EFS Presentation

1,077 views
915 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,077
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

EFS Presentation

  1. 1. ECO-Fuel Saver is the only all-in-one fuel product on the market that will: Dramatically reduces NOx and Diesel Particulate Emissions Make cheaper Low Octane Fuels out perform costly Premium Fuels Reduces harmful Hydrocarbons found in engine exhaust Eliminates Spark Knock & Engine Pinging, often caused from using less expensive low Octane Fuel Decreases Carbon Blow-by into Crankcase Prevents Carbon Deposits from forming Keeps Engine Oil Cleaner, Longer Improves the performance inefficiencies affiliated with E85 and Bio Fuels Increases HP andTorque Extends Fuel Injector life Allow Engines to run Smoother and Cooler Pays for itself and more, by increasing Fuel efficiency (MPG)
  2. 2.  Oil & Filter changes  Fuel System cleaning  Fuel Filter replacements  Fuel Injector replacements  Carbon buildup  Catalytic Converter  Labor  LostVehicle Production Maintenance Cost Items UNDERSTANDING WHERETHE REAL DOLLAR SAVINGS ARE LOCATED! To keep an expensive work vehicle operational or within State or Federal regulations, “Big Dollars” are spent annually on required maintenance, labor, vehicle down- time and parts.
  3. 3. OIL & FILTER CHANGES It is common knowledge that, at some point, engine oil must be changed. Many factors contribute to a motor oil's demise, but it is essentially the accumulation of contaminants in the oil and chemical changes in the oil itself that make a motor oil unfit for further service. With time, it is inevitable that the oil will be contaminated by dirt or sludge, or succumb to the extreme pressures or temperatures found inside an engine. Combustion By-products: Combustion produces several by-products that also act as contaminants.Water and acids lead to sludge, rust and corrosion. Soot and carbon create sludge and varnish and can clog filters. Unburned fuel in liquid form is deposited on cylinder walls where it leaks past the rings into the crankcase. Sludge deposits collect on oil pump screens, limiting the flow of oil to vital engine parts and resulting in rapid and destructive wear.When oil becomes contaminated, its viscosity changes: soot, dirt, oxidation or sludge increases viscosity and fuel dilution decreases it. Extreme Heat: Today's engines are running hotter than ever. More horsepower, turbo chargers and aerodynamic styling have created extremely hot environments that receive less cooling from outside air. High heat leads to oil oxidation, deposits, and thickening in conventional oils. Because they are made from impure, irregular molecules, conventional motor oils are more susceptible to the effects of heat.The small, light molecules in conventional oil tend to evaporate as the oil is heated, leaving large, heavy molecules behind and leading to oil consumption and an increase in the oil's viscosity. If those large, heavy molecules are chemically unstable, they may also break-down and form deposits on component surfaces, further inhibiting the release of heat into the oil stream.
  4. 4. FUEL SYSTEM MAINTENANCE It doesn’t take much of a restriction in an injector to lean out the fuel mixture. Only an 8% to 10% restriction in a single fuel injector can be enough to upset the air/fuel mixture and cause a misfire or poor combustion. Because these deposits are right at the pintle opening, the only good way to remove them once they accumulate is using a powerful cleaner that is run through the injector with the injectors isolated from the fuel system. A maintenance service like this costs hundreds of dollars To avoid cleaning cost, loss of performance, and a decline in fuel efficiency, the best remedy is to prevent deposits from forming in the first place. Using a costly additive/cleaner in your fuel tank is not the answer.The concentration it would take to remove these deposits would cause your vehicle to run very poorly, probably not start cold and possibly cause damage to your fuel system, catalytic converter and elevate emissions. Gasoline is supposed to contain enough detergent to prevent these deposits from sticking and accumulating in the injectors. But guess what? Not all gasoline is the same. We often hear about dirty fuel injectors, but what makes them dirty? Most of the time it's not actually from dirt or debris in the fuel, but the fuel itself. Gasoline contains waxy compounds that can leave varnish deposits at the injector pintle when the fuel evaporates.These deposits tend to form after the engine is shut off. Heat from the engine causes residual fuel in the injector tips to evaporate, leaving a varnish deposit. These deposits in the nozzle build up and restrict fuel flow or disrupt the injector’s spray pattern.On many late-model engines, the shape and direction of the spray pattern is critical for clean combustion and good performance. If the injector nozzle is dirty, the pattern may be distorted or deflected to one side, causing a lean spot in the combustion chamber that can cause misfire, or even pre-ignition or detonation.
