The structure of the valve, as will be explained in the
description of the preferred embodiment,includes a bias-
ing means to force the ball away from its valve seat a
progressively greater distance as the demand on the engine
increases.
15 Another critical structural design feature of
the valve resides in the provision of an air inlet to the
chamber separate and apart from the antidetonant fluid
inlet into the chamber. Both the antidetonant and air are
allowed to mix in the chamber in a desired stoichiometric
20 ratio so that adequate oxygen is eventually fed into the
combustion chamber of the engine. In an alternative em-
bodiment, a second valve identically structured as the
main valve is provided to permit the introduction of air
to the antidetonant even when the check valve ball shuts
25 off the air supply in the main valve.
Objects, advantages and novel features of the
present invention will become apparent from the following
detailed description of the invention when considered in
conjunction with the accompanying drawings.
30 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
. FIGURE 1 is a schematic drawing of the fluid
injection system showing the valve connections;
FIGURE 2A is a cross section of the valve
housing;
35 FIGURE 2B is a cross section of an alternative
embodiment of one section of the valve housing;
FIGURE 3 is a cross section taken along the same
-------
-7-
lines of FIGURE 2 of the valve housing with its components 22
in place; and
FIGURE 4 is a schematic drawing depicting an
alternative embodiment of the fluid injection system using
5 two valves.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
The schematic of FIG. 1 illustrates fluid injec-
tion system 10 as having a reservoir 12 within which anti-
detonant fluid 14 is stored, PCV valve 16, carburetor 18
10 and valve 20. Valve 20 is designed so that inlets 24, 25
and 23 are in fluid communication with outlet 32 as will
be explained in greater detail below. Flexible tubing 22
has one end positioned in reservoir 12 and the other end
connected to inlet 24 of valve 20. In the preferred em-
15 bodiment a filter is provided at the end of tubing 22
located in the reservoir to prevent pollutants and solid
particles from clogging the valve 20. Flexible tubing 26
has one end connected to PCV valve 16 and its other end to
inlet 28 of valve 20. Flexible tubing 30 connects outlet
20 32 of valve 20 to the intake side of carburetor 18. PCV
valve 16 and carburetor 18 represent standard components
found in automobiles having an internal combustion engine
system while reservoir 12 and valve 20 are anticipated to
be supplied as add-ons. As will be explained below the
25 PCV connection allows increased control of antidetonant
flow. Reservoir 12 may be mounted by a suitable method
at any convenient location on the chassis of an automobile
in a position that it is always lower with respect to the
ground level than valve 20 so that no syphoning action
30 from the reservoir can occur. In the preferred embodiment,
reservoir 12 is mounted on the fire wall under the hood
of the automobile.
As is well known to those in the art, the PCV
valve is generally connected directly to the intake mani-
( ''•*
35 fold: of"the carburetor and has as its primary purpose the
t
venting, by suction developed in the intake manifold of
unburned fuel and other pollutants back into the intake
-------
-8-
side of the carburetor for burning during the combustion 23
process. Neither the function of the PCV valve nor the
suction action developed in the intake manifold is
effected by the insertion of valve 20 which is construc-
5 ted to allow the continuous uninterrupted flow of the
pollutants from PCV valve 16 through the passage from
inlet 28 to outlet 32 of valve 20 into the intake side of
carburetor 18. Thus, the use of valve 20 .does not adverse-
ly affect the normal operation of the PCV valve 16 or
10 carburetor 19.
When the engine is idling the suction developed
in the intake manifold is the greatest and, as explained
in detail' below, the main passage of valve 20 between
inlet 24 and outlet 32 is closed. As the engine load
15 is increased, as happens during acceleration, the suction
or negative pressure from the intake manifold is de-
creased and the main passage between inlet 24 and outlet
32 in valve 20 is designed to open so that a mixture of
antidetonant 14 and air in the desired stoichiometric
20 ratio is drawn into the intake side of carburetor 18. As
is explained in greater detail below, the closure .means
in the main passage between inlet 24 and outlet 32 is
structured so that as the acceleration or load of the
car engine is increased and the suction in the intake
25 manifold of the carburetor decreased the amount of anti-
detonant 14 and air flowing into the intake side of car-
buretor 18 is increased. The presence of antidetonant
_£ // ; ^.,.. -.- ,. t
14 in the carburetor 18 allows it to be mixed with the
standard fuel and air mixture in the combustion chamber.
30 As previously pointed out, the proprietary mixture of
hydrocarbons, alcohols, surfactants and water in anti-
deconant fluid 14 accomplishes the cleansing of carbon
deposits in the combustion chamber and intake valves as
well as a lowering of the temperature of the intake charge
35 in the combustion chamber. Thus, improved engine perform-
ance results.
