SCIENCE REPORT ON THE

GENESIS COMBUSTION

ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM

(PREVIOUSLY THE

HYDRO-ASSIST FUEL CELL)

IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE GENESIS FUEL ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM TO DOUBLE THE MILEAGE OF ANY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE, AS THEY CLAIM, OR NOT?

NOTE: The Genesis System is an evolved model of the Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell (HAFC) Technology. The technology was attacked when an expert doctor of physics stated in a report that it was impossible to improve the mileage of American made cars, and that the HAFC technology defies the laws of physics. This expert later admitted that he has had no experience with internal combustion engines and does not work on cars. He is primarily a researcher in Cryogenics. His report is included here in its entirety, along with the rebuttal reports of several experts in internal combustion engines who reported on behalf of Dutchman Enterprises. We let the reader review all the information, and decide for themselves. The Rebuttal Reports of Dutchman Enterprises included are: • A Report from a well recognized scientist with over 60 publications in

science journals, a doctor’s degree in physics, another Phd in materials, and a master’s degree thesis on combustion in internal combustion engines. His assistant in the preparation of this paper is a Harvard Engineer.

• A Report from the ex-President and Vice President of the Service Technician

Society (an affiliate of the Society of Automotive Engineers), who is an engineer that designs engines for GM, SAAB, Saturn, with a degree in the applied Science of Automotive Technology. He has co-authored automotive technical books and published numerous papers at the SAE International Congress.

• A Scientifically written report on the HAFC Technology that was prepared

for experts by the primary design engineer for Dutchman Enterprises, LLC., who was responsible for the design of the HAFC and the Optimizer control unit that makes it possible for the system to maintain its edge even with the existing emissions control system of the current car makers. Although he has no formal degrees, this expert has written several books on gaining fuel economy and head porting, and holds several patents. His report speaks for his expertise.

THE REPORT OF DOCTOR HALPERIN This report was written in response to examining the promotional materials written by the marketing department of Dutchman Enterprises for the public, which was never intended for the review of technical experts. There is a far lower standard for preparing sales literature which is designed to give the consumer an idea of concepts that sound good without giving them technical explanations that they would not only not understand, but have no interest in. Dr. Halperin also later admitted that he had not ever actually tested a working model or been involved in any empirical measurements of anything. He was merely basing his condemnation of the technology on this promotional literature and his own knowledge of physics. Dr. Halperin claims that it is impossible to improve the efficiency of cars in America by more than 4%. This is news to the D.O.E. and to MIT, and to NASA, and to the President of the United States, who has ordered a 10 MPG increase by the year 2011.

PX02 p.1

PX02 p.2

PX02 p.3

PX02 p.4

PX02 p.5

PX02 p.6

PX02 p.7

PX02 p.8

PX02 p.9

PX02 p.10

PX02 p.11

PX02 p.12

9/22/08 1

WILLIAM P. HALPERIN

PERSONAL DATA:Citizenship: Canada and United StatesAddress: 920 Maple Ave.,

Evanston IL 60202Tele: (847) 491-0170

Department of Physics,Northwestern UniversityEvanston, IL 60208

e-mail: whalperin@northwestern.eduurl: http://spindry.phys.northwestern.edu/

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:Undergraduate: Bachelor of Science, B.Sc.,1967 Queen's University,

Kingston, OntarioGraduate: Master of Science, M.Sc., 1968 University of Toronto,

Toronto, OntarioDoctor of Philosophy, Ph.D.,1975 Cornell University,

Ithaca, NYACADEMIC OR PROFESSIONAL HONOURS AND APPOINTMENTS:Prince of Wales Prize, Queen's University (1967)National Research Council Fellowship (1967-68)Alfred P. Sloan Fellow (1977-81)Yamada Science Foundation Fellow (1984)Grant Selection Committee for Condensed Matter Physics, NSERC of Canada (1992-95)Chair, Grant Selection Committee for Condensed Matter Physics, NSERC of Canada (1994-95).Fellow, American Physical Society (1995)Chair, External Review Committee, Physics Department Purdue University (1995)Chair, Review of Canadian Academic Physics, 1996-98Chair, External Review Committee, Physics Department Simon Fraser University (1998)Editor, Progress in Low Temperature Physics, Elsevier (1995- )Member, International Proposal Review Committee, Canadian Neutron Scattering Facility(1998)Member, Users Committee, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory(1998-01)Member, OCGS External Review Committee, Graduate Program Dept. of Physics, Univ. ofGuelph and Univ. of Waterloo, Nov. 30-Dec 2, 1998Chair, Users Committee, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory(2000)Wender-Lewis Professor of Teaching and Research (2000-2001)John Evans Professor of Physics (2001-)Member, External Review Committee CNRS, CRTBT, Grenoble, France, Sept. 19-21, 2001Chair, External Review Committee, Dept. of Physics, Univ. of Alberta, June 24-26, 2002Regional Editor for North America, New Journal of Physics, Inst. of Phys. 2002

PX02 p.103

9/22/08 2

Member, External Advisory Committee, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (2004-)Chair, External Advisory Committee for the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (2004-)Editorial Board, Journal of Low Temperature Physics, Springer, 2004Member, External Review Committee, Department of Physics, Univ. of Toronto, 2004Fellow, The Institute of Physics, 2004Visiting Professor, Joseph Fourier University, Grenoble, France (2004)Member, OCGS External Review Committee, Graduate Program Dept. of Physics, Univ. ofToronto, Oct. 26-7, 2006.

POST PH.D. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:Postdoctoral Fellow, Cornell University (1975)Visiting Research Associate, Argonne National Laboratory (1975)Resident Associate, Argonne National Laboratory (1979-85)Assistant Professor, Northwestern University (1975-81)Visiting Professor, H.C. Ørsted Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark (8/15/77-9/2/77)Visiting Scientist, IFF-Kernforschunsanlage, Jülich,West Germany (3/19/81-10/2/81)Associate Professor, Northwestern University (1981-86)Chercheur Associé, Centre National de Recherche Scientifique, Grenoble (3/15/84-9/15/84)Professor, Northwestern University (1986-present)Chair, Department of Physics and Astronomy (1990-1995)Director, Integrated Science Program, Northwestern University (1998-2003)

EXTERNAL PHD EXAMINER:J.M. Kyynarainen, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland, October 5,1990.Olivier Buu, Universite de Grenoble, Grenoble France, December 16,1998.Daren Sawkey, Queen’s University, Kingston Ontario, December 19, 2001.

RESEARCH INTERESTS:Quantum Liquids and Solids (superfluid 3He, normal liquid 3He , solid 3He)Superconductivity (ultralow temperature superconductors, high temperature ceramic superconductors, heavy fermion supercondcutivity, UPt3)Quantum Size Effects in Metallic Particles (magnetic susceptibility and NMR)Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in Solids, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance in Very High FieldElectrical and Magnetic Properties of Quasi One-dimensional Molecular Crystals PorousMaterials (glasses, sandstones, ceramics, aerogels and cement pastes)

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:Life Member, American Physical SocietyLife Member, Division of Condensed Matter Physics of the APSFellow, American Physical SocietyMember, Ampere SocietyFellow, Institute of Physics (UK)

CONSULTANTSHIPS:Chicopee Research, Division of Johnson and Johnson, Dayton, NJ (1986)Standard Oil Engineered Materials Corp. Niagara Falls, NY (1987)

PX02 p.104

9/22/08 3

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong (1995)Ontario Council on Graduate Studies (1998)Federal Trade Commission, Chicago (2004-05)

BUSINESS INTERESTS:Sole-proprietor, YOTEM, 920 Maple Ave., Evanston, IL 60202

(optical products and cryogenic cable and tubing)

BOOKS EDITED:"Helium Three", co-edited with L.P. Pitaevskii, Inst. for Physical Problems, Moscow USSR. forthe series Modern Problems in Condensed Matter Physics, North Holland, Amsterdam, (1990)"Progress in Low Temperature Physics", book series, Elsevier, Amsterdam, vol.14, 15, 16

BOOK CHAPTERS WRITTEN:Molecular Diffusion in Porous Materials, with J.C. Tarczon, A.H.Thompson, and W.A.Ellingsonin Transport and Relaxation in Random Materials, edited by J. Klafter, R.J. Rubin, and M.F.Shlesinger, World Scientific, Singapore p72 (1986).Magnetic Resonance Relaxation Analysis of Porous Media, with John C. Tarczon, S.Bhattacharja, and F. D'Orazio in Molecular Dynamics in Restricted Geometries edited by J.Klafter and J.M. Drake, John Wiley and Son, New York., ch 11, page 311 (1989).Order Parameter Collective Modes, with E., Varoquaux in Helium Three, edited by W.P.Halperin and L.P. Pitaevskii for the series Modern Problems in Condensed Matter Physics,North Holland, Amsterdam, ch. 7, pp 353-522 (1990).

PX02 p.105

WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY. THERE ARE TWO PARTS IN THIS REPORT: • PART ONE IS COMMON LANGUAGE • PART TWO IS TECHNICAL

Written By: Mike Holler (Staff Engineer)

Table of Contents Dutchman Enterprises.....................................................................................................................2

Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell Technical Evaluation ................................................................................2

Is improved fuel economy possible?........................................................................................2

How efficient are today’s automobile engines?................................................................2

Has anybody ever done it before? ......................................................................................2

How did they do it? .................................................................................................................5

How Combustion Works........................................................................................................13

Can it be improved?.............................................................................................................15

How does the HAFC improve efficiency? .........................................................................21

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................25

Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell Technical Evaluation ..............................................................................26

Is improved fuel economy possible?......................................................................................26

How efficient are today’s automobile engines?..............................................................27

Has anybody ever done it before?........................................................................................29

How did they do it?...................................................................................................................30

Vaporizing the fuel.................................................................................................................30

Merely heating the fuel.........................................................................................................30

How combustion works.............................................................................................................40

Can it be improved?.................................................................................................................41

How does the HAFC improve efficiency? .............................................................................43

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................44

1

Dutchman Enterprises 

Hydro‐Assist Fuel Cell Technical Evaluation (Part 1 Common Language)

Is improved fuel economy possible? When questioning whether Dutchman (or any other company) is improving fuel economy on today’s automobiles, the first logical place to start is “Is it possible?” Statistically we may surmise that it is indeed impossible to do what is not conventionally done on a regular basis. All new processes incorporate 2 or more (usually) commonly understood laws of physics and science, but in a new combination. Within the scope of increasing the efficiency of the internal combustion engine (ICE), reasonable parameters can only be established when facts are considered.

How efficient are today’s automobile engines? The modern automobile is rather complex and involves many conversions that tend to skew simple analysis. To singularly isolate “engine efficiency”, an overall efficiency of the automobile in general must be viewed, then the losses broken down to where a scientist may be able to more accurately determine the inefficiencies attributed to the engine alone. One study attributes 17% of inefficiencies to be tied to vehicle loads (air drag 5%, tire rolling resistance 5%, brakes 5%, and accessories 2%). Only 3% losses are due to automatic transmissions (manual transmissions have even less), which leaves a total of 80% of all losses taking place within the engine. This makes the modern engine 20% efficient. This particular study did not outline the efficiencies of the vehicle, merely the inefficiencies, or put another way, where our losses can be found. This is valuable in pointing us to the most advantageous place to target when seeking to improve overall vehicle efficiency.

Of the total losses within the engine (80% of total) only about 11.52% is due to internal engine friction. The rest (68.48%) is simply the engine’s inefficiencies in converting chemical energy to kinetic energy at the crankshaft (11.52% + 68.48% = 80%).

Has anybody ever done it before? To claim to be the first to accomplish anything is incredible, and discreditable at the same time. It is easier to make substantial claims if there are predecessors that have achieved results that make your claims seem reasonable. Have there been prior inventors that have eclipsed the commonly accepted limits of vehicle efficiency? Yes there have been literally thousands. I could post within this analysis many names and patent numbers (many owned by auto manufacturers and petroleum companies) that

2

show to those practiced in the art, a means whereby dramatically improved fuel economy is achieved. I have compiled a short list for illustration purposes.

3

Pogue In 1936 a Canadian from Winnipeg, Charles Nelson Pogue, challenged the way we view internal combustion engines, and the way we view fuel economy. Using his patented “carburetor” (US Pat. No. 2,026,733 issued 1-07-36), he drove a 1935 Ford with a flat head V-8 for many skeptics and achieved over 200 miles to the Imperial gallon each and every time. His accomplishments were documented by some very credible sources. To name a few, D. F. Smith, Ford Motor Co.; T. G. Breen, Breen Motor Co.; and S. Stockholm (independent tester). The average mileage for all tests exceeded 204 miles per Imperial gallon (about 176 miles per US gallon).

As scientific minded individuals, though, we want to know if the device is operable with today’s gasoline and automobiles. That question is not easily answered, as it was deemed inoperable with leaded gasoline that dominated the commercial gasoline market from shortly after Pogue’s debut until the early 1980s. It appears that the tetra-ethyl lead had a detrimental effect on the Pogue device (more on that later in the TCC portion of this analysis).

Ogle On April 30, 1977 a 20-something high school drop-out/inventor named Thomas Ogle once again captured the world’s attention with his 1970 Ford Galaxie 500 powered by a V-8 engine. He publically traveled from El Paso, Texas to Demming, New Mexico and back on about 2 gallons of gas (104 US mpg). This was verified by not only the press, but also supported by Robert Levy, an El Paso Physicist; John Whitacre, professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Texas; and Gerald Hawkins of Texas A & M.

The patent (US Pat. No. 4,177,779, issued 12-11-79) was bought by a retired Navy Admiral named C. F. Ramsey of Longview, Washington. I personally spoke with the technical person hired by Admiral Ramsey to get the Ogle device marketable. He claimed that there were technical issues that made it difficult to make user friendly, but they were able to get far in excess of the publically acknowledged 100 mpg from a similar automobile. (The Ogle device was never manufactured or sold.)

Others

The Patent Office and periodicals are filled with literally thousands of inventors that have claimed mileage gains that have exceeded the 200% threshold (triple the mileage). In the early 1980s an inventor named Ray Covey sold books on how to build a device, claiming a minimum of 200% increase in mileage. About that same time a father and son team were touring the circuit with their Naylor High Mileage Vapor Phase Carburetor that they claimed would achieve a minimum 150% increase in mileage. Shell Oil Co. even promoted a 1959 Opel as getting 376 mpg in 1973. I could literally take up an entire report repeating success stories that show our automobiles are

4

not anywhere near at the efficiencies they are capable of with petrochemical fuels. Let it suffice to acknowledge that it has successfully been proven over the past century that much better efficiencies are realistic from the internal combustion engine than we get even now with our modern technologies. Ironically, carburetors only have a 12% control of fuel whereas modern electronic fuel injection can maintain 98% control over fuel as demanded by engine and environmental conditions.

How did they do it? You just have to scratch your head and wonder if they were really good scam artists, or if they figured out what others couldn’t. Although only a couple of the better known inventors were mentioned above, I assure you that through my research over the past 17+ years there are many lesser known inventors that have claimed to have achieved even better results than those listed. If such a feat could be possibly true, we must wonder to ourselves how they did the seemingly impossible. I offer for your education and enjoyment the basic principles employed by the majority of inventors that have achieved a 100% or better improvement in fuel efficiency.

Vaporizing the fuel It is an established fact of chemistry that liquid petrochemical fuel does not burn. Only the vapors that are intimately homogenized with the air can burn. The higher the percentage of liquids versus vapors that are injected into the combustion chamber, the longer it would take to completely burn the charge. As the vapors that are present burn, the heat generated helps to vaporize more of the liquids, which then burn generating heat, which vaporizes more of the liquids until all of the liquids have vaporized and burned.

Unfortunately a typical engine only has 9 – 12 milliseconds (ms) between the firing of the spark plug and opening of the exhaust valve, bleeding off the pressure in the cylinder (at cruise speeds). The boiling points of the constituents in gasoline range from about 135 to 435 degrees F. This means that a substantial amount of the fuel will enter the combustion process in liquid form. Furthermore, the burn times range from less than 1 ms to over 33 ms after it is vaporized and intermixed with the air. Therefore the odds are that a portion of the fuel might not even vaporize within the usable window, and most of the fuel will not burn within the usable window, and very little of it will contribute to power at the wheels.

After the spark plug fires, a small flame kernel is formed. That kernel expands, burning the fuel vapors around it, into a pea, then a nut, and eventually the majority (if not all) of the combustion chamber is engulfed in a raging fire. At the very moment of ignition spark, the combustion chamber is filled with ambient air and what is known as an aerosol of gasoline. The aerosol is a combination of vapor, small liquid droplets, and

5

larger liquid droplets. As the flame spreads, consuming the vapors, it begins to vaporize then burn the droplets.

Obviously, the higher the percentage of gasoline that is vaporized, the more of it will burn within the 9 – 12 ms before the opening of the exhaust valve. Vaporized fuel dramatically influences the flame front spread rate and consumption rate, and the release of thermal energy from the stored chemical energy from the fuel. This has a major effect on the amount of the chemical energy that is converted to kinetic energy.

6

Merely heating the fuel A large number of patents have been filed for improved fuel economy involving fully vaporizing the gasoline before admitting it into the air stream to be drawn into the engine. Many other inventors have proven that merely adding thermal energy to the fuel increases the percentage of it that is able to phase change to a vapor prior to the combustion event. Although all of the fuel may not be in vapor form when the spark plug ignites, if more of it is in vapor form, more of it will burn during the normal combustion cycle and produce useful work. For every 25 degrees F. increase in fuel temperature, an additional 10% will vaporize before the combustion event.