  5. 5. UNDERSTANDING ENGINE DEPOSITS Deposit formation is a normal by-product of the gasoline burning process, but if these fuel-related deposits are not properly controlled, they will cause a gradual loss of engine power, fuel economy and driveability. The power loss and driveability symptoms that these deposits cause often occur so gradually that the driver may not even notice it, but once the deposits are cleaned from your engine, it should perform like it did when it was new. The gasoline you buy at your local gas station is blended to conform to a minimum detergent additive standard that the federal government has established. Many gasoline retailers use a lower quality additive package that will allow power robbing deposits to build up on your engine’s intake valves, in the combustion chamber, and if your engine is fuel injected, in the fuel injectors. Carbon deposits can also build up on the piston rings, causing them to stick in the piston grooves, which can lead to a loss in engine compression and cause the engine to burn oil. The deposits that build up on the intake valves and in the ports can cause a loss in engine power because these deposits will restrict the flow of the air/fuel mixture as it flows into the engine’s cylinders.The deposits that build up in the combustion chamber can cause an engine to knock or ping because these deposits can create a hot spot in the combustion chamber thus increasing the engine’s need for more expensive higher- octane gasoline. The build-up of these various fuel related deposits will also cause an increase in the engine’s exhaust emissions, which may cause the vehicle to not pass the smog test that is required in most areas of the country.
  6. 6. Back in the days of carburetor-equipped engines and leaded gasoline, a proper engine tune-up included the use of a top engine cleaner to remove the carbon deposits that built up on the intake valves and in the combustion chambers of the engine.Today’s modern fuel-injected engines may go a lot longer between scheduled tune-ups than a vintage carburetor-equipped engine, but engine decarbonization should still be part of your scheduled vehicle maintenance program.That’s because the gasoline the engine uses during the combustion process is still causing power-robbing deposits to build up in your engine. The air flow from the PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) system and EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) valves will also cause fuel- and carbon-related deposits to build up on the intake valves, which will restrict the airflow into the engine’s cylinders and cause the engine performance to diminish.The carbon deposits that form on the top of the piston and in the combustion chamber will increase an engine’s need for high-octane gasoline because the deposits will artificially increase the heat in the engine’s combustion chamber. DEPOSITS AND PERFORMANCE
  7. 7. The carbon deposits that form on the intake valves both restrict the flow of the air/fuel mixture into the cylinders and negatively effect fuel vaporization. If the fuel is not fully vaporized and properly mixed with the air in the engine’s cylinders during the combustion process, part of this fuel may go out of the cylinders as unburned hydrocarbons. These unburned hydrocarbons can cause an engine to fail a smog check because the unburned hydrocarbon (HC) content in the exhaust may exceed the emission test standards.These carbon deposits can also cause cold start and driveability problems as the engine warms up because they can actually act as a sponge by momentarily absorbing some of the fuel that is need for proper combustion. DetergentGasoline: The gasoline that is sold at your local gas station must conform to an EPA-mandated minimum level of “detergents” to help prevent and reduce the build-up of fuel related carbon deposits that both increase exhaust emissions and reduce engine performance. Unfortunately, all the various blends and brands of gasoline are not created equal. Several of the world’s top automakers worked together to establish a higher “TopTier” standard for gasoline that would contain a higher level of deposit control additives. Even so, many gasoline retailers sell gasoline with a lower quality additive package that is not strong enough to keep the engine deposits under control. Unless you are always using a gasoline that conforms to “TopTier” gasoline standards, it would be a good idea to use a fuel system cleaning chemical on a standard maintenance schedule.