FIG. 2A illustrates a cross section taken of
the valve 20 without any of its components and is
-------
24
-9-
identified as valve housing 33. In the preferred embodi-
ment the material used for valve, housing 33 is an easily
molded machinable polyester plastic having a melting point
*2t"7 e
substantially higher than the <£S°F peak temperature anti-
5 cipated under the hood of an. automobile. It is obvious
that any suitable material that is impervious, to the cor-
rosive effects of the chemicals in antidetonant 14 may be
used. Inlet 28 is seen to be at one end of through bore
34 and outlet 32 is located at the other end thereof. In
10 fluid communication with bore 34 is bore 36 formed in
housing 33 and having a closed end section 36' and an open
ended section 36". Section 36" includes valve seat 38,
valve chamber 40 and outer end 42. Connected to valve
chamber 40 is bore 44 having a fluid flow restrictor 46
15 located at the inner end thereof and inlet 24 located at
the outer end thereof. In the preferred embodiment flow
restricter 46 is formed with a small hole of .016-.050
inch diameter. Valve chamber 40 has gradually increasing
circular cross sections having a diameter of .375 at
20 valve seat 38 and a diameter of .385 at location 52. The
diameter of the circular cross section of section 36" of
bore 36 from location 52 to the outer end 42 is constant
for reasons to be explained below.
In an alternative embodiment of the housing 33,
25 bore 34 may be positioned so that the closed end of sec-
tion 36' of bore 36 is located on the interior wall of
bore 34 as is illustrated in FIG. 2B.
The components that make up the operational
valve are shown in position in FIG. 3. Tubular shaped
30 sections 54 and 56 are located at inlet 28 and outlet 32
or bore 34, respectively so that the ends flexible
tubing 26 and 30 may be slipped over the outer ends
thereof in a fluid tight condition. It is obvious that
sections 54 and 56 may be formed integrally with housing
35 33 if so desired. Stainless steel compression spring 58
is located in section 36' bore 36 as shown so that in a
noncompressed position one end thereof is positioned in
section 36" of bore 36 just past vavle seat 38 and into
-------
-10-
valve chamber 40. Stainless steel check valve ball 60
is housed in valve chamber 40 between 0-rings 62 and 64
so that a fluid tight condition results when ball 60 is
seated on either O-ring 62 or 64, respectively. Washer-
5 like plug 66, having an air passage 68, is fit into outlet
42 and, in the preferred embodiment, is fabricated from
any suitable material that is impervious to antidetonant
fluid 14. Air filter 69 is provided in opening 42 and,
in the preferred embodiment, may be either a sintered
10 bronze or porous plastic. Pipe segment 70 is inserted
or molded into inlet 24 of bore 44 so that *the end of
flexible tubing 22 may be slipped over the outer end
thereof in a fluid tight condition.
In operation, when the engine system to which
15 the antidetonant injection system has been added is in an
idling condition, the vacuum or suction from the manifold
of the carburetor is at its maximum value. This value is
generally 15 to 20 inches of mercury where one inch of
mercury equals approximately .5 pound per square inch
20 negative pressure at sea level. The suction force of
vacuum causes check valve ball 60 into O-ring 62 in a
fluid tight relationship sealing the main passageway
inlet 24 and outlet 32 of valve 20. It is"to be noted
that 15 to 20 inches of mercury is sufficiently less than
25 the atmospheric pressure in valve chamber 40 to allow the
operation of valve 20 as explained below. Spring 58 is
positioned and calibrated to exert force against ball
60, but not enough force to unseat ball 60 from O-ring
62 when the engine is in an idling condition. Thus,
30 no antidetonant flows into the intake side of the carbu-
retor.
Upon the value of vacuum from the intake mani-
fold decreasing as happens when the engine is acceler-
ated, the compression force of spring 58 is sufficient
35 to unseat ball 60 from O-ring 62 so that antidetonant 14
can flow from the valve chamber 40 through outlet 32. As
the throttling action of the engine is increased, the
vacuum from the intake manifold is decreased resulting in
-------
26
-li-
the spring 58 being able to push ball 60 towards plug 66
until the ball 60 is seated against 0-ring 64 in a fluid
tight relationship. Due to the increasing diameter of
the circular cross sections of valve chamber 40 from
5 seat 38 to location 52 in valve chamber 40, as explained
above, the amount of antidetonant 14 allowed to pass
into the intake manifold is increased as ball 60
approaches plug 66 and 0-ring 64. The suction from the
intake manifold draws antidetonant 14 from reservoir
10 12 through tubing 22, tubing 70, flow restricter 46, into
valve chamber 40. At the same time air is drawn through
passage 68 into valve chamber 40. The mixture of anti-
detonant 14 and air then passes through outlet 32 and
into the intake manifold for distribution in the com-
15 bustion chamber along with the standard fuel and air
mixture.