Chemical additives Chemicals have been added to the petrochemical element of gasoline to achieve a number of objectives: assist in removing carbon deposits, lower moisture content, aid in quick starts (especially in cold weather), improve or stabilize octane ratings, improve vaporization rate, intensify the oxidation process, and improve the burn speed to name a few. The gasoline producers use additives in the fuels to achieve various goals depending on season, region, altitude, and local laws.

The function of an additive is not to replace the fuel elements with a substitute fuel element, but to replace a small fraction of the fuel element with a substance that alters the characteristics of the whole fuel. For example, If better cold starts are the target of an additive, then an aromatic hydrocarbon (HC) may be added in minute amounts to supply sufficient vapor to allow the spark plug to initiate a flame front. In commercial use, additives typically constitute 1000 parts per million (ppm) or less of the total fuel. Thousands of different aftermarket chemical fuel additives are registered with the EPA. Marketers’ claims vary, however a high percentage of them list improved fuel economy.

Tuning Performance and economy are two perspectives of the same subject. Performance targets efficiencies in filling the cylinder, combustion, conversion to mechanical work, and evacuating the cylinder. Economy targets all of the above minus maximum cylinder filling. I would like to reference well known principles established in the performance arena as more has been written about performance than has been written about fuel economy. Let it suffice to say that if a technique affects performance, it would also have an effect on fuel economy (although methods of implementing the techniques might be different). Therefore performance methods that improve combustion efficiency (and there are many) would also improve fuel economy.

Forty years ago tuning was done on an engine to accomplish more power within a targeted (RPM) range. If exhaust gasses were monitored, it was merely to determine if

7

more power could be extracted with better tuning. Today, tuning processes look at exhaust gasses because of environmental reasons. The tuner isn’t necessarily noble in this consideration, but obligated by law.

New vehicles leaving dealers’ showrooms have a complicated tuning program in their computers (ECUs) that have near artificial intelligence that is applicable to operating the vehicle. The ECU doesn’t simply monitor the sensors and make algorithmic decisions as was the case 20 years ago. The new ECUs are capable of recalibrating themselves to compensate for normal wear within the sensors and the components they monitor, and alter programming to accommodate changes in altitude, barometric pressure, quality of fuel, and many other conditions. The programming is designed to maximize power, fuel economy, and most importantly, vehicle emissions.

Tuning for vehicle emissions, under the current Tier 3 structure (current EPA emissions statutes), usually ends up compromising performance and economy. For example, to combat the formation of NOx emissions, ignition timing and camshaft timing are retarded from what would be optimal for performance and economy. Individuals sell “Performance Modules” on ebay which are nothing more than $0.15 resistors that replace the Intake Air Temperature sensor and tell the ECU that the incoming air is colder than actual. Colder air is less prone to produce NOx emissions, and therefore the ECU advances ignition timing. This “Performance Module” trick usually delivers as the seller claims, improved performance and economy, but probably increases overall production of NOx emissions. (These devices are not legal, but mentioned to illustrate the benefits in performance and economy that are potentially present.)

If vehicle emissions (as outlined and dictated by US EPA) were not a consideration, modern engines would be capable of far better fuel economy than they currently deliver. A good example of this would be to compare a US spec vehicle to an Australian spec vehicle of the same make, model, and engine (up until recently when Australia adopted emissions standards similar to our US EPA standards). The Australian spec vehicle typically delivered about 25% better highway mileage than the US version due to differences in emissions laws (and thus tuning requirements) between the two countries.

“Tuners” as they are now called, are skilled performance specialists that can alter factory ECU programming, or install and tune what is known as a “stand-alone” ECU; an aftermarket ECU that replaces the factory unit. Programming alteration is a standard requirement when changing hardware such as camshaft, head(s), exhaust system, manifolds, etc. One of the methods used by Tuners to improve fuel economy is to lean out the air-to-fuel ratio (AFR) and add a little more ignition timing advance. At cruise and part throttle conditions, good power is delivered with a substantial improvement in fuel economy. Most well tuned engines deliver a minimum of 50% better cruise fuel

8

economy than their stock equivalents (with combined hardware and software changes).

Engine modifications Nobody in the automotive engineering community would argue that the Over-Head Valve (OHV) engine is far more efficient than the Flat Head engine of the early part of the last century. This single design change opened the doors for substantial improvements in performance, economy, and the control of harmful exhaust emissions. The OHV design debuted in 1949, yet is still the basic design used in today’s engines. The current engineering community has been able to develop sophisticated engine designs that can vary camshaft timing, intake runner length, even the number of cylinders that are consuming fuel and contributing to work on-demand. Certain aftermarket engineers have been able to customize the factory offerings for even more substantial performance and economy.

Many aftermarket companies sell camshafts, exhaust components, air induction systems, pistons, and so forth that improve power in a given RPM range, and often fuel economy. These modifications improve the density of the incoming air, velocity in the ports, compression ratios, and inevitably, engine efficiency.

The author has personally performed upper engine (head) porting on a 1988 Dodge Shadow which resulted in highway mileage increasing from 29 to 42 mpg. On a 1989 Chrysler LeBaron with more intensive engine modifications, performance went from 156 HP to 430 HP (2.75X increase), city mileage went from 23 to 35 (92% increase), and highway mileage went from 27 to 42-45 mpg (67% increase). Larry Widmer of Endyn (Ft. Worth, TX, www.theoldone.com) has achieved even more spectacular results.

Hydrogen (and variations thereof) Hydrogen has been added to gasoline engines in various percentages of mass of fuel under a wide range of conditions and for various reasons. The hydrogen itself has been in multiple forms. Most laboratory experiments use bottled H2 gas, as it is safe, containable, easily metered, and commercially available. Very few laboratory condition experiments have been carried out with on-board electrolytic generators. This makes comparing apples to apples rather difficult, but not impossible (more on that in the technical portion of this analysis).

Bottled H2 hydrogen improves the efficiency of a typical test engine by an average of 30% by itself. Most of the tests available added varying percentages (and in some cases qualities) of hydrogen and looked at 2 – 10%, and 10 – 90% combustion rate (how long it takes to burn 10% of the charge, 90% of the charge, etc.), NOx, CO and HC emissions, torque, thermal losses to coolant and exhaust, peak pressure at various crank angles, and overall BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption, which means the amount

9

of work done per amount of fuel consumed; or put another way, efficiency). Interestingly enough, most tests are within a narrow range of hydrogen as a percentage of mass, usually 1% to 2%. Few reports experiment with more than this narrow range, and so far no report (that the author has been able to find) has tested the point of diminishing returns by adding less than 1%.

Nevertheless, the consensus is that hydrogen reduces the thermal losses to the coolant and exhaust (more of it is converted to useful work), the 2 - 10% burn time is significantly reduced (10 – 20 crank angle degrees [CAD]), the 10 - 90% burn time is also significantly reduced (5 – 9 CAD), provides for significantly leaner AFR before lean-out limit (most substantial when Lambda exceeds <0.85), dramatically reduces NOx (by a factor of 5) and HC emissions at lean AFRs, and reduces cycle-to-cycle variations in cylinder pressure (“COVIMEP” in technical reports in Part 2) by 30%.

Thermal Catalytic Cracking (TCC) Forms of thermal cracking began emerging as early as 1913 within the petroleum refining industry. At the turn of the 20th century, gasoline constituted about 23% of total crude oil products. Initially, there was no demand for gasoline as a consumer product and most of it was dumped back into the hole from whence the crude was extracted. With the advent of the automobile, the demand for gasoline grew. By the late 1930s, the demand for gasoline outgrew the demand for other crude oil products as a percentage. A new process called Thermal Catalytic Cracking (TCC) was implemented that would take HC compounds too heavy to be used as gasoline, super-heat them, add hydrogen, and run the blend across a bentonite clay catalyst. Later, a hydragenation process was developed that could remove hydrogen from lighter elements and combine the resultant ionized elements to increase their density to a state suitable for use as gasoline. By 1950 gasoline constituted about 43% of total refined crude oil products.

An interesting phenomenon occurs when TCC is used. According to Avogadro, a molecule takes up a fixed amount of space in the aether regardless of molecular size. Therefore, a mole of crude oil, a mole of diesel fuel, a mole of gasoline, and a mole of liquid propane all have approximately the same number of molecules. If a diesel fuel (C16H34) molecule was cracked into 2 octane molecules (C8H18) with the appropriate amount of hydrogen added, a mole of diesel fuel would yield 2 moles of octane. One mole of diesel fuel could be cracked and reformed into 16 moles of liquefied natural gas (C(1)H4)! In fact, modern refining methods do indeed yield about 44 gallons of just heating oil out of a 42 gallon barrel of crude, in addition to the other products!

It has been established by subsequent researchers that the Pogue carburetor did more than simply vaporize the fuel. It actually cracked the larger molecules within the fuel into smaller molecules, then either stabilized them with hydrogen removed from the

10

humidity (H2O) in the air to stabilized cracked HC molecules, or admitted the fractured molecules into the engine in an ionized state. With the introduction of tetra-ethyl lead to pump gasoline, the lead would coat the walls of the heat exchanger rendering its catalytic properties ineffective. (Like leaded fuel kills catalytic converters.)

Bruce McBurney established the benefits of TCC as a means to improve fuel economy with an on-board “cat cracker”. His apparatus was tested by Professor Eugene Cherniak, an analytical chemist at Brock University in St. Catherines, Ontario. The formula for what Bruce was achieving approximates to

C8H18 + H2O = CH3OH + CH4 (natural gas).

In practical application, McBurney claimed 72 mpg from a full-sized Dodge van with a 360 CID V-8.

Whereas gasoline powered engines are typically 20% efficient, propane powered engines are typically 40% efficient, and natural gas powered engines are considered to be about 60% efficient. In the TCC process, the volume of fuel is increased (Avogadro’s Law) and the resultant fuel is more efficiently converted to useful work within the engine (60% efficient versus 20% efficient). This is how Pogue was able to get such phenomenal results even with an inefficient flat-head V-8 engine.

Plasma Several inventions have been devised to reformulate fuel on-board to a smaller molecular level through means of firstly converting the petrochemical fuel to a plasma, adding hydrogen or water (in some but not all inventions), then admitting the reformed fuel into the engine. Henkel-Koeh (Pat. No. 3,897,225, 7-29-75) burned a small amount of fuel to generate a plasma field, then injected additional fuel across the plasma field before forcing the plasma fuel across a catalyst. Jonson (Pat. No. 7,194,984) claimed to be able to phase change fuel into a plasma within a low energy plasma induction field mounted in the engine’s exhaust. MIT scientists developed their “Plasmatron” that converts a small percentage of the fuel to a plasma that is fed into the intake charge to improve economy and emissions. These and other plasma devices claim to increase engine efficiency by transforming the fuel into a plasma state first, then combusting it either from the plasma state, or in a partially stabilized and ionized state. Mileage claims are typically 200% to 300% increases.

Magnets All fluids have what is known as “surface tension”. This is observable when one is able to float a steel sewing needle on top of a glass of water. Surface tension is what keeps liquids in their liquid state, as opposed to simply evaporating away. The strength of the surface tension can be overcome thermally. The amount of thermal energy required to overcome the surface tension of a liquid can be quantified as the boiling point of the

11

liquid. If the surface tension can be reduced by a non-thermal means, then the thermal energy requirements to overcome the surface tension (boiling point) is reduced.

Magnets have been shown to reduce surface tension in liquids by reorganizing large groupings of charge clusters into smaller groupings within the liquid. Molecularly, the liquid remains unchanged; both in molecular arrangement, and electrical and ionic charge. Charge clusters are what make groups of molecules clump together. Differences in magnetic and electrical biases cause opposites to attract, therefore clumping clusters of molecules together. For the liquid to evaporate, it must first overcome the magnetic pull that keeps the molecules together within the liquid state. Magnets reorganize the arrangement of charged clusters thereby enabling an easier (lower energy input) release from the liquid medium to a vapor state. Typical gains in economy from the use of magnets on fuel lines range from 10% to 12% from improved fuel vaporization and oxidation. Much data supports reduced exhaust emissions also.

Turbocharging A turbocharger is a double scroll compressor that harnesses normally lost exhaust energy and recycles it back into the intake charge by compressing it and forcing it into the engine. As the exhaust gasses are exiting the engine, they are directed across a turbine that is connected to a common shaft shared with a compressor wheel. Turbocharging is typically not considered a fuel economy improver, because of its tremendous power potential (therefore its intended use). Most turbocharged applications incorporate large turbos that perform well at higher RPM levels to make substantial power gains. For a fuel economy application, smaller turbochargers are used to recycle lost energy at normal driving speeds.

Sizing a turbo to produce a relatively small amount of pressure at normal driving levels will tap the lost energy in the exhaust and use it to overcome the parasitic losses associated with the intake stroke of the 4-stroke engine. The net reductions in parasitic losses are realized as improved fuel economy. Having converted two Dodge 6-cylinder engines for such an application, the mileage gains were from 18 to 23 mpg (roughly a 28% increase in efficiency). Due to cost considerations, turbocharging is not normally used as a fuel economy enhancer.

Water Injection Water vapor expands twelve times as much as nitrogen per BTU of heat input. Water vapor found in the combustion chamber (either from the humidity in the intake air charge or as a byproduct of combustion) will absorb the thermal energy released from the fuel as it burns and expand along with the nitrogen. Any nitrogen content that can be displaced by water vapor will show an improvement in performance and economy by a relative amount. The compromise is that the nitrogen is drawn into the engine with

12

the ambient air, and the ambient air provides the oxygen for combustion. To displace nitrogen with water vapor compromises the available oxygen for combustion, and is therefore has limitations.

Most performance water injection applications spray a water (usually mixed with methanol) aerosol into the intake air stream (or in extreme cases, directly into the intake ports). In a performance application the benefit of adding water in aerosol form is to reduce peak combustion temperatures, thereby reducing detonation and potential for engine damage. Power adders (turbochargers, superchargers, and nitrous oxide) can be “cranked up” without engine damage, and power levels can be increased.

For fuel economy applications, the liquid droplets found in the aerosol first have to phase change to a vapor inside the combustion chamber. Whereas this is advantageous to the performance application, this vaporization process (latent heat of evaporation) absorbs valuable thermal energy that could otherwise be used to expand the gasses inside the combustion chamber and push down on the piston. Usually the net gain in fuel economy is zero. If water vapor is admitted into the intake air charge, there are no thermal losses to the evaporative process and the water vapor simply expands at the higher rate, thus increasing the mechanical conversion from thermal energy to kinetic energy. Claims of 15% to 30% are typical, with 50% increases not unreasonable. Incidentally, EGR systems recycle exhaust gasses back into the air intake, exhaust gasses that contain about 18% water vapor.

How Combustion Works It is often thought that when the spark plug fires there is a massive explosion that “blows” the piston down the bore, much like “Rambo” tossing a grenade into a building and watching the bodies and debris fly. In actuality, it is a much more controlled and less chaotic process. When the spark plug fires, it initially affects the oxygen molecules within the gap between the electrodes. The electrical energy affects one or both of the orbital electron bonds that join the 2 oxygen atoms together forming O2-2 (fractured oxygen molecules) and O-2 anions (free-floating oxygen atoms). This is an endothermic reaction (absorbs energy). The thermal energy from the spark (in excess of 2000 degrees F.) releases hydrogen atoms from the HC molecule. This is also an endothermic reaction. Once the hydrogen atom (H+) is free, it is attracted to the negatively charged oxygen anion and bonds, forming either OH- or HO2-, commonly denoted as the OH radical. This is an extremely exothermic reaction (releases energy), relative to the energy requirements to split the oxygens and hydrocarbons. This exothermic release will usually break the second bond of the oxygen, splitting off an oxygen anion and OH radical (again, endothermic).

The energy released by the formation of OH- and H2O is used to further split more oxygen atoms and release more hydrogen atoms from the hydrocarbon molecules,

13

thus forming more H2O, yielding more release of thermal energy, and propagating the combustion process. Each and every time a change occurs to any grouping of atoms, energy is either consumed or released. Ideally, if we could supply a fuel in monatomic form (no molecules, just atoms), there would be no endothermic events (everything would be exothermic) and the net release of energy would be many times the net energy we are able to retrieve under current chemistry structures. Eventually the supply of hydrogen atoms in the HC molecules begin to deplete. In the absence of abundant hydrogen atoms, the oxygen atoms begin to bond with the carbon atoms forming first CO, then CO2. Approximately 65% of the exothermic energy release comes from the formation of H2O, about 30% from the formation of CO, and the remaining 5% from the stabilization of CO2.

The thermal energy released from the burning of the fuel acts upon the nitrogen and other gasses in the cylinder and expands them. As these gasses expand, they create pressure. It is this pressure that pushes down on the piston. The piston is mechanically coupled to a crankshaft via a connecting rod that converts mechanical pressure to mechanical rotational force.

On either end of this process is the ingestion and expulsion of gasses (intake air/fuel charge and exhaust gasses), relative to the intake action and exhaust action of the engine. Air and fuel are drawn into the engine on the intake stroke. The ingestion action is occurring as the piston descends the bore increasing the volume of the chamber (and thus decreasing the absolute pressure), then acts via an open valve to draw in the air/fuel charge under vacuum. It is during this phase that much homogenization occurs between the air and fuel, as well as some vaporization of the fuel. When the piston is in relative distance to bottom dead center (BDC), the intake valve will close, thus sealing the chamber. The piston then sweeps upward, reducing the volume of the chamber, compressing the air and fuel into a tighter space, and making the homogenized mix more volatile. At some calculated distance BTDC (Before Top Dead Center) in crank degrees (dependent on load, RPM, and other engine conditions as determined by the ECU), the spark plug fires, initiating the above combustion process.