  8. 8. EXHAUST SYSTEM The precious metal catalyst is bound to an extruded ceramic honeycomb substrate.The ceramic has hundreds of flow channels that allow the exhaust gasses to come in contact with a maximum amount of surface area where the catalyst reaction takes place.The catalyst must come in direct contact with the exhaust gasses for the reaction to take place. If the ceramic inside your converter becomes clogged or coated with carbon, lead or oil, then the converter’s efficiency is greatly reduced. Converter Basics: The purpose of any catalytic converter is to reduce harmful emissions from the exhaust of a "properly tuned" combustion engine. It accomplishes this through a combination of heat and a precious metal catalyst that causes the harmful emissions to either oxidize or reduce to safe elements in the exhaust flow. If the engine is out of tune and not calibrated to OEM specs, the catalytic converter's efficiency is greatly diminished and could lead to a converter failure. An overly rich mixture will cause the catalytic converter to overheat because there is too much unburned hydrocarbons entering it.The converter catalyzes hydrocarbon molecules and this causes them to burn at a lower temperature, and they burn inside the converter or immediately downstream of it. If the converter gets hot enough the ceramic substrate will melt and turn into slag, blocking the passages in it.
  9. 9. CatalyticConverter Failure: If a catalytic converter needs replacing, one of the most likely reasons will be: excess fuel entering the exhaust. Any fuel that leaves the combustion chamber unburned will enter the exhaust system and light-off when it reaches the catalytic converter.This constant infusion of unburned fuel will cause temperatures to continuously rise above the designed operating temperature and can super-heat the converter far above normal operating conditions and cause a meltdown. The majority of the causes (incorrect fuel mixture, corroded spark plugs, sticking float, faulty fuel injector) are a direct result of carbon deposits, poor quality fuel and/or excessive heat. Excess Fuel OverheatingThe Catalytic Converter: For some reason, whether it's faulty injectors, O2 sensors, or ignition misfire, the engine is either running too rich or is putting out too much unburned gas into the exhaust. If an O2 sensor is missing this would definitely cause an over rich fuel mixture since this is the device that tells the computer how to adjust the mixture at the fuel injectors based on whether it's too lean or too rich. Other possible causes for the excess fuel entering the exhaust system are an incorrect fuel mixture, incorrect timing, corroded spark plugs, worn and cracked ignition wires, improper fuel pressure, a faulty oxygen sensor, sticking float, faulty fuel injector or a malfunctioning check valve. Almost every engine part failure, maintenance concern, performance reduction and the slow daily decline in fuel economy, can be attributed to using Poor Quality Fuel, Heat and/or Unburned Fuel (not combusting fuel more completely in the combustion chamber.) THEANSWER FOR SAVINGANNUAL BOTTOM-LINE MONEY: Keep functioning parts clean by reducing unburned fuel, carbon build-up and heat.
  10. 10. By EFS allowing a more complete burn of the fuel, this reduces the amount of contamination and carbon build-up on engine parts caused from unburned fuel and which directly effects performance and fuel economy. Carbon build-up is normally a slow accumulating process. For the average person it could be hard to recognize the adverse effects as these changes in performance and fuel economy usually go unnoticed for tens of thousands of miles. Meanwhile over the duration of the accumulated miles the daily decline in fuel efficiency could be costing you thousands of dollars before the vehicles next scheduled maintenance. THE SCIENCE BEHIND HOW IT WORKS Eco-Fuel Saver changes fuel at a molecular level by breaking down the longer carbon chain of the fossil fuel into smaller chains. This allows the fuel to burn more efficiently and more completely during the combustion process, with benefits that include, sustainable increased fuel range (MPG), Horsepower & Torque, while reducing carbon build-up, oil contamination, and harmful emissions. ECO-FUEL SAVER HELPS REDUCE: Eco-Fuel Saver allows a cooler, more uniform, more complete combustion of the fuel, while lowering the exhaust and engine's operating temperatures.These actions help counter the harmful effects caused from unburned fuel and heat. Having EFS continually in the fuel will insure that oil contamination levels stay down and your MPG remain optimal. Other quick fix products like solvents, detergents, cleaners and flushes, may show some results initially but do not provide continued protection; the contamination process starts again, targeting oil, engine parts and slowly decreasing fuel economy.  OIL CONTAMINATION:  CARBON BUILD-UP