Air passage 68 in plug 66 serves three purposes;
first, to allow extra air into valve chamber 40 for the
purpose of being mixed with antidetonant 14 as it is
20 introduced in a desired stoichiometric ratio into the
intake side of carburetor 18; second, to provide an
additional force to push check valve ball 60 toward its
closed position in engagement with 0-ring 62 when the
suction in the intake manifold increases and it is
25 desired to immediately cut off the flow of antidetonant
14 into the carburetor 50 that any vacuum that may other-
wise be trapped in valve chamber 40 is eliminated; and
three, to control the amount of fluid being aspirated as
ball 60 approaches 0-ring 64 by allowing more antidetonant
30 and less air to enter valve chamber 40.
In the rare instance in which a PCV valve is
not used or when it is impractical to connect the exist-
ing PCV valve to the inventive system, inlet 28 of valve
20 may be capped. The operation of the system is affect-
35 ed in that some antidetonant 14 may be trapped in the
fluid flow line between outlet 32 and the intake side of
carburetor 18 and slowly dribble into the carburetor
when it is not needed. Further, when valve 20 initially
-------
27
-12-
opens, the reaction time for the antidetonant to reach
the carburetor is lengthened. Therefore, to counteract
having no PCV valve connection, tubing length 30 should
be made as short as possible and connected to the intake
5 side of the carburetor in the same location or in close
proximity to where the PCV valve would ordinarily be
connected.
In the preferred embodiment the following values
and dimensions have been found to be desirable*.
10 I- check valve ball 60 diameter of
.375 inch + .0005 •
2. compression spring 58 spring rate
of 1.266 pounds per inch so that
at 3-1/2" vacuum the ball will be
15 unseated from 0-ring 62.
3. compression spring 58 compressed
.110 inch maximum.
4. 0-ring 62 and 64 inner diameter
of .25 inch.
20 5. maximum antidetonant fluid and air
flow at an intake manifold vacuum of
1" vacuum.
6. an increase in diameter of the cir-
cular cross section of valve chamber
25 40 from .377 inch at valve seat 38
to .385 inch at location 52.
7. plug 66 diameter of .675 inch
8. air passage 68 diameter of .090 inch
9. distance from valve seat 38 to plug
_ _ 'V-c'l,
30 66 of .•%» w™1-'-! .370 inch.
Using the above values, test use of the anti-
detonant injection system 10 has shown that approximately
one quart of antidetonant 14 is consumed per 3,000 miles
of average travel distance.
35 FIG. 4 represents a schematic diagram of an
alternative embodiment of the invention wherein a valve
20', identical in structure to valve 20 is used to insure
that a proper amount of air is mixed with antidetonant 14
-------
28
-13-
before entering into the intake side of carburetor 18.
Inlet 28' of valve 20' is connected to the PCV valve 16
via T-shaped connector 80, such that the operation of
valve 20 is not affected. Outlet 32' of valve 20* is
5 connected to the intake side of carburetor 18 via T--
shaped connector 82 without affecting the operation of
valve 20. Inlet 24' of valve 20' is not connected to
an tidetenant 14 so that air may enter tubing 30 through
valve *0' into carburetor 18 whenever antidetonant 14 is
10 drawn through valve 20.
The significance of the addition of valve 20*
is apparent when check valve ball 60 of valve 20 is
seated in a fluid tight condition against O-ring 64,
so that air cannot enter valve chamber 40 via air pas-
15 .sage 68. Without valve 20* connected as described
above, more antidetonant 14 than necessary may enter
carburetor 18 resulting in a waste of antidetonant 14.
It is important to note that in all other respects, the
preferred embodiment of the antidetonant injection sys-
20 tern using a single valve 20 is as efficient as the embodi-
ment using valve 20'.
From the proceeding description of the pre-
ferred embodiments, it.is evident that the'objects of
the invention are attained and that an antidetonant
25 injection system having a novel valve that can be used
in any internal combustion engine system is provided
which will result in more efficient engine performance.
Although the invention has been described and
illustrated in detail, it is to be clearly understood
30 that the sane is by way of illustration and example only
and is not to be taken by way of limitation. The spirit
and scope of this invention are to be limited by the
terms of the appended claims.
-------
-14- 29
WHAT IS CLAIMED IS:
1. A valve having a main passage and a closure
means,
said main passage including a chamber,
said chamber having diverging interior walls,
5 said closure means being located in said
chamber and being movable therein,
whereby the amount of fluid allowed to
pass through said main passage is directly related to
the position of said closure means in said chamber.
10 2. The valve of Claim 1 wherein said chamber
interior walls are generally tubular in shape and have
generally circular cross sections, each said cross
section having a different diameter value.
3. The valve of Claim 1 wherein said closure
15 means is completely detached from said interior walls of
said chamber.
4. The valve of Claim 3 wherein'said closure
means is in the shape of a ball.
5. The valve of Claim 1 having biasing means
20 acting on said closure means with a force opposite in
direction to that necessary to move said closure means
to completely stop fluid flow through said main passage.
6. The valve of Claim 5 wherein said biasing
means is completely detached from the interior walls of
25 said valve.
7. The valve of Claim 5 wherein said biasing
means is a spring.