When the spark plug fires, it creates a small kernel of plasma that begins the net exothermic reaction of burning the fuel. The flame propagation process enlarges the plasma kernel more and more until (ideally) the entire chamber is engulfed in a plasma flame. This plasma flame is responsible for converting the chemical energy in the fuel into thermal energy. Any small liquid fuel droplets caught up in the process will appear to burn from the outside, getting progressively smaller until they cease to exist in the liquid form. The burning process described is the oxidation of the fuel vapors as they vaporize from the liquid droplet.

14

Shortly before bottom dead center (BDC) the exhaust valve opens and begins bleeding the pressure from the cylinder off into the exhaust port and manifold. This happens before the piston reaches BDC on the power stroke. If the exhaust valve didn’t open until BDC, the piston would be forced to push the gasses out the valve, with a net parasitic loss. When the exhaust valve opens, there is still a considerable amount of the charge still burning and expanding, and considerable pressure. This energy is wasted, lost to the exhaust manifold in the form of heat and pressure, and catalytic converter in the form of unburned fuel. It does not get converted to mechanical energy at the crankshaft.

Can it be improved? To determine if a process can be improved upon, we would first need to define the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the process, and then find a way to overcome the weaknesses and/or enhance the strengths. One of the single greatest weaknesses in the modern internal combustion engine is the limited amount of time that is allotted for complete combustion and the harnessing of that released energy. As already established, the fuel is still burning when the exhaust valve opens. Ultimately, the fuel will be completely burned (at least 95 – 98% effectively) before being discharged to the atmosphere, partly due to the continued burn in the exhaust manifold, and partly due to the catalytic converter.

Considering the basic petrochemical constituents in gasoline have a vapor point ranging from 135 degrees and 435 degrees F, it would naturally be assumed that a high percentage of the fuel will be drawn into the cylinder in a liquid (albeit aerosol) form. Considering the heavier elements in gasoline take upwards of 33 ms to burn, it would naturally be assumed that there would be fuel still burning when the exhaust valve opens, and that the release of thermal energy from the chemical source would not be converted to kinetic energy to do useful work. Considering the heavier elements that take the longest to burn are also the hardest to vaporize, it would naturally be assumed that they might not even fully vaporize and burn at all before the exhaust valve opens, thus contributing to either HC (unburned fuel) or CO (partially burned fuel) exhaust emissions (before the catalytic converter). As the piston descends the bore, the volume in the cylinder (area above the piston) increases thus reducing the potential for pressure against the piston. Also, as the piston nears the 90 degree ATDC point, it accelerates and effectively begins to outrun the pressure wave. This means there is only a small window of opportunity to convert the thermal energy to kinetic energy; about 16 crank angle degrees (CAD). At 2000 RPM, 16 CAD takes only 13.28 X 10-5 seconds (1.328 milliseconds).

Here are a few proven techniques commonly used to improve the combustion process.

15

Improve flame propagation speed The flame propagation speed is the rate at which the flame front travels from the spark plug to the outer reaches of the combustion chamber. To better understand this, picture a 1 foot diameter circle drawn on the ground. In this circle, place small chunks of shredded paper, wood and coal. Next drop a lit match into the relative center of the circle. The speed at which the flame gets from the match to the drawn circle would be the flame propagation rate. In this illustration, the shredded paper would represent the vaporized fuel, the wood would represent the liquid droplets of the lighter fuel elements, and the coal would represent the heavier liquid fuel elements.

The faster the flame can engulf the combustion chamber, the sooner all of the fuel can begin the process of burning. Higher compression ratios are a mechanical means of speeding up the flame spread by squishing the air and fuel molecules closer together meaning there is less distance to travel to fully engulf the combustion chamber. Achieving this requires disassembling the engine and replacing pistons or milling the cylinder head. Another way is to improve vaporization of the fuel prior to the spark event, since vaporized fuel will carry the flame front at a much faster rate than aerosol droplets will. Adding an “accelerant” to the combustion process, such as a form of hydrogen, will carry the flame front faster than the fuel alone can. Hydrogen (H2) has a flame speed 5.7 times that of gasoline (237 vs 41.5 cm3/sec). Therefore hydrogen (or other accelerant) can carry the flame front ahead of the gasoline to engulf the entire cylinder in about 17.5% of the time required by gasoline alone.

Better vaporize the fuel Since liquid fuel doesn’t burn, it is physically impossible for liquid to carry a flame front. It must first be vaporized before it will ignite. By fully vaporizing the fuel, the flame front is able to travel across “charged and ready” fuel vapors to the outer reaches of the combustion chamber. Tom Ogle, Ray Covey, and other experimenters identified an increase in power along with the claimed improved fuel economy. A higher chemical-to-kinetic conversion rate will inevitably have to improve both power and economy. Even adding thermal energy to the liquid fuel prior to being sprayed from the high pressure fuel rail to the low pressure intake manifold by the fuel injectors will improve the percentage of fuel vaporized (about a 10% increase in vaporization for every 25 degrees F. of thermal energy). Reducing the surface tension of the fuel will allow a higher percentage of the fuel to vaporize at existing thermal energy levels.

Better homogenize the fuel with the air Fuel vapors cannot burn without oxygen, nor can pure air burn. In order for the fuel vapors and air (oxygen) to combust, the two need to be properly mixed. Modern engines do a remarkable job of homogenizing the air and fuel through “swirl and tumble” activities designed into the port and combustion chamber shapes. Older open

16

chamber heads deliver a considerably lower rate of swirl and tumble, thus limiting performance and economy potential. Even with well vaporized fuel, poor cylinder activity (swirl and tumble) does a poor job of propagating the flame front, whereas good cylinder design promotes a fairly rapid flame spread even with aerosol fuels. Swirl port technology also improves the vaporization rate of fuel droplets with a fixed thermal energy input due to increased mechanical activity of turbulence (which also promotes vaporization) much like water is rapidly vaporized at very low temperatures at the bottom of a water fall. A well homogenized air/fuel mix will be better conditioned to carry the flame front.

Add a combustion accelerant Combustion accelerants can be added either to the fuel or to the incoming air. Common accelerants are naphthalene, hydrogen, ozone, acetone and alcohols, just to name a few. The objective of an accelerant is to either speed up the burn (both flame spread and consumption rate), make the burn hotter, or both. Accelerants are used typically in trace amounts compared to the fuel. A liquid accelerant added to gasoline at a rate of 1 ounce per 25 gallons would be considered a trace amount, where the accelerant is not necessarily considered fuel, but a fuel modifier. The same could be said for a vaporous accelerant (“Water Gas”/hydrogen) at a rate of 0.7 liters per minute (lpm) added to a 2 liter engine ingesting 375 lpm of air (cruise condition, 20% throttle angle).

Increase combustibles turbulence velocity Of course the easiest to understand method would be to create swirl and tumble characteristics within the combustion chamber that better vaporize and homogenize the fuel, and ultimately carry the flame to the unburned fuel. A lesser known and slightly harder to understand principle is that of dissimilar burn rate fuels. As fuel burns, it generates heat, which expands whatever medium surrounds that thermal source. If an accelerant is used, it will burn much faster than the primary fuel, creating turbulence eddies in the wake of the flame front that will better vaporize and homogenize the remaining air and fuel mixture. This speeds up the rate of consumption, yielding better chemical to thermal conversion efficiencies, and thus fuel economy.

Improve combustion rate Whereas getting the flame “from the match to the circle” would illustrate flame travel speed, combustion rate would be how quickly the wood and coal chunks burned in the previous circle illustration. Simply getting the flame as far as possible as fast as possible doesn’t necessarily fully combust the fuel within the charge. Any fuel partially combusted or left uncombusted equates to energy that remains (at least in part) in chemical (and pollution) form, yet unable to release the thermal form of energy to do

17

useful work. Even fuel that is partially burned needs time for the thermal energy to interact with the gasses and expand them to create pressure. The quicker the fire is started, the more time there is to harness the energy.

Better vaporize the fuel Better vaporized fuel will not only carry the flame front to the outer areas of the combustion chamber faster, but vaporized fuel will also burn completely in less time than liquid droplets. The higher percentage of fuel that is converted from chemical energy to thermal energy within the usable window, the more of it that will contribute to pressure within the cylinder, and thus, the more that will be converted to kinetic energy at the wheels. A more thorough combustion of the fuel within the allotted window means more power, better fuel economy, and lower exhaust emissions (HC, CO, and usually NOx).

Better homogenize the fuel with the air Using the afore-mentioned techniques to better homogenize the fuel with the air, activity within the cylinder promotes more thorough combustion the same way stirring a burning rolled up newspaper allows the burnable paper that has no access to either oxygen or the flame front to come to the top where it can be consumed in the fire. The constant tumbling and swirling inside a cylinder will uncover unburned fuel and expose it to oxygen, thus allowing more of it to burn within the allotted window.

Add a combustion accelerant Adding a combustion accelerant (as previously listed) provides for a more thorough burn due to the intensified exposure of individual HC and O2 molecules to each other within the parameters of a controlled plasma flame. Furthermore, the earlier any fuel molecule can be “lit off”, the sooner it can complete the process of conversion outlined as: HC + O2 -> H2O + CO2 + Heat.

Increase combustibles turbulence velocity The more turbulence occurring within the combustion process, the more the flame front is “thrown” toward unburned fuel and oxygen. Also, the more turbulence within the combustion chamber, the more the unburned fuel and air are “thrown” toward the flame front. Furthermore, the more turbulence within the combustion chamber, the more the liquid fuel droplets are “torn” apart, thus exposing more surface area of the droplets to the oxygen and flame front.

Improve thermal-to-pressure/kinetic conversion efficiency Burning the fuel is the first conversion done within the engine. The fuel burns and chemical energy is converted to thermal energy. As far as a motive force, thermal energy by itself is useless, performs no work. It must be converted to useful work through

18

yet another conversion; thermal-to-kinetic. This process also has its efficiencies and deficiencies. Efficiency would include the convenience of ingesting abundant ambient air as an expansion medium. The expansion medium is the tool used to enable this conversion. Air, more specifically the nitrogen in the air, is the majority of the expansion medium in an engine, as it constitutes about 78% of the air ingested by the engine. As the engine burns the fuel, carbon dioxide and water vapor are formed (by a ratio of 8:9, CO2:H2O) and also become part of the expansion medium. Carbon dioxide typically equates to about 13.5% of exhaust gasses and water vapor constitutes about 18.2% of the exhaust in a typical engine. This means that in an average combustion event, over 18% of the expansion medium is water vapor. An increase in water vapor content would contribute even more to the ability of an engine to convert the thermal energy to kinetic energy, as it has 12X the expansion capability per BTU of heat over nitrogen.

Engine design parameters If an engine were to be designed exclusively for fuel economy at cruise speeds, smaller ports, longer rod ratios, higher compression ratios, longer strokes, higher degree of swirl in the intake passages, perhaps even catalysts inside the engine would maximize the fuel economy potential. In the US, power is of paramount importance to the typical car buyer. (Therefore auto manufacturers go to great lengths to make engines very powerful, while still catering to EPA, and attempting not to sacrifice fuel economy excessively.) Many engine design experiments have shown significant increases in fuel economy, and some even power and economy. To take a production engine and “tweak” it for more economy is one thing. For a manufacturer to implement such changes would mean retooling, and possibly even more cost prohibitive measures. Major engine redesign is typically looked at as a last resort from most perspectives.

Expansion medium Water vapor expands at 12 times the rate of nitrogen per BTU of heat input. Of course, more water vapor would push much harder on the piston than the nitrogen it displaces. Adding water vapor to the intake charge, as outlined in the “Water Injection” section displaces not only nitrogen, but also oxygen. Therefore there is somewhat of a trade-off in oxidation value (amount of oxygen in the combustion charge) in order to enhance the expansion medium value. By adding electrolyzed water, or “Water Gas” to the intake charge, the benefits of hydrogen as an accelerant are realized AND the resultant byproduct, water, acts as a much more powerful expansion medium once combusted. The oxygen in the Water Gas replaces the oxidizer lost by the displaced ambient air, restoring the engine’s ability to fully burn the fuel.

Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) has been used since the early 1970s as a means to control the formation of NOx emissions. It acts inertly (neither contributes as a fuel nor as an oxidizer) in the combustion process, thus reducing the flame speed and peak

19

cylinder temperatures. Ideally (for emissions reasons only), combustion temperatures should never exceed the NOx threshold of 2500 degrees F. to totally eliminate that pollutant. EGR at least helps engineers with that goal. One of the side benefits of EGR is the water content derived from previous combustion. EGR engines are able to capitalize on the water content to improve the capability of the expansion medium to push harder on the piston. Ignition timing requirements must reflect the slower burn rate with EGR, but overall, compromises are met, whereby small net increases in fuel economy are realized with lower NOx exhaust emissions. With Water Gas added to an EGR equipped engine, the downside of slower flame front is offset, and the loss of oxidizer is further offset, to where the process is able to realize the emissions and fuel economy gains from EGR without the net losses normally associated.

Control moment of peak cylinder pressure In engineering terms, it is agreed that the optimal time (in CAD) to generate peak cylinder pressure is at 14 – 15 degrees ATDC, which is known as Critical Crank Angle (CCA). From about 14 degrees BTDC to about 14 degrees ATDC the piston just sits there while the crankshaft moves over-center. Past CCA the piston begins to move down the cylinder bore. Peak cylinder pressure at CCA is normally accomplished by controlling ignition timing, and where possible, camshaft timing. Upon initial observation it might seem like the most advantageous moment for pressure conversion would be at or near 90 degrees ATDC, as this is where conventionally the maximum point of leverage can be gained from a lever arm. After all, do we gain more leverage with a wrench pointing away from our body, or with it perpendicular to our body? In an engine, though, the applicable force is pressure, pressure that potentially diminishes as cylinder volume increases. (If you have a pressure in a syringe, the pressure will push the plunger outwardly, but only to the point where pressure equalizes with the ambient pressures. If this plunger continues outwardly, a vacuum will form. The same can be said about the piston moving down the bore of the cylinder, thus increasing volume while reducing potential pressure.)

To explain why this is so, imagine a professional archer shooting 3 arrows with a 100# rated arched bow and 3 arrows with a 100# rated compound bow. Remember, both bows are rated at 100# of thrust potential (akin to BTU potential of a fuel). Which bow will shoot the arrows farther? The compound bow?! By a large margin?!? But they’re both rated at the exact same “BTU content” 100#! With the same energy rating, both should hypothetically shoot their arrows about the same distance, +/- a reasonable margin of error. Right? Well, no. The arched bow delivers that 100# of force to the arrow over a string travel of approximately 4” to 6”, while the compound bow delivers that same 100# of force over a mere 1” of string travel. By concentrating that force, the given force leverages a much larger margin of work done.

20

Aside from difficult to control variables like port shapes and camshaft timing, a way to improve the efficiency of the engine would be to speed up the propagation of the flame front, accelerate the consumption rate of the fuel in the combustion process, delay spark timing (less timing advanced is required with a faster burn) to reduce parasitic losses on the compression stroke, and “sling-shot the piston down the bore”.

Increasing peak pressure at CCA while lowering overall temperature

Again, things aren’t necessarily as they seem. It has been established that there are 2 conversions going on inside an engine. The first conversion is chemical energy to thermal energy. This conversion is accomplished by burning the fuel. The second conversion is thermal energy to kinetic energy, where the heat generated expands the gasses inside the combustion chamber creating pressure that is used to push down on the piston. To accomplish higher peak pressures while simultaneously reducing overall engine and combustion temperatures, it is necessary to define a few things. Overall temperature would be defined as the average of combustion temperature over the power cycle of the engine (whereas high and low peaks are averaged out), plus thermal losses to the coolant system, thermal losses to the exhaust system, and thermal radiant losses to the ambient air through the walls of the engine itself.

Since the phenomenon occurring inside the combustion chamber can be likened to an explosion, I’ll use “explosion” terminology to describe how these requirements can be met. In the explosives field of science, there are 2 basic types of fuels used; percussion and incendiary. A percussive bomb will destroy a target without generating much ancillary heat. An incendiary explosion, on the other hand, is good for starting fires as it generates copious amounts of heat. The percussion bomb will knock out a target quickly without much fire, an incendiary bomb doesn’t do much initial damage but generates tremendous amounts of fire damage. The percussion bomb could be likened unto the compound bow and the incendiary bomb can be likened unto the arched bow.

Between the “arched versus compound bow” and “incendiary versus percussion explosion” examples, it should be well illustrated that increasing the rate of flame spread and the rate of fuel combustion are very powerful tools in increasing performance and fuel economy while simultaneously generating far less waste (loss) heat.

How does the HAFC improve efficiency? Having looked at many principles of science, and what has been done in prior art, let’s look at how the HAFC ties together well understood principles of physics to deliver an average of 50% to 100% increase in mileage, with the occasional 200% + increases.

21

Better vaporization of the fuel The Hydro Assist Fuel Cell Kit includes a component trade named the “Vaporizer”. In actuality, the fuel enters the Vaporizer in a liquid form and leaves in a liquid form, therefore it doesn’t actually “vaporize” the fuel at all at the component itself. It has a total of 4 magnets rated at 4M gauss each, and is strapped to a coolant system hose to absorb thermal energy that is normally wasted.