  11. 11. SAVING MONEY USING ECO-FUEL SAVER:  Fuel System Problems ECO-FuelSaver helps fuel systems stay cleaner longer, and helps prevent all of the costly adverse effects caused by poor quality fuel. Gasoline contains waxy compounds that can leave varnish deposits at the injector pintle when the fuel evaporates. Heat from the engine causes residual fuel in the injector tips to evaporate, leaving a varnish deposit behind.To avoid cleaning costs, loss of performance and a decline in fuel efficiency, the best remedy is to prevent deposits from forming in the first place Having ECO-Fuel Saver in the fuel continuously prevents varnish and carbon from forming on injectors and hindering spray patterns and fuel efficiency.  Exhaust System Problems ECO-FUEL SAVER HELPS REDUCE: The majority of exhaust problem can be directly related to the engines inability to combust all of the fuel when ignited.Unburned fuel, post combustion is one of the biggest contributing factors in higher levels of harmful emissions, damaged exhaust components and elevated temperatures. ECO-Fuel Saver has proven (using a dynomometer) that using EFS with fuel will increase Horsepower, Torque and Performance. After performing countless emissions tests using EFS, the dramatic drop in harmful emissions and exhaust temperature is second to none.We can help engines combust fuel more completely at the point of ignition by using EFS and gain powerful benefits. ECO-FuelSaver has been tested and proven to increase fuel economy by one of the industries top research labs in United State: SouthWest Research Institute (SWRI). Only about 1% of all fuel additive products tested at SWRI, using the SAE J1321 (II) test standards, have proven to acquire the results needed to validate fuel gains. (ECO-Fuel Saver is one of them!) ECO-FuelSaver is proven to boost your fuel economy and vehicles performance by allowing fuel to burn more completely.The daily/annual money saved on keeping all of these parts and fluids performing at their optimal level is the key to big savings on your bottom-line.
  12. 12. THE DANGERS OF HARMFUL EMISSIONS Who’s most at risk? Air Pollution and Human Health Scientific experts now believe the nation faces an epidemic of illnesses that are exacerbated by air pollution.These illnesses include cardiovascular disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancers’, and diabetes. Children at Special Risk TheAmerican Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that levels of ozone and particulate matter are high enough in many parts of the U.S. to threaten children’s health. Eleven million U.S. children live in areas that exceed one or more federal air quality standards; 9 million children live in areas where ozone standards are exceeded; 3.5 million children live in areas where the particulate standards are exceeded, and 2.8 million children live in counties where the carbon monoxide standard is exceeded. Elderly at Special Risk Cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes and cancer are all illnesses disproportionately borne by the elderly. Air Pollution Increases MortalityAmong Susceptible Groups Air pollution kills more Americans than breast and prostate cancers combined, and the premature deaths associated with particulate matter pollution alone are comparable to deaths from traffic accidents. Vehicle Emissions Mobile emissions that are believed to present the greatest health risk to US residents include ozone, particulate matter, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, and diesel exhaust.
  13. 13. Asthma Chemicals in vehicle exhaust are harmful to asthmatics. Exhaust can adversely affect lung function and may promote allergic reactions and airway constriction. All vehicles, especially diesel engines, emit very fine particles that deeply penetrate lungs and inflame the circulatory system, damaging cells and causing respiratory problems. Even short-term exposure to vehicle exhaust may harm asthmatics. Asthmatic children are particularly sensitive to air pollution.One study found that children are 40 percent more likely to have an attack on high outdoor pollution days. ChronicObstructive Pulmonary Disease Vehicle emissions are particularly harmful to people afflicted with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), such as chronic bronchitis. Significant and replicated associations have been found between increased ozone levels and a range of adverse effects on the lungs and several studies have shown increased risk of hospital admission from COPD associated with high ozone levels. Cardiovascular Disease Mortality and hospital admissions for myocardial infarction, congestive cardiac failure and cardiac arrhythmia increase with a rise in the concentrations of particulate and gaseous pollutants.As concentrations of airborne particles increase, those with cardiovascular disease may experience increasing severity of symptoms, rates of hospitalization, and mortality.The risk of having a heart attack is greater for people exposed to pollution from heavy traffic, as well as for those living near air-polluted roadways. Cancer Vehicles emit numerous carcinogenic chemicals. Diesel contains benzene, formaldehyde, and 3- butadiene—all three are well recognized carcinogens. EPA estimates that vehicle emissions account for as many as half of all cancers attributed to outdoor air pollution.