-------
30
-15-
8. The valve of Claim 6 wherein said biasing
means is a spring.
9. The valve of Claim 1 having a second
passage, said main passage and said second passage having
5 a common outlet from said valve.
10. The valve of Claim 9 wherein said second
passage is continuously open to fluid flow.
11. The valve of Claim 1 wherein said chamber
has a plurality of inlets.
10 12. The valve of Claim 11 wherein at least
one of said chamber inlets include a flow restricter.
13. The valve of Claim 1 wherein the housing
is an integral member.
14. The valve of Claim 1 wherein there are at
15 least three inlets and no more than one outlet.
15. A fluid injection system comprising:
a valve having a main passage and closure
means/
said main passage having a first inlet and
20 an outlet,
a supply of fluid and a vacuum source
wherein said supply of fluid is connected to said first
inlet, said vacuum source is connected to said outlet,
and said closure means is located in said main passage
25 between said first inlet and said outlet whereby said
closure means controls the amount of fluid allowed to flow
through said main passage in response to the value of
vacuum from said vacuum source.
-------
31
-16-
16. The fluid injection system of Claim 15
wherein the amount of said fluid permitted to flow through
said main passage varies from zero at a predetermined
value of vacuum to a progressively greater amount as the
5 value of vacuum is decreased from said predetermined
value.
17. The fluid injection system of Claim 15
wherein said closure means of said valve is a generally
ball-shaped member.
10 18. The fluid injection system of Claim 16
wherein said closure means is a generally ball-shaped
member.
19. The fluid injection system of Claim 15
wherein said valve has a continuously open second passage
15 for controlling the response time for varying the amount
of fluid flow through said main passage.'
20. The fluid injection system of Claim 19
wherein said main passage of said valve has a second
inlet for increasing the sensitivity of said valve to
20 pressure differential in said valve.
21. The fluid injection system of Claim 15
wherein said valve has biasing means acting on said
closure means with a force in opposition to the force
resulting from said vacuum source.
• *
25 22. The fluid injection system of Claim 21
wherein said biasing means is a spring.
23. The fluid injection system of Claim 17
wherein a compression spring is provided to create a
biasing force against said ball-shaped member- acting in
30 opposition to the force created by said vacuum source.
-------
32
-17-
24. The fluid injection system of Claim 15
wherein a'second valve is provided having an outlet
connected to said vacuum source for improving the fluid
flow control through said main passage of said first
5 valve.
25. The fluid injection system of Claim 24
wherein said second valve has the same structure as said
first valve.
-------
33
-18-
ABSTRACT
An antidetonant injection system for use in an -
internal combustion engine system having a novel valve in
which the amount of antidetonant allowed to flow through
5 the valve is directly related to the amount of engine
demand ranging from zero flow when the engine is idling
to maximum flow when the engine is at full throttle or
under maximum load.
-------
CARBURETOR
34
-------
35
Title- EPA Evaluation of the POWERFUeL Extender System Under
——^—^~Section 511 ^-L Lllc: MuLuj. Vdu.\-lc inrv illicit 1*311
and Cost Savings Act
ATTACHMENT B
Page(s) 35 -
Not clearly reproducible from submitted
document. Copy will be furnished upon
request from the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Emission Control Tech-
nology Division, Test & Evaluation Branch,
2565 Plymouth Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
-------
ATTACHMENT C
36
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Remove PCV Hose at Carburetor. A
2. Install Powerfuel Valve B into A.
3. Install Original Hose C to other end of B.
4. Mount Powerfuel Bottle Reservoir Holder D 1" below B.
5. Install Powerfuel Sortie G in D
6. Install Hose Pickup F into Powertuel Bottle
7. Remove Hose F from nipple H. Start Engine and Run Engine until warm.
8. Install Hose F to Nipple I. Run Engine for 15 seconds or until 1 ,'4 of bottle is used.
9. Shut engine off. Replace Hose F to Nipple H and replace Cap J to Nipple I.
10. Take YOUR NEW CAR for a readiest.
DESCRIPTIONS CONTENTS
A PCV Hose Nipple at Base ot Carburetor5
B POWER VALVE
C PCV Hose*
D Fluid Holder
E Mounting Screws and Nylon Strap
F Vacuum Hose w:tn Pickup
G Bottle of Power Fluid
H Top Small Nipple
I Bottom Small N ipple
J Plastic Cap
•Part of Engine
-------
ATTACHMENT. Q
37
The Ten Most Hm^orianl Seasons W?ay
SsisnsZet" an
Caz: '•
Removes caroon i
deposits on plugs' /
deposits on intake
va.ve & intake pom
Removes caroon
deposits on cylinder
You'd feel the difference G« the e«cieney of a n-w tune-up
Jbe *GWV*ru*H. Vow car runs mare economically ..