Adding thermal energy to the fuel By adding an average of 8 degrees F. of thermal energy to the fuel (actual range is 1.5 to 15 degrees F.), an additional 3% to 4% of the fuel will exit the injectors in a vapor form (10% increased vapor rate per 25˚ rise in temperature).

Disperse charge clusters within the fuel The powerful magnets reduce surface tension by an estimated 11% for a total percentage of additional fuel vaporization by the time the spark plug fires of approximately 11% due to relaxed charge clusters. If we add the efficiencies together, we get up to 17% increase in percentage of fuel vapor at the point of combustion (11% from magnets and up to 6% from thermal energy input). It is not yet understood whether one effect compounds the other (whereas net gains in vapor percentages would be equal to or greater than the sum) or whether they overlap (whereas the net gains in vapor percentages would be somewhere between the higher individual value and the sum), but it would be safe to say that the increased vapor rate would be at least between 11% and 17%.

Add hydrogen/oxygen blend to the combustion process Since most of the university studies center around bottled hydrogen gas (H2), and we are claiming the use of “Water Gas”, (and we claim that Water Gas is more dynamic than gasoline or even hydrogen gas), it might be reasonable to define Water Gas. In the electrolysis process, two plates are charged electrically and submersed in an electrolyte solution. In the case of the HAFC, potassium hydroxide (KOH) is mixed with water to form the electrolyte. The electrolyte allows the electricity to pass through the water portion, thereby placing a charge on the individual elements that constitute water; namely the positively charged hydrogen and negatively charged oxygen. Since opposites seek to neutralize each other, the positively charged hydrogen cations are attracted to the negatively charged cathode, and the negatively charged oxygen

22

anions are attracted to the positively charged anode. The electricity itself softens the molecular bonds allowing the elements to split apart.

Once the hydrogen is liberated from the water molecule, it collects on the cathode. It is magnetically held in place. In doing so, it partially neutralizes the overall charge effect of the plate and weakens the plate’s ability to attract additional hydrogen. As the hydrogen cations (H+) accumulate on the cathode, some of the cations will combine to form stable and neutral diatomic hydrogen gas (H2) and buoyantly float to the top of the water. A similar phenomenon occurs with the negatively charged oxygen at the anode.

Therefore the majority of Water Gas is in the form of stable H2 and O2 gasses. In an automotive application, there is another factor that comes into play and that is the vibrations of the vehicle chassis acting on the electrolyzer. The hydrogen cations (H+) and oxygen anions (O-2, oxygen atoms) have tremendous buoyancy. The vibrations within the electrolyzer, combined with the flow of water through the cells will tend to dislodge the gaseous clumps of H+ and O-2. Depending on the vehicle, road conditions, and even ambient temperatures, the percentage of monatomic elements released from the electrolyzer typically equate to upwards of 15% of total gasseous volume.

In addition to H2, H+, O2, and O-2 gasses, there is also a small percentage of OH- radicals present in the Water Gas mix. The OH- radical is formed when one hydrogen cation is released from the water molecule and the net negative charge of the remaining OH- is attracted to the anode. Now that we have an approximation of what constitutes Water Gas and how it is different from bottled hydrogen, let’s look at the characteristics of Water Gas.

Firstly, H+ has 5.6 times the energy of H2. Simply from a thermodynamics perspective, there is a much greater return in the combustion process than would be for bottled hydrogen. Considering the splitting of O2 into O2-2 and O-2 is endothermic, the addition of oxygen anions leaves a greater net energy in the process for conversion to kinetic power. Secondly the oxygen anions will readily bond with the available hydrogen and carbon in the combustion process, thus speeding up the combustion process. The OH- radical is akin to a partially formed water molecule in the combustion process, and will also act as an accelerant in the burning of the fuel, because it’s ready to accept an additional H+ cation (from the HC molecule) and form a stable H2O molecule (with associated release of thermal energy without the endothermic energy requirements normally associated with the process).

As has been pointed out previously, hydrogen gas burns at 5.7 times the speed of gasoline. It acts as a powerful accelerant in the combusting of the HC fuel. Carrying the flame to the outer reaches of the combustion chamber 5.7 times faster than

23

gasoline alone, its major contribution to the combustion process has little to do with the Joules of energy it may contain, and more with its ability to make the dominant HC fuel more effective within the allotted window of time.

Finally, as has been pointed out, modern engines use EGR as a means to combat NOx emissions. EGR has detrimental side effects that Water Gas overcomes. Whereas EGR will slow the spread of the flame front, Water Gas increases the flame spread to a point that is still faster than the engine with no EGR. Whereas EGR displaces ambient air and therefore the oxidizer oxygen, Water Gas contains one or more varieties of oxidizer(s) to more than compensate for the displacement by the EGR.

Whereas water vapor is a much more powerful expansion medium than the nitrogen in the air (by a factor of 12X), Water Gas reverts to water after combustion, and that water is available to be used as an expansion medium.

Tuning Since factory ignition timing settings are retarded from optimal (as far as performance and economy) to combat NOx emissions, it is proven that the addition of hydrogen reduces NOx emissions by a factor of up to 5 and therefore optimal ignition timing settings can be targeted for performance and economy without the concern for NOx formation. Furthermore, since hydrogen and Water Gas speed up the flame spread and rate of combustion, less timing advance is required for optimal performance and economy. Factory ignition timing settings are more appropriate for a combustion process with trace amounts of Water Gas present (for performance and economy).

Whereas it has been proven that the addition of trace amounts of hydrogen allows for a much leaner air to fuel ratio (<85% Lambda) without excessive flame out (flame extinguishes without combusting the air/fuel mixture) or cylinder pressure variations, and without the formation of HC or NOx emissions, less fuel has to be added to the intake charge to deliver full power. If anything, removing a percentage of fuel from the intake charge (from 1.0 Lambda) will increase power output due to the new stochiometric requirements of the modified fuel. Our circumstantial test data suggests that with trace amounts of Water Gas present, the Lambda shifts from the conventional 14.7:1 AFR to more along the lines of 17:1

It has been proven substantially, that the addition of even trace amounts of hydrogen improves torque, so less throttle angle is required to sustain a given power output (highway speeds). Less throttle angle means the engine consumes less air and fuel total, thus improving fuel economy.

Whereas most of the benefits derived from better fuel vaporization and the addition of Water Gas require tuning to maximize, the Hydro Assist Fuel Cell (HAFC) includes an electronic controller called the O2ptomizer. The trained Installer is able to modify air to

24

fuel ratios and ignition timing, as well as offset fail-safes programmed into the factory ECU to maximize the performance, fuel economy, and exhaust emissions provided by the hardware portion of the HAFC Kit.

The hardware alone, without any tuning, typically only shows about a 10% to 15% gain in fuel economy due to the programming schedules in the factory ECU. To attempt to tune the ECU without any of the hardware might result in upwards of 30% mileage gains (with possible increased exhaust emissions), but certainly would not result in efficiency gains in the 50% to 100% range. The HAFC is a balanced package that knits many scientific principles together, each having value on their own, but cumulatively delivering gains that exceed those of the individual components. One component allows another to perform better than it could on its own, and this is compounded by the carefully chosen and designed components that work synergistically to increase performance and economy.

Conclusion It should have become obvious that the engines currently produced and sold in the US are not nearly as efficient as possible. It should be evident that many prior inventions have delivered on dramatically improved fuel economy. It should be evident that the components utilized in the HAFC Kit are tried and true through prior art. It should be evident that fuel economy isn’t the only issue at hand, whereas exhaust emissions are also a major consideration. It should be evident that with the consideration of EPA regulations concerning exhaust emissions that factory tuning wastes much fuel to feed the catalytic converter and combat NOx emissions formation. It should be evident that between the provided evidence supporting the potential of the hardware, and the evidence supporting the potential of the tuning, that incredible improvements to both performance and economy are possible. It should have been made evident that Dutchman Enterprises’ HAFC claims violate no known laws of physics or chemistry. It should be evident that even greater gains are possible with the HAFC program than we are advertising, without compromising emissions standards. It should be evident by this point that minor improvements to the HAFC program, over time, may improve results to levels even greater than we have now seen.

25

Dutchman Enterprises

Hydro‐Assist Fuel Cell Technical Evaluation (Part 2 Technical)

There were many approaches we could have used in establishing a starting point for current efficiency levels of production modern automobiles. There are acceptable levels of improvement showing how much more the vehicles can be realistically improved within the commonly accepted limits of science, and practical integrations and applications of current technologies to achieve these goals (methodology, hardware/software, and emissions). We chose the outline contained herein due to its ease of understanding and thoroughness of explanation. We wanted to take a “common sense” approach to the task. Education, knowledge, and intelligence are the ability to quote formulas, then run the math to prove or disprove something. Common sense is when you don’t wait until the last minute when your family lives in a one-bathroom house.

Many studies have been reviewed in assembling this analysis. Listed in Part 2 are ones that we used, quotes, sources, math, and comments where needed. Obviously, nobody has ever conducted an exhaustive study on the exact components and exact combination of components Dutchman is marketing under the trade name Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell, but there are numerous parallels that illustrate scientific principles irrefutably to prove concepts and quantify gains. Several non-applicable headings from Part 1 have been deleted in Part 2 due to relevancy. Sections 5 and 6 of this Evaluation are intended to briefly summarize points made throughout the body of the text contained in Part 2 in whole.

Is improved fuel economy possible? Dutchman Enterprises has been marketing the HAFC product with claims of 50% to 100% increase in mileage for about two years, and has featured the rare and occasional exception that has exhibited gains outside the advertised range. Before examining the validity of Dutchman’s claims, it is only proper to analyze the scientific plausibility of said claims (including those featured outside of the guaranteed range) and establish rules of reasonability, as commonly accepted within the scientific community. One rule that needs to be established initially, that affects all further study is a commonly accepted efficiency of conversion from one form of matter/energy to another. The field of science readily accepts 85% to 90% as easily achievable overall, with many fields exceeding these numbers as technology advances. Therefore, all future postulations of possible will assume these numbers.

26

How efficient are today’s automobile engines? To establish the overall efficiency of modern automobiles, we must look at the various functions of the vehicle, then look at where inefficiencies occur. If engine efficiency increases are the subject of this text, then losses to areas other than the engine cannot be accepted. To begin, let’s establish the overall efficiency of the vehicle as a whole, then look at where losses occur.

Marc Ross (Physics Department, University of Michigan) has done an acceptable job of outlining this for us in his “Fuel Efficiency and the Physics of Automobiles”. [Originally published in Contemporary Physics 38, no. 6, pp 381 – 394, 1997, updated in parts to 2004 and modified in parts.] Ross defines the 2 areas of efficiency as 1) vehicle load/power requirements and accessories, and 2) powertrain losses.

The powertrain efficiency is the product of the engine’s thermodynamic efficiency (ηt), the engine’s mechanical efficiency (ηm), and the transmission efficiency (ε).

Powertrain efficiency = Pload/Pfuel = ηt • ηm • ε

Where Pload is the vehicle load and Pfuel is the rate of consumption of fuel in energy terms (kW). These quantities are all functions of time, some of them sensitively. The vehicle load is the powertrain output: The rate of increase in kinetic energy plus the rate of energy loss in the air drag, tire drag, and accessories.

The thermodynamic efficiency is the fraction of fuel energy converted to work within the engine:

ηt = (Pfrict + Pb)/Pfuel

where (Pfrict + Pb) is total work, which consists of output or “brake” work, Pb, and internal frictional work, Pfrict.

The mechanical efficiency is the fraction of the total work that is delivered by the engine to the transmission:

ηm = Pb/(Pb + Pfrict)

And the transmission efficiency is:

ε = Pload/Pb

except that the accessories are generally driven by the engine without going through the transmission. The relationships are different when the load is negative, in braking.

Vehicle load, neglecting minor effects such as wind and road curvature, the instantaneous load is (Gillespie 1992):

27

Pload = Ptires + Pair + Pinertia + Paccess + Pgrade

Here are the terms in kW:

a) power overcoming rolling resistance: Ptires ≈ CRMgv

where CR is the dimensionless coefficient of rolling resistance, M is the mass of the loaded vehicle expressed in tons, and v is the vehicle speed in m/s.

b) air drag: Pair = 0.5ρCDAv3/1000

where ρ is air density (roughly 1.2 kg/m3), CD is the dimensionless drag of coefficient, and A is the frontal area in m2;

c) inertia: Pinertia = 0.5M*[Δv2/Δt]

where M* is the effective inertial mass, about 1.03M, which includes the effect of rotating and reciprocating parts, and [Δv2/Δt] is in m2/s3

d) vehicle accessories (lights, radio, wipers, power steering, A/C): Paccess

e) grade: Pgrade = Mgvsinθ

where tanθ is the grade. The inertial and grade terms may be negative. Examples are given for a 1995 Ford Taurus.

For current “midsize” US cars, like the 1995 Ford Taurus, the time-average load on the engine in the composite US urban and highway driving cycle is Pb = 6.3 kW. In terms of gasoline 6.3 kW is equivalent to 0.67 US gallons per 100 miles (or 149.25 mpg). Based on normal combined driving cycle mileage of 27 mpg, the vehicle is 18% efficient. In short, losses can be categorized as:

Vehicle Loads

Air drag 5%

Rolling resistance 5%

Brakes 5%

Accessories 2%

Transmissions 3%

Total losses external to the engine are 20%

28

Powertrain Losses (Transmission losses were relocated to “Vehicle Loads” by this author.)

Engine “lost work” (thermal) 62%

Engine friction 18%

This means that 62% of losses are due to thermal losses in the engine coolant, engine exhaust, radiant thermal losses, and unburned fuel losses (at the moment of exhaust valve opening). Using the above formulas, the engine itself is only 22.5% efficient. The engine performs 2 conversions that must be considered: 1) chemical to thermal conversion; the ability to burn the fuel thus converting the stored chemical energy in the fuel to heat and 2) thermal to kinetic conversion; the ability to convert thermal energy to push on the piston through the expansion medium. Both mark areas of dramatic inefficiencies.

By improving the 62% loss (38% efficient) to a more scientifically acceptable range of 27.75% to 19% (72.25% to 81% efficient) [since there are 2 separate conversions taking place, an 85% conversion efficiency assigned to both conversions would equate to a 72.25% total efficiency (.85 X .85), and a 90% conversion efficiency assigned to both conversions would equate to an 81% total efficiency (.9 X .9)], fuel economy on the Taurus would have a maximum limit of 77.64 to 87.04 miles per US gallon. Again, this is typical full driving cycle averages. Dedicated mileage runs would show higher numbers due to the reduction in cold starts, idling, and transitions (acceleration/deceleration).

Has anybody ever done it before? In addition to the patents and inventions listed in Part 1 of this text, I wish to point out that Honda produced and sold the CVCC engine back in the 1970s that accomplished relatively large efficiency numbers for its era (over 40 mpg from a compact class Accord). Citroën did even better by achieving over 60 mpg with a mid-sized production family car in the 1960s. Sonne Ward holds the world record for fuel economy in his category (sustained 75 mph driving) of over 88 mpg from a 1993 Honda Civic. Shell oil toured a 1959 Opel getting 376 mpg in 1973. The Predator Carburetor was originally invented as a fuel economy based carburetor, but (insert “conspiracy theory” here) marketed the product as a performance off-road device eventually. The Fish and Woodworth carburetors were direct bolt-on carburetor replacements that guaranteed 20% to 50% increase in fuel economy by atomizing the fuel droplets to a smaller size than typical carburetors (or even fuel injectors of the time). A product called the Power Plate delivered 30% to 100% + increase in fuel economy, with enhanced power by better vaporizing and homogenizing the fuel as it exited the carburetor. (I personally owned a Power Plate that took my 1970 Plymouth Duster, 225

29

inline 6 engine, from a modified best of 29.85 mpg to 44.7 mpg on a highway mileage run, and with dramatically increased power. Long term fuel economy numbers ranged from 32 to 38 mpg.)

Some other patent numbers that are worth noting include:

3,496,919 Gerrard 1,234,774 Meyer 2,982,528 Shelton

4,862,859 Yunick 3,640,256 Low (NASA) 4,206,158 Wood (Ford Motor Co)

How did they do it? Whereas in Part 1 we looked at sound reasoning behind technique (in common language), in Part 2 we shall observe scientific principles that govern applicable claims and reasonable expectations.

Vaporizing the fuel Many technologies have been referenced both in Part 1 and in Part 2 that capitalize on fully vaporizing the fuel prior to ignition. Most utilize normally wasted thermal energy from the coolant and/or exhaust systems, recycling this energy back into the fuel to reduce endothermic losses in the combustion process that would otherwise be absorbed through the latent heat of evaporation, along with other benefits soon listed. Example technologies (Pogue, Ogle, etc.) show efficiency rates that get much closer to the theoretical 100% range. In the case of Pogue, the energy in the ambient air must become a part of the calculation. This has never been factored into efficiency calculations previously, but may have an apparent affect. Usually full vapor systems heat the fuel to > 425˚ F.