  14. 14. GASOLINE EXHAUST Gasoline is a liquid formed purely of carbon and hydrogen chains of different lengths ranging from C7H16 through C11H24. If you could burn gasoline as a vapor with a hot flame and plenty of oxygen, you would get nearly pure carbon dioxide and water as the combustion products.That is why you can burn natural gas, LP gas and kerosene indoors in the winter. Automobile exhaust, unfortunately, contains a lot more than carbon dioxide and water.The most important pollutants in vehicle exhaust include: Carbon Monoxide (a poison) - Carbon monoxide is formed because “combustion is incomplete”. Not enough oxygen is available fast enough to react completely with the entire carbon chain.  NitrogenOxide –The higher the cylinder temperature reaches, the more nitrogen oxide produced.  Unburned Hydrocarbons - Because of long carbon chains and a very quick combustion phase, not all hydrocarbons participate in the reaction, resulting in unburned fuel or incomplete combustion.  Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) – DPM is produced during the combustion of diesel fuel. DPM’s have a large surface area, where relatively large amounts of organic material from unburned fuel are adsorbed, including a variety of mutagens and carcinogens. ECO-Fuel Saver helps reduce the two major components that are shown to be the common denominator in producing harmful emissions in engine exhaust.They are incomplete combustion (unburned fuel) and higher temperatures. ECO-Fuel Savers allows for shorter carbon chains, so oxygen can react more completely at the point of combustion, to produce a more complete burn of the fuel. ECO-Fuel Saver also lowers cylinder and exhaust temperatures, which lowers a number of factors, including Nitrogen Oxide emissions.
  15. 15. Your local gas stations use words like Super+, Supreme,V-Power or Ultra when describing their more expensive (93 octane) fuel. On average they charge about $0.20 to $0.40 per gallon more than the lower octane fuels. Retailers use these terms to influence buyers to think they are getting better quality fuel. But are they? In a15 gallon tank, you pay about $3.00 to $6.00 more for higher octane fuel. What additional benefits do you get each time you pay extra for 93 octane fuel? Not much it turns out. AREYOU GETTINGTHE MOSTVALUE FORYOUR DOLLAR? In the world of automobiles, it is tempting to associate higher numbers with higher quality. After all, more horsepower and more miles per gallon are a better thing, which feeds into our perception that more impressive octane ratings also equal higher performance. Gasoline companies understand this mentality.They label 87 octane gas “Regular”, and 91 or 93 octane “Super” or “Premium” in an attempt to reinforce this way of thinking. After all, since “Super” is priced higher than “Regular”, it’s in their best interest to convince as many people as they can that paying a bit extra means getting better quality gas. Unfortunately for the consumer, octane has nothing to do with higher quality gas.Time and again people are told that high octane fuel burns cleaner or more completely and will give them extra power and better fuel mileage than Regular octane gasoline because it contains more “energy”.These blanket statements are simply not true. In fact, the octane rating for gasoline has nothing to do with the amount of power locked inside of it. A fuel’s octane rating relates to how much a fuel can be compressed before igniting.The higher the number, the less likely it is to ignite under pressure.