Ext«nd«r is computer because your p.'ugs stay in "like n-w"
designed to provide you condition longer.
with tfte performance Ewery ounce of gai works harder for
your car was meant you also. Teas rreanj you g« more
togiveyoul out of the ga* you ouy»
2 -
(wnen related to sp.v« p/ugs)
Nothing is worse than 9 car that
doesn't start.
S/jlBiw gu«irante is*- -*yron'
"\Mien your cir's engine isn't running nghr. "Nyr
it's working against icsei.T could
^<5^
:ouid oe your spar» plugs oest (rienor
• to 140 plus octane, you can s.iff y i
a lower octane fuel?
23.
f^-&P •** -y*
$^M
(provides cooler engine operation) '^/^f/ H\v'lv**v You<'cil PJ C'IP«10''' °' g'«"t7
Because >Oureng,ne dne^twn >" * lS)t""Vj %£?** fSi™" * "*
2Oa»n5t it£ef' the .'^J^^OI^J^J- v^ / • *•• • » • • n» «VCMMI
f?wM lowen the pe.ik operating >*».... • -^
temperatures whicn extends \ i y
engine life! V rt /
<&'1^
Copylcrii 'IWI /Sjto fearemr Vwwrr. tic
lonnaVVilitv. HT/IVHI 35i-2J40
-------
Hgwiiwor^:^
38
The harder you press on the accelerate*, the higher the engine s octane
requirement is.
If the engine octane requirement js higher than the the octane supplied by the
fuel...Knocking and pinging and engine damage occur.
The higher temperature fractions of gasoline form carbon deposits inside the
engine that also raise the octane requirements of the engine.
Our POWEHFUeL Extender System imrodces a proprietary 140— octane
fluid at the proper time and in ;ne exact proportions to raae the average
octane level ot the fuel—aiove the engine's octane requirements. It is simple
to install and foolproof in design.
Unlike costly High Test gasoline and octane boosters currently available: that
are used up when the gas tank empties. POWERFUeL Extender System lets
YOU control tne use and flow of the fluia (higher octane materials).
YOU ONLY USE WHAT YOU NEED! None is wastediOrw pint lasts many,
manytankfuls.
Also incorporated in the POWEHFUeL Fluid are:
1. Detergents that remove engine deposits: thus lowering engine octane
needs and extends tune-up cycles.
2. Inhibitors that protect engine components from corrosive chemicals found
in all grades of gasoline.
3. Lubricants that reduce friction in the upcer cylinder and provide longer
engine life and more efficient fuel utilization.
4. Fire retardants even though POWERFUeL Fluid contains over 6.000 STU's
per gallon at room temperature the POW ERFUeL Fluid will extinguish any
match placed in it—in other words POWERFUeL Fluid does not support
combustion at room temperature!
5. Coolants that lower peak operating temperatures at the proper instant—
thus increasing the power stroke and extending engine life.
Questions you might ask & Answers you should know!
Q.
A.
A.
Q.
A.
a
A.
a
A.
a
What ar« the benefits and what win I notice? Q.
ST>oot-.9' performance. cro/9 sower et-mmates tf<9
neec tor rv-o out oftnfe*:v:n«-ups. engine runs A.
coo>«r ana protong«J nomine i>l«.
Doe* it work In the same way with leaded or Q.
unleaded tu«4s? A.
Yes. Q.
Hew often does the additive need to be replaced:
One pint will last approximately l .500 ones of A.
normal driving.
Can I UM a lower octane gasoline? Q.
Yes. A.
How soon wiM I notice a change?
Immediately. Q.
What ill change vehicles? Can I move the system
to the new vehicle? A.
Yes.
Can I install me POWERFUeL EXTENDER System
mysell?
Yes. in approximately 10 minutes, by following the
sinnpl* instructions
Win this chemical Ireeie in the winter?
No. Freeing po
-------
39
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR- ^'CH'GAN 48,05 ATTACHMENT E
November 4, 1982 OFFICE OF
.AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
Mr. Joe Farkas, Senior Vice President
Technology and Administration
Auto Economy Venture, Inc.
P.O. Box 434
Spring Valley, NY 10977
Dear Mr. Farkas:
We have performed a preliminary review of your October 7, 1982
application for an EPA evaluation of the POWERFUeL retrofit device. Our
review also included all information on the device which was previously
submitted. Based upon our preliminary review, we have noted the
following concerns:
1. Section 3.b. of your application refers to an "EPA approved
gasoline additive". I would like to stress that EPA does not
"approve" fuel additives or any other retrofit device. The fuel
additive waiver granted by EPA to Sun Petroleum Products Company
does not constitute an approval/ endorsement of that product.
2. Please provide the chemical composition and the percentage by
weight of each constituent of POWERFUeL fluid, as sold to
purchasers of your device. Additionally, describe those
differences between POWERFUeL fluid and the fuel additives of
Oxinol, Sun Petroleum Products, and Goodyear which were referred
to in the supporting attachments.