Merely heating the fuel Considering that liquid fuel doesn’t burn, and regardless of the burn time of the given constituents within pump fuel, the initiation of the burn does not begin until the fuel is vaporized, ignited, and begins to chemically oxidize. This places importance on the “window of effectiveness” the fuel has to be transformed from chemical energy to thermal energy, then eventually to kinetic energy. Listed are the basic constituents of modern pump gasoline, their vapor (boiling) points, and their burn times:

Petrochemical Vapor Point (degrees F. 1 BAR/2BAR) Burn Time

30

Hexane 156/199 <1 ms

Heptane 207/257

Octane 258/307

Nonane 303/350

Decane 345/400

Undecane 384/440

Dodecane 425/481 >33 ms

Consider a typical modern engine (2.0 liter with a 90mm stroke) at cruise conditions whereas the ignition event begins at approximately 30˚ BTDC. The 2% to 10% burn rate (the amount of time required for approximately 2% to 10% of the total air/fuel charge to be consumed by the combustion process) takes 16 to 17 Crank Angle Degrees (CAD). This equates to 1.3 to 1.4 ms [(60 seconds / 2000 RPM)/360 degrees • CAD]. The 10% to 90% burn time takes another 80 CAD. This still is only another 6.6 ms. 80 + 17 CAD after spark event begins places the engine at approximately 67˚ ATDC in the combustion cycle. Considering the flame speed of gasoline is 41.5 cm/sec, and the piston will average a mean velocity of 180 cm/sec from TDC to BDC, with peak velocity around the 90˚ ATDC point of approximately 6666.67 cm/sec (6.7 m/s), it becomes easy to see that the piston rapidly begins to outrun the pressure wave created by the expanding gasses activated by the thermal-to-mechanical conversion expansion pressure process. It is so incredibly pronounced, even at cruise speeds, that the piston exceeds the typical speed of sound! Although pressure transducers may register positive (above ambient) pressure in and around the cylinder head within the combustion chamber, there would have to be a slight vacuum at the surface of the piston. This negates the possibility of the pressure within the cylinder to further contribute to useful work.

In Part 1, the “bow and arrow” illustration was used to show how a given amount of energy could be “leveraged” to accomplish more usable work. Even though as much as 90% of the fuel may be burned by 65˚ ATDC, the piston speed is already walking away from the pressure wave and rendering any Chemical-to-Thermal or Thermal-to-Pressure conversions ineffective in the engine (as far as productive work done). It therefore becomes evident that expediency in the rate of vaporization, initiation of combustion, completion of combustion, and conversion from thermal to pressure energies are very time sensitive. The engine’s ability to harness “pressure” forces and convert them to kinetic energy occurs in a very small window of time limited to approximately 14˚ ATDC to about 30˚ ATDC (or 1.328 ms for our theoretical 2.0 liter engine at 2000 RPM).

31

Effectively, any fuel not vaporized and initiated in the combustion process early in the combustion cycle cannot contribute effectively in the conversion to kinetic energy at the crankshaft. Its contribution, if burned at all inside the engine, is simply thermal energy released to the coolant and exhaust systems. This is the single greatest hurdle to overcome in improving engine efficiency. Vaporizers, as outlined by Pogue, Ogle, et al reduce the amount of time required to engulf the vast majority of the fuel in the Chemical – Thermal conversion phase early in the combustion cycle, giving more time for the Thermal – Kinetic conversion. Inventions that are able to vaporize a larger percentage of the fuel certainly have a positive effect on overall engine efficiency.

Chemical additives Speaking strictly from a combustion perspective, naphthalene and acetone have been used as accelerants to increase the fuel’s thermal output within the usable window of time in the combustion cycle. Naphthalene intensifies the thermal release from conventional petrochemical fuels. Acetone has a low vapor point and fast burn rate that acts as an accelerant. Many other additives have been utilized to accomplish various goals by both oil companies and aftermarket manufacturers alike. The HAFC Kit uses a fuel additive trade named “Covalizer” which uses ethanol (as a surfactant and carrier) and various accelerants. The main goal of the Covalizer is to accelerate the flame spread, clean the fuel system and engine components, increase the fuel’s ability to resist detonation (octane rating improver and stabilizer), and promote a faster consumption of the fuel constituents in the combustion process. Admittedly, I do not know the proprietary formula for the product trade named Covalizer, and therefore am not able to properly define its inherent chemical properties adnausium.

In the investigation phase of adopting the new Covalizer, fuel economy tests showed typical 10% gains, with a small percentage of tests exceeding 20%. This was on otherwise stock vehicles.

Tuning The ultimate objective of any engineer, engine builder, or tuner is to create maximum possible cylinder pressure at 14˚ ATDC, hereinafter referred to as Critical Crank Angle (CCA). By making adjustments to ignition timing, more timing advance starts the Chemical – Thermal conversion earlier in the cycle and equates to more power (more pressure by CCA). It is most often accepted in the performance community that a mere 2˚ change in ignition timing is noticeable on the dyno and on the track. To put this into perspective, 2˚ CAD at 6000 RPM is only 5.5 X 10-6 seconds; or 0.005,5 milliseconds (5.5 microseconds). The trade-off occurs when the intense pressure and temperature created by excessive timing advance initiates detonation; or instantaneous ignition of fuel not part of the primary flame front. Detonation is a more dynamic release of energy than the controlled burn, one that has the ability to destroy engine parts within the combustion chamber.

32

The limiting factor when setting ignition timing, from a performance standpoint, is the fuel’s ability to resist detonation. Higher octane rating fuels have a greater resistance against detonation, and are more tolerant to increased timing advance than lower octane fuels. This is only looking at the performance perspective of ignition timing tuning.

Another factor that must be considered in our modern world is the propensity to create NOx emissions. NOx is a generic term relating to oxides of nitrogen formed as either NO or as NO2; whereas the “X” in the subscript denotes either a 1 or a 2. The formation of NOx follows very specific and definable rules. It takes 2500 degrees F. and time to combine oxygen and nitrogen gasses (21% and 78% of atmospheric air respectively) to form NOx. In accordance with these rules, temperatures below the 2500 degree F. threshold will not produce NOx, nor will brief spikes in temperatures above 2500 degrees. It takes a sustained 2500˚+ temperature to form NOx.

When tuning for performance and economy, creating peak cylinder pressure by CCA may require timing advance levels that produce excessive NOx emissions as defined by the US EPA. The compromise meted by OEMs is to retard the ignition timing to reduce NOx formations at the expense of performance, economy, and other exhaust pollutants. Emissions such as HC and CO (which usually increase with retarded ignition timing) are easily neutralized by the catalytic converter, but NOx is not so easily combated. The easiest method of reducing or eliminating NOx emissions from the exhaust of a vehicle is to not create it in the first place. A good way to prevent NOx formation is to retard ignition timing, which compromises performance and economy levels.

In order to reduce NOx emissions, excessively rich mixtures may also be required, in addition to retarded ignition timing, to reduce combustion temperatures below the magical 2500˚ threshold. Excessively rich mixtures will quench the flame in the combustion process and be advantageous in heating the catalytic converter to temperatures that are effective in burning off HC and CO emissions formed in the combustion process. Performance and economy are lost, though.

Actual exhaust emissions taken from a 2003 GMC Yukon in stock, modified, and tuned condition.

Stock Modified (Stock Tuning) Tuned

HC ppm 36 44 0

CO% 0.01 0.06 0.00

33

CO2% 13.5 13.2 12.0

O2% 5.8 5.8 6.6

It is evident that adding the HAFC components without properly tuning the ECU shows a small increase in exhaust emissions. Once the vehicle is properly tuned, the emissions from the exhaust virtually disappear. Note also the higher oxygen levels evident in a lower equivalence ratio operating range.

Hydrogen (and variations thereof) As denoted in the heading, there are indeed various forms of what we know as hydrogen. In diatomic form (H2), there are parahydrogen and orthohydrogen. In the parahydrogen form the atoms spin in an antiparallel arrangement and form a singlet. In the orthohydrogen form, the spins of the two protrons are parallel and form a triplet state. At standard temperature (27˚ C), hydrogen gas contains about 25% parahydrogen and 75% orthohydrogen; known as “normal form”. As temperature increases, the percentage of orthohydrogen increases, and vice versa. Orthohydrogen has a higher energy level than parahydrogen. Energy level numbers used in chemical equations reflect the normal state (23.5 kJ/L). An increase in orthohydrogen by percentage yields a higher energy level of the gas than scientifically denoted, and vice versa. As temperatures of formed H2 gas drop, percentages of orthohydrogen revert to the lower level parahydrogen, with a release of energy. Due to the conditions within an electrolyzer, higher levels of orthohydrogen would be present in the cumulative H2 gas than would be in bottled H2 gas.

In addition to the 2 types of diatomic H2 gas, there is also the H+ cation. Ionization energy of H+ ions = 1312 kJ/mol. This is the energy needed to strip electrons from a mole of H. So when the ionized H+ recaptures electrons during combustion, this same amount of energy must be released, plus the regular combustion energy. Enthalpy of combustion of H = 286 kJ/mol. Molar density of H (@27ºC) = .082 mol/L. When molecular H2 is combusted, we get 286kJ/mol x .082 mol/L = 23.5 kJ/L. When ionized H+ is combusted, we get the combustion energy 23.5 kJ/L, plus the de-ionization energy. The latter is 1312 kJ/mol x .082 mol/L = 107.6 kJ/L, so the total energy release from combusting a liter of H+ is 107.6 kJ + 23.5 kJ = 131.1 kJ which is 5.6 times the energy from combustion of molecular H2.

Since ionized hydrogen has 5.6 times the energy content of molecular hydrogen, whereas a liter of hydrogen cations can supply 131.1 kJ, only 295 liters of H+ are needed replace a gallon of gasoline, as compared with 1650 liter of molecular hydrogen with the same energy value.

34

Hydrogen cations are actually produced at twice the rate of hydrogen molecules in the electrolysis of water. The electrolysis of water really consists of two electrochemical reactions that proceed simultaneously. In the first reaction, water is oxidized at the anode (positively charged electrode):

2 H2O —> O2 + 4 H+ + 4e-

In the second reaction, water is reduced at the cathode (negatively charge electrode):

4 H2O + 4e- —> 2 H2 + 4 OH-

It can be seen from the above equations that, for every 2 moles of H2 molecular hydrogen generated, there are 4 moles of H+ hydrogen cations produced. Hence, if these hydrogen cations could be collected along with the molecular hydrogen, the energy content of the hydrogen gas would increase from 23.5 kJ per liter to almost 95 kJ per liter. We would then need 347 liters of this 2:1 mixture of ionized hydrogen (plasma) and molecular hydrogen to replace a gallon of gasoline containing 33,000 kJ. But the production rate of this plasma mixture would be 3 times that of molecular hydrogen alone, which equates to 6 liters per hour per ampere per cell, according to Faraday’s Law.

In the conventional electrolysis cell, hydrogen cations H+ cannot be easily collected because they are electrically attracted to the negatively-charge cathode and accumulate there. As bubbles of hydrogen cations build up on the cathode, they neutralize its negative charge and thereby retard the electrolysis process. This effect accounts for why the electrolysis of pure water proceeds so slowly, because in a stationary electrolysis cell, the hydrogen cation bubbles will diffuse away from the cathode very slowly.

When an electrolyte, such as potassium hydroxide KOH, is dissolved in the water of the electrolysis cell, it dissociates into positively charged cations (K+ for KOH) and negatively charged anions (OH- for KOH). The electrolyte anions OH- are electrically drawn to the hydrogen cations H+ accumulating on the cathode and combine with them to form water. While these electrolytic reactions speed up the electrolysis process and prevent it from stalling, they also eliminate the hydrogen cations and make them unavailable for collection as part of the generated hydrogen gas. This explains why conventional electrolysis cells can only achieve about 30% efficiency, because two-thirds of the hydrogen is being wasted.

The problem then becomes one of dislodging the hydrogen cations from the cathode of the electrolysis cell without resort to electrolytic reactions. A way to do this is to impart motion to the fluid between the electrodes. We have all seen how bubbles detach from a surface when the surrounding liquid is agitated. This will happen

35

inherently to some extent in a motor vehicle as it accelerates, decelerates and turns, and as its engine vibrates. The Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell’s fluid plenum has been designed to effectively contain the swirling fluid in order to take advantage of this effect. Water Gas can therefore be described as having properties of H2 gas, oxygen gas, and ionic properties that raise the energy level to considerably above that of typical bottled hydrogen. (Source, Thomas Germinario, Patent Atty.)

(From “International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 29 (2004) pp. 1541 – 1552; T. D. Andrea, P. F. Henshaw, D. S. –K. Ting)

Hydrogen has a flame speed more than five times greater than [gasoline]. Also, it has a lean limit (mixture at which flame will not propagate due to excess air) of φ = 0.1, much lower than the theoretical limit of gasoline (φ = 0.6). Theoretically, it is possible to extend the lean limit of the mixture, by adding a small amount of hydrogen to a liquid or gaseous hydrocarbon fuel. Operating with abundant excess air ensures more complete combustion, improves efficiency and results in a decrease in peak temperatures, which aids in lowering NOx, while eliminating problems commonly associated with operating on lean mixtures. Secondly, the higher flame speed increases the rate of combustion of the mixture and lowers cycle-to-cycle variations. Hydrogen has a higher diffusivity compared to HC fuels, which improves mixing, enhances turbulence and increases homogeneity in the charge.

…it is apparent that there is little difference in the torque results when 1% or 2% H2 in air was added… In some cases with the hydrogen addition, the COVIMEP (pressure variations between the cylinders and cycles) decreased by 30% when compared to operating without any additive.

(From “Emissions and Total Energy Consumption of a Multicylinder Piston Engine Running on Gasoline and a Hydrogen-Gasoline Mixture”; Report No. NASA TN D-8487,May 1977; John F. Cassidy; Lewis Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration)

The effect of flame speed on efficiency is important in lean-mixture-ratio combustion because the flame speed decreases as the equivalency ratio decreases. Adding hydrogen to gasoline significantly increased the apparent flame speed. This increase occurred at all equivalence ratios, but was especially noticeable at lean equivalence ratios. At an equivalence ratio of 0.66, which is close to the lean-limit equivalence ratio of gasoline, the apparent flame speed was 61% faster with hydrogen enrichment. The flame velocity depends on the rate of thermal and mass transport from the burned to the unburned gas. This, in turn, depends on the heat and mass transfer across the flame front.

At the same equivalence ratio, hydrogen induces a higher flame temperature, which increases the difference between the temperatures of the burned and unburned

36

mixtures and creates a more efficient heat-transfer mechanism. A second mode of energy transfer, mass transfer, is also affected by adding hydrogen. Molecular diffusion and the diffusion of active radicals due to concentration gradients between the burned and unburned mixtures, along with the physical transfer of burning particles into the unburned mixture, strongly influence flame speed. Hydrogen possesses a high diffusion coefficient and may enter the chemical reaction systems in a manner that produces more active radicals. The transport of these radicals also depends on the motion of the gasses either due to the motion of the flame front itself or due to externally induced small- and large-scale turbulence.

(On ignition timing and burn rate) The advantageous thermal properties of hydrogen appear to diminish the thermal loss from the developing flame kernel and to quicken the energy release rate. At the 0.69 equivalence ratio, the flame speed with hydrogen-gasoline is 61% higher than with gasoline. At this equivalence ratio, the energy lost to the exhaust flow with hydrogen-gasoline is 37% less than with gasoline. Comparing NOx levels at the 0.94 equivalence ratio and the minimum-energy-consumption equivalence ratio of 0.66 for hydrogen-gasoline shows [a] reduction [in NOx] by a factor of 5. As the equivalence ratio was extended to leaner values [with the addition of hydrogen], the carbon monoxide levels remained fixed and low.

Adding small amounts of hydrogen to gasoline produced efficient lean operation by increasing the apparent flame speed and reducing ignition lag.

Since the HAFC uses the Water Gas as a combustion accelerant, the listed formulas are not necessarily relative to the end use of the generated gasses. Considering a 5.0 liter V-8 engine should be fed about 1L/min of Water Gas at 15 amps current draw at typical cruise engine speed, the significance of the energy consumption is relatively miniscule compared to the benefits gained from the accelerated combustion process. Any energy release from the minute amounts of Water Gas admitted to the air intake of the engine would also be minute, and therefore not necessarily a valuable contribution to the equation. Neither in the creation (endothermic) nor combustion (exothermic) state do the energy conversion values of water –to - Water Gas (and back to water) factor as significant in the efficiency of the engine. Water Gas’ contribution is in its ability to enable the engine to better convert the much larger energy values contained within the gasoline to kinetic energy.

Thermal Catalytic Cracking (TCC) TCC was listed in Part 1 of this analysis as an illustration of substantial prior art. Though hydrogen and ionized oxygen (Water Gas) in the intake air charge may promote cracking of larger HC molecules during the intake and compression events, its significance cannot be quantified at this time.

37

Magnets The two studies we looked at to quantify and qualify the effects of magnets, as related to petrochemical fuels were; “Literature Search Report on Magnetic Treatment of Fuel to Improve Combustion and Reduce Emissions”, Ljubljana, 4-16-08, and “Reduction of NOx Emission in Bio Diesel Engine with Exhaust Gas Recirculation and Magnetic Fuel Conditioning”, P. Govindasamy and S. Dhandapani, 12-14-07. The Ljubljana report referenced 3 additional sources:

1) “Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Magnetic Flux to Reduce Emissions and Improve Combustion Performance in a Two Stroke, Catalytic-Coated Spark-Ignition Engine”, P. Govindasamy and S. Dhandapani; International Journal of Automotive Technology, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 533-542 (2007)

2) “Permanent Magnetic Power for Treating Fuel Lines for More Efficient Combustion and Less Pollution”, I. G. Tretyakov, M. A. Rybak, and E. Y. Stepanenko; Elektronnaya Obrabotka Materialov (Sov. Surf. Eng. Appl. Electrochem.) Vol. 6, pp. 80-83 (1985)

3) “Experimental Evidence for Effects of Magnetic Fields on Moving Water and Fuels”, K. J. Kronen berg; IEEE Trans. Magnetics, Vol. 21, pp. 2059-2061 (1985)

Due to various physical attraction forces, [HC molecules] form densely packed structures called pseudo compounds which can further organize into clusters or associations. These structures are relatively stable and during air/fuel mixing process, oxygen atoms cannot penetrate into their interior. In the scientific literature1 it is stated that HC molecules treated with a high magnetic field tend to de-cluster forming smaller associates with higher specific surface area for the reaction with oxygen leading to improved combustion. In accordance with van der Waals’ discovery of a weak clustering force, there is a strong binding of hydrocarbons with oxygen in such magnetized fuel, which ensures optimal burning of the mixture in the engine chamber. Authors conclude that magnetic energizing (magnetic field – 9000 gauss) increased the peak pressure by 13.5%, improved brake thermal efficiency by 3.2%, and also reduced exhaust emissions of: CO by 13.3% and HC by 22.1%.