  16. 16. To understand the role that octane ratings and ignition pressures play in a motor, it helps to be familiar with the term ‘knock.’ Essentially, when gasoline is sprayed into a cylinder by a fuel injector and mixed with oxygen, engine designers expect it to remain there in vapor form until it is time for the sparkplug to light it up, causing the explosion that drives the piston down to generate horsepower. In most engines, knock is rarely an issue because the compression ratio – that is, the pressure that the air/fuel mixture is put under in the cylinder – is low enough that Regular gasoline’s octane rating is sufficient.There is absolutely no benefit to running Premium fuel in a standard motor, since it will never be able to take advantage of that gasoline’s higher knock resistance. ENGINE KNOCK & PING The final analysis:You won’t see a power or fuel efficiency increase by running high octane fuel in an engine that has been tuned and designed for Regular gas. Nor will using high octane perform any extra cleaning inside the motor. If you run your vehicle on low octane fuel with ECO-Fuel Saver added you will have all the benefits that your vehicle needs to boost and sustain fuel economy and for less than you’re paying for higher octane fuel that only helps engine knock! Only cars with more aggressive engine management schemes (turbocharged or supercharged vehicles) can turn up the compression to a high level.These cars require much higher octane gasoline to avoid knock. The timing of this explosion is critical, as gasoline that ignites too early causes ‘knock,’ which reduces engine output and efficiency and which, in worst-case scenarios, can actually physically damage an engine.
  17. 17. Paying a Premium for High Octane Gasoline? Unless it’s recommended by your owner’s manual, don’t spend the money on high octane gas. In most cases, there’s no benefit. Higher octane helps only if you have problems with your engine “knocking.” ReadYour Owner’s Manual Unless your engine is knocking, buying higher octane gasoline is a waste of money. Premium gas costs 15 to 20 cents per gallon more than regular.That can add up to $100 or more a year in extra costs. Studies indicate that, altogether, drivers may be spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year for higher octane gas than they need. It may seem like buying higher octane “premium” gas is like giving your car a treat, or boosting its performance. But take note: the recommended gasoline for most cars is regular octane. In fact, in most cases, using a higher octane gasoline than your owner's manual recommends offers absolutely no benefit. It won't make your car perform better, go faster, get better mileage, or run cleaner.Your best bet: listen to your owner's manual. The only time you might need to switch to a higher octane level is if your car engine knocks when you use the recommended fuel.This happens to a small percentage of cars. Will higher octane gasoline clean your engine better? No. As a rule, high octane gasoline doesn’t outperform regular octane in preventing engine deposits from forming, in removing them, or in cleaning your car's engine. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires that all octane grades of all brands of gasoline contain engine cleaning detergent additives to protect against the build-up of harmful levels of engine deposits during the expected life of your car. The Federal Trade Commissions’ View: http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0210-paying-premium-high-octane-gasoline
  18. 18. How E85 Ethanol Flex FuelWorks Flex Fuel vehicles (FFV) can run on E85, 100 percent gasoline, or a combination of the two. Run a two wheel-drive V8 Ford F150 on regular unleaded gas, and the EPA says it'll get 14 mpg city, 19 mpg highway. Run it on E85 ethanol, and it gets 11 mpg city, 14 mpg highway. In other words, fill up on environmentally friendly E85 ethanol, and you'll get fewer miles per gallon than you would on gasoline. About one-third of all gasoline sold in the United States contains some ethanol, typically in a ratio of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol. E85 gets its name from the way it inverts that formula, at 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent conventional gasoline. The difference in miles per gallon between gasoline and E85 ethanol has to do with E85 ethanol's lower energy content per unit of volume. Measured in BritishThermal Units (BTUs), a gallon of E85 ethanol has only 72 percent of the energy in a gallon of gasoline. Go to fueleconomy.gov to compare EPA fuel-economy estimates for the same flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) running on E85 ethanol and on gasoline. FFVs operating on E85 usually experience a 25-30% drop in miles per gallon due to ethanol’s lower energy content. Proponents argue that mixing 85 parts ethanol with 15 parts gasoline to create E85 ethanol fuel helps stretch the earth's supply of oil, which is finite. Supporters, such as the Renewable FuelsAssociation, say E85 ethanol fuel expands the market for U.S. crops and creates jobs in agriculture and refining. By reducing oil imports, backers argue, ethanol eases the nation's trade imbalance and cuts down on the tax dollars and military resources needed to keep foreign oil flowing. As for environmental benefits, the U.S. Department of Energy says vehicles fueled with E85 ethanol have lower carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide emissions than conventional gasoline or diesel vehicles. Ethanol is water soluble, non-toxic, and biodegradable. E85 ethanol contains far fewer potential contaminants than found in gasoline.