3. Does Auto Economy Venture Incorporated manufacture the POWERFUeL
fluid in addition to the vacuum valve? If another company
manufactures the POWERFUeL fluid, in the composition as sold to
consumers, please submit a letter from that company which
authorizes you to have their fluid evaluated by EPA.
4. What material are the vacuum valve "0" rings? Have you data
showing that the material is. compatible with the POWERFUeL fluid
over a long term basis?
5. The patent application shows the vacuum valve flow restrictor
hole as being different in design from that depicted in the
installation instruction sheet. Does this mean the application
for evaluation applies to more than one design? Are different
models available?
6. Does your application for evaluation also apply to the two-valve
configuration shown in Figure 4 of your patent application?
-------
40
7. Your application states that no tools are needed for device
installation. Yet, the installation instructions attached to
your letter of August 10 indicate that at least a knife,
screwdriver, and drill are required. Please clarify this
apparent discrepancy.
8. After the initial installation of the device, is mileage
accumulation required before certain benefits, are realized? If
so, how many miles must be driven?
9. Where will replacement POWERFUeL fluid be purchased and at what
price?
10. Based on our understanding of the device, there axe three
possible positions for the vacuum valve checkball (item 60 in
Figure 3 of patent application) as follows:
a. Checkball sealed against "0" ring 62 (no POWERFUeL fluid or
air bleeding).
b. Checkball not sealed against either "0" rings 62 or 64
(both POWERFUeL fluid and air bleeding).
c. Checkball sealed against "0" ring 64 (POWERFUeL fluid
bleeding only).
Is our understanding correct? If so, then it would seem that
even if the POWERFUeL fluid were depleted, there would still be
air bleeding in positions b and c. Thus, this would be contrary
to your statement that the engine returns to its previous
condition (before device installation). Please clarify or
confirm our understanding.
11. We have examined the two sample devices you submitted and have
noted the following for both of them. First, the plastic line
which is inserted into the fluid bottle has attached to it a
metal clip which is apparently intended to prevent the line from
sliding out of the bottle cap. The clip appears to have cut a
hole into the line and thereby allows air to bleed into the
line. This, of course, could affect the flow rate of the liquid
leaving the bottle. Second, the checkball does not completely
seal against either "0" ring regardless of the vacuum signal
applied to the vacuum valve (by means of ports 28 or 32 in
Figure 1). For this reason, there is a continuous air bleed (of
varying magnitudes) regardless of the checkball position. These
two phenomenas differ from the operation of the device as
described in the patent application. Are the sample devices
functioning as intended? Please clarify these apparent
discrepancies.
12. You have claimed several benefits for the device. However, you
have not submitted any data that substantiates any of the
claims. The following comments address specific claims.
-------
41
a. You provided no fuel economy data nor do you make any
specific . percentage improvement claims. How much
improvement do you claim? The exhaust emission data that
was submitted was not generated using FTP or HFET
procedures as described in the documents I sent you
previously. Further, considering that the supporting
documents to your application suggest mileage accumulation
is necessary before some benefits are. realized, any test
program for your device should include mileage
accumulation. The data you submitted does not show that
mileage accumulation was part of the test program.
b. To substantiate the claims for increased power and
acceleration, data should be obtained from dynamometer
and/or track, tests.
c. Your letter of August 10 states that upon installation of
the device, there was an immediate decrease in emissions.
Therefore, you concluded the POWERFUeL fluid had cleaned
the various deposits from the combustion chamber. Because
additional oxygen was added to the air-fuel mixture (from
the vacuum valve air bleed and the alcohol) and also
because of the cooler combustion temperatures (due to the
fuel additive) we would expect an immediate change in
emissions, even without removal of the deposits. To
substantiate the claim for cleaner engines and less engine
wear, it seems the engines would have to be disassembled
and checked for deposits and wear at various exposure
intervals.
d. On what basis is the claim made for extended maintenance
intervals? Have you run vehicles for prolonged periods of
time with your device?
After you have provided the information requested in this letter, we will
assist you in developing an appropriate test program for your device. So
that we may evaluate your device in a timely manner, I ask that you
respond to this letter by November 24. Should you have any questions or
require further information, please contact me.
Sincerely, •
Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
-------
Auto Economy Venture 42
c/
P.O. BOX434 Attachment F
Spring Valley, N.Y. 1C977
914-352-2240
Dec. 3, 1982
Mr. Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
US Environmental Protection Agency
Motor Vehicles Emissions Laboratory
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI .,3105
Dear Mr. Korth:
As per our recant telephone conversation, I would like to thank you for the
allowed delay in answering your Nov.4, 1982 letter with its questions.
I and Myron Stein have carefully reviewed your letter and have formulated
the following answers and clarifications. The numbers relate to your concerns
as per the letter of Nov. 4, 1982.
1. We are sorry for the inadverdent oversight which occured regarding
the "EPA approved" phrase. We now understand the regulatory functions
that you provide and oversee.