Mention of combining a magnetic field with increased fuel temperature:

Tretyakov et al.2 studied the effectiveness of magnetic field treatment on electrical properties such as permittivity (ε), dielectric loss angle (tg δ), and ohmic resistance in relation with magnetic field strength and temperature on air fuel T-7. Results showed that magnetic field strength (H) of 320 kA/m increased the maximal tg δ from 4 for nontreated fuel at app. 80˚ C to the value of 11 at app. 100˚ C. Magnetic treatment (magnetic field strengths H = 320 and 480 kA/m) also reduced the ohmic resistance of the fuel while no effect was observed on the permittivity of fuel. These changes in

38

dielectric properties of fuel are an indication of the effects of magnetic treatment on the physical and chemical properties of hydrocarbons.

(From Govindasamy/Dhandapani report) With a magnetic field we can increase the internal energy of the fuel, to cause specific changes at a molecular level. Increasing the internal energy means molecules fly apart easier, join with oxygen easier and ignite well to obtain easier combustion. The resultant conditioned fuel is magnetized to burn more completely, producing higher engine output, better fuel economy, more power, and most importantly, reduces the amount of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide in the exhaust.

These reports show that magnets indeed have a beneficial effect on better vaporization and better oxidization within the combustion process. The Dutchman HAFC Vaporizer contains 4 magnets rated at 40 M gauss each (compared to the 9k gauss experimental magnets, that is substantial).

Water injection Water injection offers benefit by increasing the expansion medium’s push on the piston for the same thermal energy available versus nitrogen. As pointed out in Part 1, water expands at 12X of nitrogen; though external water injection displaces ambient air, the primary source of oxidizer for combustion. Exhaust gasses contain water, and recirculation of exhaust gasses provide a more powerful expansion medium but at the expense of displacing oxidizer in the ambient air and slowing down the rate of combustion. Combustion by-products include about 18% water vapor. As outlined, the Water Gas approach improves the expansion medium in a similar way that water injection or EGR can, but with additional benefits and without the detrimental effects. Even more so when combined with one or more of the other technologies.

39

How combustion works The short version of what happens in the chemical to thermal conversion can be noted as:

HC + O2 → CO2 + H2O + Heat

A bit more accurate, albeit longer version would be:

HC + Energy → H+ + C-

O2 + Energy → O2-2; or (2) O-2

H+ + O2-2 → HO2- + Heat; or

H+ + O-2 → HO- + Heat

HO2- + H+ → H2O2 + Heat; or

HO- + H+ → H2O + Heat

O-2 + C → CO + Heat

CO + O-2 → CO2 + Heat

Endothermic reactions are noted on the left side of the arrow as “Energy”, and the exothermic reactions are noted on the right side of the arrow as “Heat”. Endothermic energy can be electrical energy from the spark plug, or thermal energy released from combustion. No time designations were mentioned, as the process is more the object of the outline.

Once thermal energy is released from combustion, a portion of it is absorbed endothermically to propagate the combustion process (Energy on the left of the arrow), and a portion is absorbed into the metals constituting the engine itself, and a portion of it is absorbed into the expansion medium thus creating pressure. The expansion medium absorbs this energy at a rate that is a combination of the thermal density of the medium, thermal conductivity of the medium, and density (pressure) of the medium. As the medium is exposed to thermal energy, it will take time for it to be absorbed and for the medium to expand. Most of the expansion medium within an automobile engine is nitrogen derived from the ingestion of ambient air. As the fuel fully oxidizes, it is converted into CO, CO2, and H2O, all of which have different expansion properties. As a mole of gasoline is oxidized into CO2 and H2O, the inherent volume (number of moles or molecules) will change. This is also part of the expansion/pressure

40

equation. A question then comes to mind, what effect does this change have on pressure derived from the expansion medium?

(2)C8H18 + (25)O2 → (16)CO2 + (18)H2O + Heat

There are 27 molecules on the left (2 octane and 25 oxygen) and 34 molecules on the right (16 carbon dioxide and 18 water). This states that the expansion medium, as a factor of molecules, is increased as combustion progresses (27 molecules are converted to 34 molecules). Thus, there should be more expansion medium post combustion than there would have been pre-combustion. This factors as part of the expansion medium equation. The second conversion (Thermal-to-Kinetic) may be even further enhanced as the expansion medium is increased volumetrically by a more rapid combustion.

Can it be improved? Merely from a statistical standpoint, if the engine is ideally 30% efficient, and in practice 20% efficient, the answer has to be a resounding Yes! (again, statistically). When looking at the 2 individual conversions required in the function of the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) and their individual efficiencies, again, the answer must be a resounding Yes! By looking at the 2 conversions independently we are able to define inherent inefficiencies, then logically and scientifically make reasonable conclusions that will promote more efficient conversions. With objectives outlined, known processes can be implemented that will yield the expected gains.

(All Part 1 categories within this portion of the analysis have been grouped together as they are interconnected, and the illustration of one phenomenon factors with several others.)

When starting a fire, it would be faster to spray a “starter fluid” across the fuel to initiate the burn than it would be to hold a match to the fuel long enough to get it started. Lighting a charcoal grill well illustrates this point. The lighter fluid has a much faster flame speed than does the charcoal, and the lighter fluid has a much faster rate of combustion than does the charcoal. Inevitably, the lighter fluid “accelerates” the flame spread and initiation of combustion. This becomes of value if you have 45 minutes to start the fire and prepare dinner before your guests arrive.

If we could do something similar within the ICE, the slower burning gasoline would be able to start burning and more fully combust within the limited time frame of a working engine (mere milliseconds).

As outlined in Part 1, liquid fuel cannot burn, and therefore only fuel vapors can possibly burn, even to initiate the spread of the flame. Adding energy to the fuel (thermal or otherwise) prior to the combustion event that could promote a higher vapor ratio of the

41

fuel, leaves more of the thermal energy within the combustion process to act on the expansion medium; as less will be absorbed by the liquid fuel in the latent heat of evaporation process upon phase change.

This becomes significant when the principle of “quench” is factored in. Quench is a rapid absorption of energy that can be significant enough to “put out the fire”. The border region along the walls of the cylinder, piston, and cylinder head are externally cooled by either the coolant system, or by the engine oil. Considering aluminum (pistons and most cylinder heads) melts at 900˚ F. and combustion temperatures exceed 2500˚ F., the quench effect becomes obvious. Another form of a quench area would be the rapid cooling of the charge due to fuel evaporation. If the flame front must travel across a liquid-rich charge, it may extinguish due to this quench effect. At best, the speed of the flame spread is retarded due to the absorption of otherwise propagative energy from the evaporation of liquid fuel.

The more vapor versus liquid in the initial charge, the faster the flame is able to consume, as a factor of surface area, the entire combustion chamber in the oxidization process. Fuel cannot fully oxidize until the process begins, and that is, in large part, a factor of the initial flame propagation rate.

Since “burning” the fuel is “oxidizing” the fuel, the fuel cannot burn until it comes in intimate contact with the oxidizer with a sufficient energy source to promote the oxidation process. If we could ideally put the air and vaporized fuel through a “blender on frappe”, the charge would be able to ignite and fully combust in a small fraction of the time it takes engines under the current configuration (reference “Yunick”, Pat. No. 4,862,859). This has been done with most remarkable results (250 HP + 85 mpg from 2.5 L Pontiac Fiero; Yunick).

Mechanically, modern closed-chamber engines are greatly improved over older open chamber head versions, whereas newer engines incorporate “swirl and tumble” into the port and chamber shapes in the engine itself. This is to our advantage with the HAFC due to the better homogenization of the Water Gas with the air/fuel charge. At this point the stage is set for the Water Gas to even further enhance the beneficial turbulence within the combustion space to better propagate the flame and vaporize liquid droplets of fuel.

With exceptional swirl port designs of modern engines, there will be high velocities within the chamber on the intake stroke. As the piston moves up the cylinder bore on the compression stroke, the velocity initially accelerates; much like children moving toward the center of a merry-go-round, due to centrifugal forces. As the piston moves further up the cylinder bore, frictional forces start affecting the swirl momentum and begin slowing it down. As the piston approaches TDC, the swirl action will diminish. But the piston gets extremely close to the cylinder head, it “squeezes” a portion of the charge

42

from the “squish zone” created by the small clearance gap between the piston and head. This shoots a velocity stream out into the combustion chamber, restoring some turbulence to the chamber at or around the spark event. By the time the piston reaches TDC and the spark event is initiated, there is still relatively little movement existing within the combustion space. Once the spark plug fires and the combustion event begins, the expansion of the burning gasses (acting upon the expansion medium) start a more aggressive turbulent movement again. Due to the laminar characteristics of the initial (2% to 10% burn) part of the burn cycle, this movement is relatively slow in coming.

Hydrogen gas (H2) has a burn speed of 237 cm3/sec versus gasoline at 41.5 cm3/sec. These numbers are rated at atmospheric pressure and will increase proportionately with increasing pressure (as in a combustion chamber), but the relationship between the 2 burn speeds will remain fairly constant. Because of the properties of dissimilar burn rates between the gasoline and the hydrogen elements in Water Gas, the hydrogen will burn more rapidly, spread the flame quicker, and leave an oxidizing (burning) and expanding “wake” behind. There would also be micro-expansion pockets where relatively isolated associations of the hydrogen element are clustered. This wake is essentially turbulence; or beneficial movement. This turbulent wake helps to intermix the flame with the air/fuel charge, and helps to sheer larger fuel droplets into several smaller and more combustible fuel droplets. Furthermore, the turbulent wake and micro-expansion pockets bring fuel, oxygen, and flame in contact with each other at a much more rapid rate than the combustion of a single flame speed fuel in a relatively stagnant (laminar) space alone could.

The end result is the ability to accelerate the Chemical-to-Thermal conversion rate, contribute more effectively to the Thermal-to-Kinetic conversion rate, and correspondingly improve the efficiency of the engine as a whole.

How does the HAFC improve efficiency? To summarize, the Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell Kit is able to improve overall engine efficiency with a symphony of technologies that are designed to cumulatively accomplish 3 things:

1) better vaporize the fuel

2) speed up the burn (both in flame spread and fuel combustion rate within the cylinder)

3) tune the factory ECU (externally) to accomodate the changes in hardware.

The synergy of components augment each other in such a way that each allows the others to perform better than they could independently. With better fuel vaporization

43

and the addition of an accelerant, Water Gas, more of the Chemical-to-Thermal conversion (first conversion) takes place substantially sooner in the combustion cycle, thus allowing for a more efficient Thermal-to-Kinetic conversion (second conversion) to be harnessed. The by-product of combusting Water Gas leaves a residue of water, which is a much more efficient expansion medium than nitrogen, which further augments the Thermal-to-Kinetic conversion. The net change in combustion characteristics allow for engine management changes (tuning) that would otherwise be impossible, especially within the statutes of EPA emissions laws.

Another simple analogy that ties all of the presented principles into one illustration would be to draw the 1 foot circle again. Using the principles of TCC, Pogue turned all of the wood chips and coal chunks into shredded paper. When the match is dropped into the middle of the pile of shredded paper, the flame spreads relatively quickly and engulfs the entire circle quickly. The paper itself burns rapidly, turning to ash. The HAFC turns more of the wood and coal into paper, allowing the flame to progress much faster than with chunks. This is the function of the vaporizer (and partially, the Covalizer). If the paper were “laced” with a mist of gasoline (Water Gas and, to a smaller degree, Covalizer), the flame would spread rapidly and consume the shredded paper much faster. In the time sensitive engine, even small improvements can be leveraged to equate to relatively large gains in efficiency.

The resultant gains in fuel economy realistically and typically fall within the 50% to 100% increase, as advertised by Dutchman. With exceptional skills in fine tuning, much larger gains are possible by the experienced Installer/Tuner (such as the high mileage vehicles posted in Dutchman advertisements).

Conclusion This analysis is submitted by Dutchman Enterprises, LLC, as a scientific means of further explaining the natural laws of science applicable to the methodologies and systems employed by the Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell Kit. It is intended to further the understanding of the underlying principles of the Kit components, and the engine systems they affect. An expanded explanation has been included to add validity and credibility to the application of these principles as outlined. Although there exists no exhaustive study of all of the individual processes and the various combinations thereof, our field experience has proven that the end result conclusively reflects the claims made herein.

44

SINCE OUR SYSTEM DESIGNER DID NOT HAVE THE CREDENTIALS ALONETO REBUTT THE REPORT OF DOCTOR HALPERIN, A WORLD RENOWNED PHYSICIST WAS RECRUITED TO EXAMINE THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE REPORT OF THE FTC EXPERT, AND GIVE US HIS OWN REPORT. Written by: Dr. Yong Son Lee and his engineering son Sung Lee

TABLE OF CONTENT

I. QUALIFICATION OF YONG SON LEE

II. EVALUATION OF DR. W.P. HALPERIN’S DECLARATION

III. WORKINGS OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE

IV. EVALUATION OF HAFC

V. CONCLUSION

VI. REFERENCE VII. APPENDIX

A. SCALEBAN WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM B. VARIOUS EFFICIENCIES IN AUTOMOBILE

I. QUALIFICATION OF YONG SON LEE

My name is Yong Son Lee. I am writing this document at my free will to express my sincere knowledge and understanding as a professional engineer/scientist. I came to this country from Korea in 1961 as a poor young man with a burning desire to learn science. I arrived at campus of Penn State University in bitter cold day in January with one suitcase of cloth, another suitcase with books and $20. With hard work and gracious scholarship from this country, I have obtained my Ph. D. in engineering mechanics, and Ph. D. in material science. I have:

• authored over 60 papers in reputable international journals • lectured in various academic settings • authored a chapter in the Encyclopedia of Fluid Mechanics • held many important professional positions in various nuclear energy

companies • held numerous professor positions

Furthermore, my master’s thesis at Penn State was on subject of “Flame Trajectory under Vortex Field in an Internal Combustion Engine”. My resume will be provided upon request. I have not accomplished as much as I would have liked but reasonably well. I feel very lucky to have been a part of this country with unyielding desire to seek the truth and daring desire to be adventurous. Given current economic and environmental conditions, this subject could contribute greatly towards betterment of our future. Through my travels in Asia, all the countries still look towards US for great breakthroughs in scientific area. At the twilight of my career and my life, I am humbled to write and testify in this subject matter. I sincerely hope that this writing will:

1. assist you in your decision making process and 2. I can repay my appreciation to this great country and people.

I feel very strongly that it is a small legal case, but the ramification from this case will have a tremendous impact throughout world for time to come.

II. EVALUATION OF DR. W.P. HALPERIN’S DECLARATION In the following sections, I would like to restate Dr. Halperin’s statements from section IV Discussion of Ref. 1) and state my opinion in respect to the product in question, namely HAFC marketed by Dutchman Enterprises LLC. Ref 1), Section IV – A: “The device called Hydro Assist Fuel Cell (HAFC) is not a fuel cell contrary to the marketers’ claims (section III.2.A)” The exact scientific definition of “fuel cell” is stated below from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell:

“A fuel cell is an electrochemical conversion device. It produces electricity from fuel (on the anode side) and an oxidant (on the cathode side), which react in the presence of an electrolyte. The reactants flow into the cell, and the reaction products flow out of it, while the electrolyte remains within it. Fuel cells can operate virtually continuously as long as the necessary flows are maintained.”

According to this scientific definition, HAFC is certaintly not a fuel cell. However, as claimed by Dr. Halperin, HAFC is not “just opposite of a fuel cell” either. This statement is:

• scientifically incorrect, • and tries to sansationalize that marketer is a fraud.

HAFC is a device that converts water into its constiuent gases in the presence of an electric field. Therefore, HAFC is not a fuel cell according to above definition. In order to be “just opposite of a fuel cell” as claimed by Dr. Halperin however, the device must reverse the fuel cell process, which means it produces fuel and oxidants by consuming electricity. HAFC certaintly does not qualify under this process either. As correctly stated by Dr. Halperin in the same section, “In contrast to this, the HAFC uses electricity to generate hydrogen and oxygen, a process known as electrolysis. [1]” This is a correct statement. However, electroysis is not “just opposite of a fuel cell”. This is a contradictory statement within few sentences of Ref. 1), and hence why I have claimed that this statement (“just opposite of a fuel cell”) tries to sansationalize that marketer is a fraud. I believe that marketer has trademarked the term “HAFC” without any consideration of potential scrutiny for correct use of scientific terminology from a scientific community.