  19. 19. According to Cornell University professor of agriculture David Pimentel, producing ethanol actually creates a net energy loss. According to his calculations, producing corn and processing it into 1 gallon (3.7 liters) of ethanol requires 131,000 BTUs of energy; but 1 gallon of ethanol contains only 77,000 BTUs [source: Health and Energy].And since farmers are using fossil-fuel-powered equipment to plant, maintain and harvest the corn and are using fossil-fuel-powered machinery to process that corn into ethanol and then, in almost all cases, to ship the product to collection points via fuel-powered transport, the ethanol industry is actually burning large amounts of gasoline to produce this alternative fuel. Ethanol could end up containing less energy than the gasoline consumed to produce it. E10 (gasohol) E10 is a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline sold in many parts of the country. All auto manufacturers approve the use of blends of 10% ethanol or less in their gasoline vehicles. However, vehicles will typically go 3-4% fewer miles per gallon on E10 than on straight gasoline. But for nearly every benefit ascribed to E85 ethanol, a detractor is ready with a counterpoint. For example, ethanol production requires burning non-renewable fossil fuels to plant, grow, and harvest the crops and operate refineries. A Cornell University agricultural expert says that, considering the energy costs of growing corn and converting it to ethanol, it takes far more energy to produce ethanol than it yields. (A University of California study, by contrast, insists modern farm efficiency means ethanol generates more energy than it requires to produce.)
  20. 20. Generally speaking, biodiesel is an alternative or additive to standard diesel fuel that is made from biological ingredients instead of petroleum (or crude oil). Biodiesel is usually made from plant oils or animal fat through a series of chemical reactions. It is both non-toxic and renewable. Because biodiesel essentially comes from plants and animals, the sources can be replenished through farming and recycling. Biodiesel is safe and can be used in diesel engines with little or no modification needed.Although biodiesel can be used in its pure form, it is usually blended with standard diesel fuel. Blends are indicated by the abbreviation Bxx, where xx is the percentage of biodiesel in the mixture. For example, the most common blend is B20, or 20 percent biodiesel to 80 percent standard. So, B100 refers to pure biodiesel. According to the National Biodiesel Board (NBB), the technical definition of biodiesel is as follows: a fuel comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats, designated B100, and meeting the requirements of ASTM D 6751. Biodiesel is environmentally friendly. Helps lubricate the engine itself, decreasing engine wear.  It can help reduce dependency on foreign oil.  It is safer than conventional diesel. It can be used in almost any diesel with little or no engine modification. One of the major selling points of biodiesel is that it is environmentally friendly. Biodiesel has fewer emissions than standard diesel, is biodegradable, and is a renewable source of energy. Emissions control is central to the biodiesel argument, especially in legislation matters.There are a few components of emissions that are especially harmful and cause concern among scientists, lawmakers, and consumers. The Pros of Biodiesel
  21. 21. Sulfur and its related compounds contribute to the formation of acid rain; carbon monoxide is a widely recognized toxin; and carbon dioxide contributes to the greenhouse effect.There are also some lesser known compounds that cause concern, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), ring-shaped compounds that have been linked to the formation of certain types of cancer. Particulate matter (PM) has negative health effects, and unburned hydrocarbons contribute to the formation of smog and ozone. Biodiesel does reduce hazardous emissions. Of the current biofuels, biodiesel is the only one to have successfully completed emissions testing in accordance with the Clean Air Act. In addition, B100 can reduceCO2 emissions by 78 percent and lower the carcinogenic properties of diesel fuel by 94 percent (National Biodiesel Board, U.S. DOE Office ofTransportationTechnologies). the insides of an engine that could potentially cause clogs. Since pure biodiesel leaves no deposits of its own, this results in increased engine life. It is estimated that a biodiesel blend of just 1 percent could increase fuel lubricity by as much as 65 percent (U.S. DOEOffice ofTransportationTechnology). Biodiesel is also safer. It is non-toxic (about 10 times less toxic than table salt) and has a higher flashpoint than conventional diesel. Because it burns at a higher temperature, it is less likely to accidentally combust.This makes movement and storage regulations easier to accommodate. Biodiesel also contributes to an engine's lubricity, or its ease of movement. Biodiesel acts as a solvent, which helps to loosen deposits and other gunk from The Cons of Biodiesel  One of the problems with the fuel itself is the increase in NOx in biodiesel emissions. Often, in diesel fuel manufacturing, when you decrease the amount of particulate matter in the emissions, there is a corresponding increase in nitrogen oxides, which contribute to smog formation.Though some of this can be addressed by adjusting the engine itself, that's not always feasible.