2. The POWERFUeL fuel additive has the following nominal composition
expressed in Weight percent: methanol-15.5, l-buthanol-2.3, non-
ionic surfactant(i.e. Union Carbide Tergitol S7)-0.4, Water-balance.
The Goodyear fuel additive is virtually identical to the POWERFUeL
one whereas the Sun Chemical Products and Oxinol fuel additives
consist primarily of t-buthanol and methanol without any water.
3. Auto Economy Venture Inc, has the POWERFUeL fuel additive custom
manufactured by a local automotive fluids bottler under contract
to us. Therefore, the POWERFUeL fuel additive is considered as
made by us and no permission from the bottler is required.
4. The "0" ring in the valve is made from Buna-N rubber by a local
molder. Standard material compatibility charts (derived from time
arid accelerated corrosion resting) list Buna-N rubber as compatible
" "vith methanol and 1- buthanol. Furthermore, the solvency and swel-
ling power of these alcohols decreases dramatically with just a
few percent water. Therefore, the Buna-N rubber in this application
is obvious which fact has also been verified by over two years of
operation in this application without a single failure of the "0"
ring.
5. The application for evaluation applies to the design in your possesion.
There is only one model avaialble. The mere fact that the patent
drawings differ slightly from the device as reduced to practice,
is a result of a necessary improvement on the original to allow
a variable flow by the tapered insert so that the valve can be used
on a variety of engines and needs.
-------
43
6. The application evaluation applies only to the one valve configu-
ration reduced to practice as supplied to you.
7. There is no apparent discrepancy. It is possible to install the
device either way. A professional mechanic would do It with the
tool menti toned whereas the general public or amateur would do it
with the clips /straps provided.
8. A mileage accumulation of 10-20 miles may be necessary for engines
with unusually thick deposits .before the benefits are realized.
For "normally" maintained engines, the benefits are realized
after a few minutes, about 5, of. operation which include a few
cycles of acceleration/decceleration so that priming of the valve
occurs.
9. Replacement POWERFUeL fuel additive may be purchased directly from
us at $4.95/pint or from any number of distributors now in the
process of being established.
10. Your understanding of the "0" ring-checkball arrangement is
correct, furthermore, if the fluid is depleted, air would leak
in through positions b and c. However, the maximum orifice size
is 0.090" dia. (prefered O.OA1) which results in an orifice cross
sectional area of 0.006362 inch square as compared to the carburetor
throat opening of 2" or a cross flow sectional area of 3.1416 inch
square. Since both orifices are at the same pressure during accel-
eration, the flowrates are proportional to the cross flow areas.
In this case an area ratio of about 500 (493.8) to 1 exists which
means that in the case of depleted fluid, the flowrate of air
through the valve is about 0.2% of the carburator flowrate.
This amount is less than the design precission of the engine air
intake system. Furtehrmore, a dirty air filter would decrease air
flow by much more than 0.2%. Thus the statement that the device
would return the engine upon fluid depletion to pre-device instal-
lation conditions is still valid. Remember that the valve operates
only if the vacuum falls below the 3" needed to switch it on.
This condition occurs only during hard accleration or a small por-
tion of the time that the engine operates.
11. Your observation that the tube from the reservoir has a metal
clip attached beneath the bottle cap to prevent it from sliding
out, is correct. The hole by the clip is intentional, not acciden-
tal as it appears to be. Its function is to prevent syphoning
of the fluid in case the fluid reservoir is raisinstalled, i.e.
higher in elevation than the valve-see installation instructions.
The hole also prevents hydraulic lock when the engine is shut off.
This.worksin conjunction with the oversize hole in the bottle cap
which also prevents vacuum build-up in the bottle, thus uncontrolled
flow of fluid to the engine. These two leaks will affect flow and
thus they have been considered and compensated for in the design
of the entire system. The checkball seal against the "0" ring
will work properly when the valve has the fluid running through
it as intended. The proper seal is based on the retention of the
fluid on the surface of the checkball and "0" ring due to surface
tension. In the dry state the device might leak as you indicated,
however this mode is not the intended operating mode.
-------
44
Thus the samples sent to you are operating properly unless an
early and unpredictable failure occured. If you think that this ±s
the case, we will send you more samples upon your request.
12...a. The percentage improvement for the fluid/device system, when properly
installed, may range from 0-20%. This depends on such factors as
accumulated mileage, state of maintenance of the engine/transmission,
catalytic converter, gasoline used, driving habits, etc. As for the
exhaust emission data, it was not generated using FTP or HFET pro-
cedures because as mentioned before by Myron Stein, the 3" or less
of vacuum necessary to operate the device does not occur in these
procedures, thus the be efits otainable are not possible because
conditions for it do not occur. Furthermore, those test use a fuel
of substantially higher octane rating (about 98) which alleviates
most of the problems (pinging, knocking, dieseling, etc.) for which
the POWERFUeL system was designed. Rather, if tested with 87 octane
rating fuel on actual roads with the "average public" driver, the
POWERFUeL system will work as claimed. No substantial mileage accu-
mulation is necessary for the benefits to be realized. As outlined
earlier, only very dirty engines need a few miles to eliminate the
carbon deposits. In our tests, with a substantial amount of random
cars, a 5 min. operation with few on/off cycles for the valve,
yielded a substantial reduction in emissions as measured-with the
New York State emissions equipment (Hamilton Standard, infrared
dispersive energy type system). Similar results were obtained with
the neibouring states (CT, NJ, PA) systems also.