Ref 1), Section IV – B: “Electrolysis in the HAFC produces hydrogen and oxygen (water gas) as the marketers claim (section III.2.B). However, this process results in a net loss in available energy, the lost energy being dissipated as heat.” Everything stated in Ref. 1) by Dr. Halperin is correct. HAFC consumes more energy in creating constituent gases from water than the energy it produces when these gases are re-ignited in the combustion chamber alone without any presence of gasoline. Therefore, if you analyze purely from an input energy and output energy perspective of HAFC, as Dr. Halperin did, there would be a net energy loss. The laws governing this process is well established by the first and second laws of thermodynamics and very well understood even in an advanced high school physics classroom. The analysis performed by Dr. Halperin is correct, but this is totally irrelevant to the question at hand, namely internal combustion engine which is designed to move a 3000 lb automobile down the highway at 65 mph. Dr. Halperin did not analyze this process from dynamic conditions of an automobile, namely:

• What effect does hydrogen have on gasoline in a combustion chamber where, spark is ignited by spark plug?

• Would this have any effect in increasing or decreasing efficiency of converting thermal energy into expanding pressure which is again converted into mechanical energy at the wheel moving at 65 mph?

Analysis Dr. Halperin performed essentially isolates hydrogen into a test tube and performed a simple book keeping of input energy needed to create hydrogen and then energy output by burning hydrogen alone. Anyone who is somewhat educated in the field of thermodynamics would conclude that this would result in a net loss. It does not require a Ph. D. professor to prove this fact quantitatively. The remaining dynamics of an automobile processes were completely ignored. The key to creating hydrogen is to be used as a flame accelerant in the combustion chamber. This holds the absolute key to potentially increasing mpg for an internal combustion engine as discussed later in section III. My experience as an engineer is that when a process in question seems to violate even the most fundamental laws of science, I must humble myself and give the author the full benefit of the doubt by asking myself a question “Do I truly understand the entire process completely without any doubt in my mind?” This thought process requires giving the most fundamental respect deserved by your fellow members of a scientific community. If the author of Ref. 1) would have given a slightest respect to Dutchman Enterprises LLC as a viable manufacturer, he would have performed a simple Google search and/or 30 minute casual discussion with someone at the mechanical engineering department of Northwestern Univ. specializing in an internal combustion engine. This smallest respect would have resulted in a prodigiously different analytical conclusion. As a scientist who is in business of understanding God’s law should not have any arrogance. A simple Google search resulted in various articles Ref 3)-6) indicating effects of hydrogen in a combustion cycle. It clearly states in Ref. 5) that “It is well known that hydrogen addition to spark-ignited (SI) engines can reduce exhaust emissions and

increase efficiency.” Also it clearly states in Ref. 6) that “Work being done by ArvinMeritor, IAV (Ingenieursgesellshaft für Auto und Verkehr) and MIT on enhancing gasoline combustion with a small hydrogen gas stream is pointing toward a potential estimated improvement in gasoline fuel economy of 20% to 30%, depending upon the baseline engine.” Given that above articles are already published, the analysis performed by the author of Ref. 1) is at best an incomplete study, and at worst it is biased analysis with an apriori objective of damaging Dutchman Enterprises LLC. Ref 1) Section IV-C: “The promotional materials for the HAFC (section III.2.C) incorrectly claim that hydrogen has 5 times the energy of gasoline per mole …..” Dr. Halperin is correct in this statement. Once again, hydrogen created by HAFC is not for energy content in comparison to gasoline, but as a flame accelerant in presence of gasoline in a combustion chamber. Therefore, this analysis is true, but irrelevant to operation of HAFC by Dutchman Enterprises LLC. Ref 1) Section IV-D: “The HAFC cannot ionize gasoline molecules using magnets as the marketers claim (section III.2.D). Magnetic fields cannot alter molecule configuration or structures in any way that affects stored chemical energy or the release of chemical energy during combustion. Therefore passing fuel in the vicinity of magnets through the magnetic heat exchanger (MHF) cannot result in higher combustion efficiency in an internal combustion engine.” Dr. Halperin’s first statement that “The HAFC cannot ionize gasoline molecules using magnets as the marketers claim (section III.2.D).” is a true statement. Dr. Halperin’s second statement that “Magnetic fields cannot alter molecule configuration or structures in any way that affects stored chemical energy or the release of chemical energy during combustion.” is a questionable statement. First it is shown that in APPENDIX A, an electronic device which produces small magnetic field strength (The device called SCALEBAN uses only 12VDC with 35ma to the coil) demonstrates significant alteration to the calcium molecule configuration and structure as shown by the scanning electron microscope. Also, it had significant change in surface tension of fluid medium, in this case, water. Therefore, it is safe to say that various magnetic fields can alter molecular configuration as well as other physical characteristics within appropriate operating conditions. The objective of HAFC is to alter enough physical characteristics (such as surface tension, vaporization) so that gasoline is can be homogenized with hydrogen gases created by the fuel cell. This will maximize the potential of achieving faster flame spread, when ignited by the spark plug inside the combustion chamber. Once again, Dr. Halperin completely ignored this key HAFC objective.

Dr. Halperin’s third statement that “Therefore passing fuel in the vicinity of magnets through the magnetic heat exchanger (MHF) cannot result in higher combustion efficiency in an internal combustion engine.” This is totally incorrect statement in two counts. First, the magnets can improve combustion efficiency as published by Ref 7) and 8). Second the “heat exchanger” part of HAFC which takes coolant loop of the engine and tries to transfer coolant heat to gasoline will enhance vaporization process of gasoline prior to entering combustion chamber of internal combustion engine. Every mechanic in the field of automobile maintenance knows that liquid gasoline cannot burn directly, but must be in form of a vapor before it can be burned. Therefore, if you can completely vaporize the fuel prior to entering combustion chamber you will increase combustion efficiency. Many patents around the world, including famous carburetor designed by Charles Nelson Pogue (Ref. 9) tries to completely vaporize the fuel prior to entering the combustion chamber have achieved remarkable mpg. Therefore, I conclude that Dr. Halperin’s third statement is completely incorrect. Ref 1) Section IV. E: “The marketers’ claim (section III.2.E) that the conditioned fuel and water gas combine for top fuel performance, is incorrect and misleading.” According to Dr. Halperin’s analysis one can conclude this statement. However, as explained above, if Dr. Halperin would have performed efficiency analysis based on a well known fact in the combustion industry that hydrogen is a powerful fuel accelerant in SI engine, then Dr. Halperin’s conclusion would have been radically different. This statement by Dr. Halerin is totally incorrect and misleading. Ref 1) Section IV F: “The marketers assert (section II.2.F) that 70% of the fuel is exhausted without being combusted whereas in fact it is less than 5% for a normal vehicle.” I could not find this statement amongst marketer’s documentation. If marketer asserted this statement this would be an incorrect statement. I believe that what it should have stated is that 70% of the fuel is exhausted without being converted to mechanical energy. I believe with development of catalytic converters, almost 100% of hydrocarbon is converted to heat energy. This is good for the environment since all forms of hydrocarbon (gasoline) is converted to heat, there is no danger of having unburned gasoline vapor in the air. However, the important parameter for an automobile is not how much you have converted to heat but how much is being converted to mechanical energy to move the car down the road. This is supported by many government documentations such as in Ref 10) where it state that “Only about 15% of the energy from the fuel you put in your tank gets used to move your car down the road …..”. Therefore, stating that 70% of the fuel is exhausted without being converted to mechanical energy is a very generous statement for automobiles on the road today.

According to the www.fueleconomy.gov, the number should be more like 85% of the fuel is exhausted without being converted to mechanical energy. Again, the pattern is very clear that Dr. Halperin’s statements are all true, but it is really not relevant to the HAFC system and what it is trying to achieve.

Ref 1) Section IV G, Quote #1: “In order to understand the efficiency of these various steps I consider them in two stages. The first stage is the combustion of the fuel to produce heat and I refer to this as the combustion efficiency. The second stage is the conversion of heat to mechanical work. The efficiency of this process I call the mechanical work efficiency. Taken together the overall efficiency, known as the fuel conversion efficiency, Appendix 3, [3,4,5] is given by the multiplication of the combustion efficiency and the mechanical work efficiency.” Above definitions are not very clear and misleading. In modern engine, there are two major components which create heat from chemical energy; first component is the combustion chamber or piston, and second component is the catalytic converter. I have divided these into two distinctive efficiencies in the Appendix B. Above statement by itself is not clear as to what Dr. Halperin means when he says “combustion efficiency”. Combustion efficiency could mean any one of the following:

1. Combustion chamber’s ability to convert chemical energy to heat expansion of gases available to be converted to mechanical work (defined as CEtoPTE efficiency in Appendix B), or

2. Catalytic converter’s ability to convert unburned hydrocarbon from piston to heat (defined as CC efficiency in Appendix B), or

3. Addition of both of above processes (defined ad CE in Appendix B). Dr. Halperin is not very clear in defining above mentioned “combustion efficiency”. “Fuel conversion efficiency” is not simply multiplication of mechanical work efficiency and combustion efficiency. Fuel conversion efficiency, which effects mpg of an automobile is multiplication of “CEtoPTE efficiency” and “mechanical work efficiency”. I believe this is a clear description in terms of an automobile.

Ref 1) Section IV G, Quote #2: “Tests of internal combustion engines indicate that this efficiency for normal engine is close to 98% in the range of 95% to 99% (Fig. 1, Appendix 3). [3/page 82, 5/page 97, 144] Consequently, improvement of mileage or fuel economy of a normally tuned vehicle can be made by at most 4% through improvements in combustion efficiency. This is not to support the view that the water gas produced by the HAFC improves the combustion of gasoline in any measureable way. But if the HAFC, or any other process for that matter, were to make improvements the greatest increase in combustion efficiency that is possible for a normal vehicle is approximately 4%”. This statement is highly incorrect and convoluted. First Dr. Halperin again is not very clear as follows:

A. What does he mean by “this efficiency” in above Quote #2? Since he defined some of efficiencies in Quote #1 above, I can only conclude that this efficiency must mean “combustion efficiency”, which the term is not clearly defined as mentioned above. Therefore, above statement must have meant to say that “this efficiency or combustion efficiency is “98% in the range of 95% to 99%.”

B. mileage or fuel economy in Quote #2 above must mean fuel conversion efficiency according to definitions defined in Quote #1 above. According to Dr. Halperin in quote #1, definition of fuel conversion efficiency is multiplication of combustion efficiency and mechanical work efficiency. If so, I am very confused as to how Dr. Halperin came to a conclusion that “ most 4% through improvements in combustion efficiency”. The only logical explanation is that Dr. Halperin chose combustion efficiency to be a number between 95% to 99% to be 96% and assumed that mechanical work efficiency is 100%. This will allow one to conclude that fuel conversion efficiency is 96% and hence there is theoretically maximum improvement limit of only 4%. This cannot even be considered as a poor science but this is simply picking numbers.

Second, above quote is highly contradictory to many of the government sites such as: A. Ref 10) where it quotes “only about 15% of the energy from the fuel you put in

your tank gets used to move your car down the road….”. B. Also, in Ref 11) “It is generally accepted that most gasoline fueled internal

combustion engines, even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, have a mechanical efficiency of about 20 percent”.

C. Also, according to U.S. Department of energy in Ref 12) it states that “The projects support the department’s goal to improve the efficiency of internal combustion engine from 30 percent to 45 percent by 2010 for light duty vehicles such as passenger cars and SUVs and 40 to 55 percent by 2013for heavy-duty vehicles”.

Ref 1) VII. Appendices 2.: “The efficiency of the gasoline engine is less than 36%[3/page831] so, assuming conservatively that the alternator is 100% efficient, we are still limited in conversion of chemical energy in gasoline to stored electrical energy in the vehicle’s battery to an efficiency less than 36%.” I am very confused as to what efficiency Dr. Halperin means in above quotation. By reading the context, I would have to assume that this efficiency is mechanical work efficiency as defined in Ref 1) Section IV G, Quote #1. But in above discussion Ref 1) Section IV G, Quote #2 discussion B, I was under the impression that Dr. Halperin has chosen to use mechanical work efficiency to be 100% or 1.0 not 36%! Which is it? At best this is a very poor writing or at worst this is a clear deception. In either case I do not expect this type of ambiguity from a professor from any university let alone respected academic institution like Northwestern University, especially when one considers the gravity of how and where Dr. Halperin’s declaration was used.

III. WORKINGS OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE In this section I would like to describe a simplified version of an internal combustion engine. The purpose of this section is to peel off some of the technical descriptions so that a non-technical individual can see how a product may be able to increase fuel conversion efficiency hence get better mpg. Even though most of us depend on automobiles every day, not many people have gotten into the engine to know about pistons, crankshaft etc. and how they are interconnected to give us that worry free driving condition. It would be easier for us to make an analogy between bicycle riding and automobile to conceptually understand various transformation of energy that occurs inside of our body and inside an automobile. Majority of us have ridden a bicycle at one point in our lives. Riding a bicycle has all of the major components of an automobile. Please refer to Figure 1 for the following discussion.

FIGURE 1: Analogy between a bicycle rider and piston engine. Ref 13)

The energy for bicycle rider comes from the food that we eat. At the command of rider’s brain, an electrical signal is send to our muscle, left thigh muscle in Figure 1, which will command rider’s left leg muscle to expand downward toward the ground. The food that we have eaten has been digested and stored in our muscle in form of glucose which combines with oxygen molecules to deliver chemical energy to our muscle which converts it to expanding muscle energy which is again converted to mechanical energy at the pedal. This downward motion is translated into a rotational motion by crank shaft. Heat generated by our body during this cycle is removed by body sweat. This process is repeated by the right leg. In an automobile a similar process occurs. The energy source for a car is obviously gasoline which is stored in the tank. As the energy is needed, the mixture of gasoline and air is introduced into the piston chamber via intake valve. Then the brain of an automobile, known as ECU (engine computer unit), ignites the spark via electrical signal to the spark plug. This will cause a fire inside the piston, which causes the expansion of gases trapped inside the piston to expand. This gas expansion will cause the piston to move downward toward the ground, converting it to mechanical energy. This downward motion of piston is transferred to a rotational motion via crank shaft. The heat generated within the piston is removed by opening exhaust valve. This process is repeated by another piston. The analogous counterparts between bicycle and automobile are summarized in the following table: Cyclist Automobile Chemical energy Digested food in form of

glucose Gasoline

Expansion medium Muscle Gas(s) trapped inside piston Mechanical energy Through crankshaft Through crankshaft Oxidation chemical Air Air Sparking Nerve cells Spark plug Computer Human brain Engine Computer Unit

(ECU) Energy Input medium Blood vessels controlled by

brain Intake valve controlled by ECU

Energy Exhaust medium Blood vessels controlled by brain

Exhaust valve controlled by ECU

Since the bicycle is completely analogous to automobile, we can rely upon bicycle riding experience to draw some conclusions about all the “efficiencies” discussed in section II and Appendix B without any loss in generality. Refer to Figure 2 for various crank angle versus piston position or pedal position. Familiarity with this terminology will allow easier discussion. Figure 2 shows only automobile piston position but the same crank angle would apply for bicycle pedal positioned around the circumference of the crank.

FIGURE 2: The top diagram shows various crank angle positions 0 degree to 360 degrees. The bottom shows actual piston position inside the cylinder. From Ref 15)

As we ride bicycle we note that there is special range of crank angle where we can maximize our push on the pedal. This is especially noticeable when we try to pedal up a steep hill. The push on the pedal is maximally converted to turning the bicycle wheel (mechanical work) between crank angles slightly past TDC and slightly before 90 degree center stroke. During the rest of crank angle movement, this leg is rendered useless until the pedal comes back up to TDC. Since, the pedals are 180 degrees a part, when one pedal is at BDC, the other pedal is at TDC allowing two complete pushing action during a single revolution. The crank angle position where useful mechanical work can be achieved is less than 25% (slightly past 0 degree to less than 90 degree) of the entire crank angle (0 degree to 360 degree). In automobile due to crank shaft and other design consideration, the maximal mechanical work is performed between critical crank angle (approximately TDC + 14 degrees) to critical crank angle +20 degrees (approximately TDC + 34 degrees). This is where your mechanical work efficiency is maximized. This range is approximately 5.6% of entire crank angle movement. Any work done outside this range of critical angle is not efficiently converted to mechanical work. Now, in terms of time, a modern engine rotating at 2000 rpm translates to following calculation: Duration of 1 revolution = 60 sec/ 2000 rev = 30 msec If we consider maximal mechanical work duration, or duration where maximal mechanical work efficiency can be achieved is: = 60 sec/2000 revolution * (20 degree/360 degree) = 1.7 msec Any work done outside this duration is not efficiently converted to mechanical work. Now, one can see how fast everything must happen within the piston. As can be seen by this calculation, timing becomes a critical parameter in improving mechanical work efficiency. Everything must happen fast!!! Going back to bicycle example, those of us who were into speed would take our bicycle to the highest hill that we can find around our neighborhood and come down as fast as possible. And sometimes this speed would not be enough and we would even try to go faster by pedaling as hard and fast as we can. But, it seems as that we cannot add any additional speed. Why? I am sure all of speed manias have questioned this at one point in our downhill bicycle racing career. This can be caused by two reasons, first is that our reaction time from our brain to leg muscle is not fast enough because the crank is revolving so fast. And or our leg muscle is not impulsive enough to cause momentum change therefore not able to add any additional speed. Once again this phenomena vividly illustrates that work must be performed quickly within defined time window. In an automobile the following sequence of events must occur:

1. Intake valve opens allowing gasoline and air mixture to enter into the chamber

2. Spark initiation 3. Peak pressure build up 4. Opening of exhaust valve.

These sequences of events are illustrated in Figure 3. Referring to Figure 3 please note the following:

1. The system assumes that intake valve has been opened and gasoline and air mixture has been injected in to the piston chamber.