b. R&D and dynamometer tests for alcohol/water mixtures injected into
running gasoline engines have been performed by Gli ARCO, FORD and
many other concerns. Please refer to the extended reference list
sent toghether with the application. I would like to call to your
attention a late reference on alcohol fuels cited on page 52 of
Chemical Engineering Progress, August 1982.
c. As shown earlier, the amount of fluid (be it liquid or gas) that is
added to the engine via the POWERFUeL system is negligible when
compared to the carburator intake. Thus your contention of addi-
tional oxygen entering the system is technically correct but
practically insignificant. The significant feature of the POWERFUeL
system is that it removes the carbon deposits in about 5 minutes
and prevents their redeposition. Engines run under similar condi-
tions have been disassembled and tested as per your mention by
GM, ARCO, FORD shown in the extended bibliography sent along with
the application. We have checked the cleanliness of the spark plugs
in pre and post device installation from where our claims were
verified.
d. Cars with over 120,000 accumulated mileage have been run with the
POWERFUeL system installed on them for over two years. Over 1000
cars have the system for more than one year. No complaints on
dissatisfaction or device failure occured. During a controlled
testing schedule with a school bus fleet consisting of over 150
different buses, substantially less maintenance was required as
evidenced by the fleet operators' testimonials, copies sent to you
with the application.
-------
A. 45
As you can see, the POWERFUeL system is a well thought-out and. designed
system.
The President, Myron Stein, is often in the northern Ohio area, a couple
of hours driving distance from your facilities. Should you desire, he can
make a side trip to your offices to further discuss this project and appli-
cation.
As per your offer, we are expecting to hear from you in terms of assistance
for developing an appropriate test program for the POWERFUeL system.
Should you. have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. You
are most likely to reach me by phone at (914) 735-7620.
Very truly yours,
Joe Farkas
Senior VP-Technology
JF/ab
cd: Myron Stein
-------
46
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ATTACHMENT G
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
~o^
December 28, 1982
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
Mr. Joe Farkas, Senior Vice President
Technology and Administration
Auto Economy Venture, Inc.
P..O. Box 434
Spring Valley, NY 10977
Dear Mr. Farkae:
We have received your letter of December 3, which responded satisfacto-
rily to the questions in our preliminary evaluation of November 4. We
can now provide you with a recommended test plan for your Powerfuel
device.
11
Based on our understanding of the product, we recommend that you test two
randomly selected, late model vehicles. The test' vehicles should be
selected from the list in the document entitled "Suggested Test Vehicle
Engines for 511 Applicants". This listing was previously sent to Myron
Stein along with other test information. A copy is enclosed for your
convenience. Two vehicles are the minimum recommended for testing. If
the test results are not statistically significant, i.e., less than 6%
improvement, then additional vehicles will need to be tested. Adjust-
ments to the engine parameters subsequent to those made during Initial
preparation of the vehicles are not permitted.
The vehicles should be tested using Test Plan C and Test Sequence 1 from
the enclosed tast plan. Please note that at each point during the
testing where mileage accumulation is indicated, the vehicles are to be
subjected to ten miles of on-road driving which includes several full
throttle accelerations. All features (e.g., route, trip length, number
and severity of accelerations, number of stops, cruise speeds, time,
etc.) of each mileage accumulation portion are to be performed identi-
cally .
With respect to test fuel, you may use any commercially available pump
fuel meeting the following requirements:
1. The fuel must be from a major supplier (e.g., Mobil, Shell,
Texaco).
2. It must meet the octane and lead requirements recommended by the
manufacturer of the test vehicle.
3. The fuel must be of a blend appropriate to season for the test
location selected.
4. For each car, fuel from the same batch must be used throughout
the program.
-------
47
I appreciate your concern regarding whether the FTP and HFET procedures
are appropriate for testing since your device is only activated at less
than 3 inches of manifold vacuum. It has been our experience that such
levels are realized by some vehicles during the test procedures and most
vehicles on the road seldom experience full throttle. During a telephone
conversation with Myron Stein on December 16, he stated that the benefits
caused by the device endure for some time (ten mile-s or more) after the
vehicle resumes nomal operation. As a result, we feel the laboratory
test procedures are appropriate for the evaluation of Powerfuel.
I am looking forward to reviewing the results of your testing. I will
expect them by February 14. Should you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Merrill W. Korth
Device Evaluation Coordinator
Test and Evaluation Branch
Enclosures
------- |