2. x-axis is the crank angle in degrees 3. y-axis represents the pressure build up inside the piston 4. The black curve represents stock automobile operation pressure curve 5. The blue curve represents possible fuel efficiency improvement device pressure

curve 6. S1 denotes spark initiation for stock automobile 7. S2 denotes spark initiation for fuel efficiency improvement device 8. Between “Critical Crank Angle” and “Critical crank angle + 20 degree” is where

peak pressure is maintained. Indicated by red lines in the figure below. 9. Somewhere after the 90 degree is where exhaust valve is opened. It should be

noted that once the exhaust valve opens there is no pressure inside the piston. All unburned hydrocarbon would be released to the catalytic converter and it is converted to heat. Indicated by yellow line in the figure below.

FIGURE 3: Crank angle versus pressure profile inside the piston. This is not an actual measurement but used to illustrate pictorially. Since nothing happens instantaneously, spark is initiated at S1 to allow maximum pressure build up at critical crank angle. This means all of the fuel that is burned prior to critical crank angle is not converted to mechanical work efficiently. But this is the price

that we must pay. Also, any pressure and/or un-burned hydrocarbon is forced to exit through the exhaust valve when the valve opens. This unburned fuel is also wasted without being converted to mechanical work and is forced to burn inside the catalytic converter and released as heat to the environment. Now, let us examine a blue curve in Figure 3. Suppose this fuel improvement device has a flame accelerant added into the fuel air mixture. Then spark can be initiated at S2, as oppose to earlier S1, and still have maximum pressure build up at critical crank angle available to be transferred to mechanical work. You can achieve savings by:

• delaying the spark initiation and thereby saving any unnecessary fuel earlier than what is absolutely needed,

• higher pressure build up at critical crank angle • Since fuel is burning faster, there is reduction of unburned fuel to be ejected

through the exhaust valve and eventually into the catalytic converter.

It should be noted that for gasoline to fully burn inside an average piston, it requires 30 msec. However, for methane, a fully vaporized form of gasoline to fully burn requires approximately 7 msec. Therefore, another way to improve fuel mileage is to fully vaporize the fuel prior to the piston chamber as demonstrated in Ref 9). Since all of the control functions are performed by ECU in modern automobile, the software residing within the ECU must be able to recognize the fact that improvements to fuel, or fuel air mixture has been made and adjust amount of fuel that is injected into the piston as well as adjust spark timing etc. However, this software is closely guarded secret for various automotive manufacturers and is not available for modifications by average mechanics. Therefore, any and all after market devices can do everything to condition the fuel-air mixture to potentially improve fuel efficiency but if you cannot change the software inside ECU directly or indirectly, the mpg improvement cannot be achieved.

IV EVALUATION OF HAFC I have examined HAFC product as well as various publication by Dutchman Enterprises LLC Ref 14) and Ref 16). HAFC product is made of various sub-components which can be grouped into the following:

1. Fuel Cell, which is an electrolysis machine used produce various constituent gases from distilled water.

2. Vaporization process, this takes heat from the engine coolant return pipe and transfers heat to the fuel line, thereby enhancing fuel vaporization prior to entering combustion chamber

3. A computer unit, Dutchman calls this device an optimizer. They are going through various model changes and I believe is 3X optimizer and Dutchman is working on 4X optimizer. This unit is designed to indirectly influence ECU to cut back on the amount of fuel into the cylinder and change spark initiation timing.

Rather than performing rigorous analysis, I thought it would be better to directly install it on an automobile. At this point, I was fairly confident that HAFC stands pretty good chance of improving mpg by at least 50% as claimed by Dutchman. Analysis is good if the cost of performing an experiment is too costly, but this is not the case with HAFC product. Also, as scientist, we sometimes fall into a trap of “paralysis of analysis”. I, with some assistance, have taken an automobile manufactured by a foreign manufacturer which had approximately 70,000 mile on the odometer to Ogdensburgh NJ to be installed by Dutchman trained mechanics. The installation process took approximately 3 days to complete. This automobile was getting 18 mpg on the highway prior to installation of HAFC. After the installation, we drove this car from:

• The gas tank was filled near exit 34 on route 80 • My assistant drove the car traveling west to exit 12 on route 80 • Driving speed was maintained at 55 mph • Turned around and traveled from exit 12 to exit 34 on route 80 east • Came back to gas station and filled it.

Of course this is not a completely controlled test, but it should give what I would call a “sanity check” to see if HAFC has any chance of standing up to its marketing claim namely “50% mpg improvement”. The results are as follows:

1. total mileage traveled according car trip gauge is 46.6 miles 2. fuel consumed is 1.127 gallons 3. MPG = 41.3 mpg 4. improvement of over 100% easily.

I have attached a copy of a receipt from the gas station after the refill, refer to Figure 4.

My conclusion is that HAFC product has very good potential of delivering at least 50% improvement in gas mileage.

Figure 4: Receipt from mileage test

V. CONCLUSION

1. HAFC product by Dutchman Enterprises LLC does not violate any basic laws of thermodynamics.

2. HAFC product by Dutchman Enterprises LLC does not violate any established physical principles.

3. HAFC product by Dutchman Enterprises LLC has very good scientific basis for claiming its mileage improvement.

4. HAFC product by Dutchman Enterprises LLC can achieve mpg improvement of at least 50% to gasoline vehicles, if is installed correctly and maintained properly.

5. If a means of changing ECU software was available to HAFC installers, a potentially greater and more consistent mpg improvement can be achieved for gasoline automobiles.

VI. REFERENCE

1) “Declaration of W.P. Halperin Ph. D., John Evans Professor of Physics, Northwestern University. 2) http://www.wikipedia.org/ 3) Casimir J. Jachimowski, NASA Technical Paper 2791, 1988. An Analytical

Study of the Hydrogen-Air Reaction Mechanism With Application to Scramjet Combustion.

4) T.D Andrea, P.F. Henshaw, D.S.-K. Ting, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2004, The Addition of Hydrogen to a Gasoline-Fuelled SI Engine.

5) L. Bromberg, D.R. Cohn, A. Rabinovich, N. Alexeev, of MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center, J.B. Green, Jr., N. Domingo, J.M.E. Storey, R.M. Wagner and J.S. Armfield, of Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Experimental Evaluation of SI Engine Operation Supplemented by Hydrogen Rich Gas from a Compact Plasma Boosted Reformer.

6) http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/hydrogenenhance.html 7) Dr. Alojz Anzlovar, Dr. Majda Zignon, Dr. Peter Venturini, Laboratorty for

Polymer Chemistry and Technology, 2008, Literature Search Report on Magnetic Treatment of Fuel to Improve Combustion and Reduce Emissions.

8) P. Govindassamy, S. Dhandapari, GMSARN International Conference on Sustainable Development: Challenges and Opportunity for GMS, 2007, Reduction of NOx Emission in Bio Diesel Engine with Exhaust Gas Recirculation and Magnetic Fuel Conditioning.

9) http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/04/pogue_carburetor_gasoline_vapo.html 10) http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/atv.html 11) http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Internal_combustion_engine 12) http://www.energy.gov/news/1649.htm 13) Richard Hammond, DK Publishing, Car Science page 14. 14) Dutchman Enterprises LLC, Hydro Assist Fuel Cell Training Manual, October

2008. 15) Corky Bell, Bently Publishers 1997, Maximum Boost 16) Mike Hollor, HAFC Thesis, Dutchman Enterprises LLC

VII. APPENDIX A. SCALEBAN WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM

VII APPENDIX

B. VARIOUS EFFICIENCIES IN AUTOMOBILE Whenever we discuss “efficiency” which is usually measured in percentage, we must be clear as possible. In an automobile, the energy is introduced into the system as gasoline or chemical energy. This chemical energy is first converted to thermal energy. Then this thermal energy is converted to mechanical energy as illustrated in the figure A-1. In thermodynamics, all forms of energy are described universally as thermal energy or Q. Q or thermal energy is measured in Joules or BTU. First objective of engine (denoted by Engine (1) in Figure A-1) is to convert chemical input energy Qs to “potential thermal energy” Qph by initiation of spark by spark plugs. However during this conversion process there could be unburned gasoline in vapor form or hydrocarbon which is still in form of chemical energy and is denoted as Qhc. The engine’s ability to convert chemical energy to potential thermal energy is represented as: CEtoPTE efficiency = 1 - Qhc / QS So, if Qhc is zero, or all of hydrocarbon energy is converted to Qph, then “CEtoPTE efficiency would be 1 or 100%. If some unburned gasoline or hydrocarbon is released to the environment then this is detrimental to the environment. Therefore, catalytic converter is introduced to take this unburned gasoline/hydrocarbon (which is chemical energy) and convert it to heat. The introduction of catalytic converter is one of the greatest inventions for the automobile industry to minimize chemical released directly to the environment. The unburned chemical energy is converted to heat by catalytic converter and release to the environment as heat. The efficiency of catalytic converter to convert chemical energy to heat is represented as: CC efficiency = 1 – Qrhc/Qhc If all of unburned hydrocarbon from the Engine (1), Qhc, is turned into heat, Qcc, and released to the environment as heat then “residual hydrocarbon” Qrhc = 0 and “CC efficiency” would be 1 or 100%. The modern catalytic converters are very efficient and majority of unburned hydrocarbon is converted to heat. Second objective of engine (denoted by Engine (2) in the diagram) is to convert this potential thermal energy, Qph, to useful mechanical work like having a car move down the highway. The engines ability convert this to useful mechanical work can be termed as “mechanical work efficiency” as used by Dr. Halperin in page 7 of Ref 1) and described as: Mechanical work efficiency = 1 - Qr/Qph

Unburned Hydrocarbon = Qhc

Rejected heat = Qr

Chemical Input =Qs

Engine (1): Heat conversion

Engine (2): Mechanical conversion

Heat released to the environment

Potential Thermal Energy =Qph

Catalytic converter

Residual hydrocarbon = Qrhc

Heat from CC = Qcc

Useful Mechanical Work = Qw

FIGURE A-1: Various conversions within automobile

However, just like anything else in life, we have losses such as tire friction, exhaust gases and gear frictions etc., which could be lumped into a parameter Qr which is “rejected heat” from this mechanical conversion process. Discussion Discussion 1): The “combustion efficiency” as denoted in Ref 1), section IV, G is the combined efficiency of:

• Converting chemical energy, Qs, to potential thermal energy Qph plus • Converting unburned hydrocarbon from engine(1) by catalytic converter to

heat, namely Qcc. In equation format, “combustion efficiency” (CE) is denoted as: CE = 1 - Qrhc/QsTherefore, if residual hydrocarbon, Qrhc, that is unburned in catalytic converter is zero, then combustion efficiency, CE, would be 100% or 1. The “combustion efficiency” is very high close to 100% as described in Ref 1), section IV, G. This is car’s ability to convert chemical energy to thermal energy only. This efficiency is very close to 100% as Dr. Halperin describes. However, heat that is not converted to Qph, potential thermal energy, is not important in terms of improving mpg. As car drivers we all know that catalytic converter operates at very high temperature of around 700 degree F. This is because engine is not efficient in converting all of chemical energy to potential thermal energy available to be converted to mechanical energy in engine (2) of figure A-1. Therefore, combustion efficiency is important for the environment in a sense that all of chemical is converted heat. Discussion2): The “fuel conversion efficiency” as denoted in Ref 1), section IV G, is really the engines ability to convert:

• Chemical energy to heat, “CEtoPTE efficiency” AND convert • Heat to mechanical work, “Mechanical work efficiency”.

This is the useful work efficiency that all Americans want to see improved. This is why automobile engines are made. So “fuel conversion efficiency” or what I would describe as “useful work efficiency” for automobile is: Useful Work efficiency = CEtoPTE efficiency X Mechanical work efficiency This efficiency for an automobile, or Otto cycle engine, is only about 30% efficient at best in a laboratory situation.

YONG SON LEE

SUMMARY OF EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE

Over 43 years of definitive experience in industrial environments as an engineer, senior engineer and consultants. Strong interest in solving problems requiring an approach which combines applied mechanics with metallurgical science. Strong exposure to nuclear facilities including safety analysis, fracture mechanics evaluations and stress intensity factor. Bring extensive technical background and problem solving ability to analyzing conditions, considering various factors and offering effective solutions. Professional background includes solid research experience in the United States and abroad in areas such as stress analysis and other areas of mechanical engineering. Research affiliations have involved the Pennsylvania State University, Seoul National University and the Korean Department of Defense. Served as an instructor with a university department of mechanical engineering and guest lecturer as well as an author of numerous publications and reports.

Technical Background

Research And Academic Experience

INDUSTRIAL AND ACADEMIC EXPERIENCES Visiting Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department 1994 to

Present

1993 to 1994

Yeungnam University, Kyongsan, Kyong-Buk, Korea Brain Pool Professor-Visiting professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, Chung-Buk National University, Chung-Buk, Korea WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Pittsburgh, PA 1979 to

1993 Senior Engineer, Plant Engineering Division, Structural Materials Engineering, Nuclear Energy System Responsible for various general research programs and special technical projects in stress intensity factor calculation, safety analysis, fracture mechanics evaluation and other areas. The projects and programs have included: Stress Analysis and Fracture Mechanics Evaluation Work in these areas have involved the analysis of uncladded or cladded inlet and outlet reactor pressure vessel nozzles, fracture mechanic evaluation of the safety injection nozzle of advanced reactor pressure vessels and the safety analysis of two nuclear power plants. One required review of the RGE Nuclear Plant steam generator following a tube rupture in January 1982. The

other involved safety analysis resulting from an air impingement on the primary loop of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. Provided expertise in fracture mechanics analysis of the penetration weld of reactor pressure vessels as well as split plate or control rod support pins, and guide tube pins. Involved in the use of computer codes in such related areas as verification of fatigue crack growths. Performed integrity evaluation of leading edge flow meters of the Takahama Nuclear Plant in Japan as well as leak rate calculations (two phase fluid) in the tighten crack of various power plant loops. Developed a Flaw Evaluation Handbook for the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant. Stress Intensity Factor calculation Extensive exposure to stress intensity factor calculations in buried elliptical flaws in RPV as well as calculations of longitudinal circular surface flaws with various depths in reactor pressure vessels. Also engaged in the verification of stress intensity factor calculations through computer codes. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Pittsburg, PA 1979 to

1993

1971 to 1974

Senior Engineer, PWR System Division, Material and Mechanics Technology, Nuclear Energy System Responsibilities in technical projects for this Division involved response spectra generation of coupled building/loop models for NAH, PWEP and SCE plants. Managed the indentification of flow induced vibration at an RGE plant and received strong exposure to stress analysis of Class I piping. o Placed first in the 1976 WECAN User’s Colloquium and second in the

1977 WECAN User’s Colloquium. ROSELON YARN INCORPORATED, Danville, PA Consultant Extensive involvement in the noise reduction of machinery with the accomplishment of reducing noise by 10-15 dB. Comprehensive analysis and experimental results are reported in “Noise Reduction of Roselon Yarn, Inc.”, June 1973. KENNEDY VAN SOUN CORPORATION, Danville, PA 1970 Engineer Responsible for such developments as improvements of discharge coefficients for industrial oil burners as well as stress and deformation analysis of rotary, cylindrical shell kilns. Conceived and designed two phase (solid and gas) dust collectors.

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 1969 to 1970

1963 to 1969

Consultant to the Department of Civil Engineering Provided consulting and technical services to the Department on the determination of the mechanism for highway deterioration caused by the use of deicers.

RESEARCH AND ACADEMIC EXPERIENCE THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY Research Assistant – Department of Engineering Mechanics Involved in the characterization and stress analysis of viscoelastic and nonlinear elastic such as solithane 113 or polyurethane. THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY 1961 to

1963

1957 to 1961

Research Assistant – Department of Mechanical Engineering Responsible for research relevant to the determination of flame trajectories in the vortex flow field. SEOUL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Seoul, Korea Instructor – Department of Mechanical Engineering, 1960-1961 Research Assistant – Mechanical Engineering Dept. 1957-1959 As an Instructor, provided instruction and assisted in programs related to courses offered by the Department. As a Research Assistant, engaged in research regarding the effect of exhaust pipe geometry on volumetric efficiency in internal combustion engines. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Republic of Korea 1959 to

1961 Research Staff – Scientific Research Institute Measurement of thrust and calculation of temperature of experiment rocket motor.

EDUCATION Ph.D. in Material Science and Engineering Department, University of Pittsburgh, PA. 1987. Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics, 1969, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, 1959, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, 1956, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

AWARDS WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Pittsburgh, PA. 1985

1983 1976 & 1977

The Best Paper of Year 1985 Award Engineering Achievement Awards – Nuclear Technology Division WECAN User’s Colloquium – Second Winner 1977 WECAN User’s Colloquium – First Winner 1976

AFFILIATIONS Member, American Society of Mechanical Engineers Member, American Society of Metals Member, American Academy of Mechanics

PERSONAL DATA United States Citizen – Married – Excellent Health Author of 45 technical papers and 15 technical reports related to nuclear power plants.

DUTCHMAN ENTERPRISES ALSO INCLUDED A REPORT FROM AN ENGINEER WHO DESIGNS ENGINES FOR GM, SAAB, AND SATURN AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS Written By: James Brouse,

Applied Science Automotive Technologist