  22. 22.  Another problem is biodiesel's behavior as a solvent.Though this property is helpful it can have a negative side effects. Some older diesel vehicles (such as cars made before 1992) may experience clogging with higher concentrations of biodiesel. Because of its ability to loosen deposits built up in the engine (which may be there from old diesel fuel), biodiesel can cause the fuel filter to become jammed with the newly freed deposits.  Components within these older fuel systems may also become degraded. In addition to deposits within the fuel system, biodiesel also breaks down rubber components. Some parts in the older systems, such as fuel lines and fuel pump seals, may become broken down due to their rubber or rubber-like composition.Though many manufacturers have included biodiesel in their warranties, potential for problems could still exist.  Also, in some engines, there can be slight decrease in fuel economy and power.On average, there is about a 10 percent reduction in power. In other words, it takes about 1.1 gallons of biodiesel to equal 1 gallon of standard diesel.  The major drawbacks to biodiesel are connected to the bigger picture, namely the market and associated logistics.Of these, the most important is cost.According to the EPA, pure biodiesel (B100) can cost over $4.00 per gallon, while B20 blends average 10 to 20 cents more per gallon than standard diesel. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/prices.html  The other, perhaps more important issue is that of amount and availability.  Using the wrong blend of Biodiesel could damage your engine and/or void the manufacturer's warranty. The Cons of Biodiesel
  23. 23. EFFICIENCY FUEL Looking for a answer on how to save money on fuel? Understanding how you’re wasting it is the first step. ECO-Fuel Saver has been proven via testing and real-world usage to demonstrate the ability to increase fuel efficiency with the additional benefit of reducing emissions. Commonly understood ways to save money on fuel mileage is to check your tire pressure, keep oil and filters clean and perform routine maintenance.The tests and lab results in this presentation prove that preventing oil degradation, fouling of fuel injectors and filters and moderating engine heat are even more critical factors in improving gas mileage. Where am I losing money?  Anytime you have a vehicle that is not combusting 100% of the fuel, your loosing energy (BTU’s) and money every second your engine is running.Older vehicles are more likely to be combusting a even lower % of fuel, costing you even more then a newer more efficient one.The savings goal is still the same; a more complete burn of the fuel = horsepower, torque and increased fuel economy!  A lot of people enjoy the added performance that comes from using EFS. EFS has consistently proven that it gets more energy from the same cylinder of fuel, and can produces more horsepower and torque, shown in the “DynoTest” results conducted by a number of creditable 3rd party test facilities. More energy/power from the same volume of fuel means is added fuel mileage. But, if drivers want to reap the fuel gains that EFS creates, they will have to throttle back and layoff the extra energy/horsepower and practice normal driving. Even if you’re getting the new car window sticker MPG, there is still room for EFS to improve the vehicles MPG.
  24. 24. Where am I losing money?  Combustion By-products: Combustion produces several byproducts that also act as contaminants. Soot and carbon create sludge and varnish and can cause high maintenance dollars if unattended, it also elevates engine heat, clog filters and injectors all which effect fuel economy.  Unburned fuel in liquid form is deposited on cylinder walls where it leaks past the rings into the crankcase. Sludge deposits collect on oil pump screens, limiting the flow of oil to vital engine parts and resulting in rapid and destructive wear.When oil becomes contaminated, its viscosity changes.With soot, dirt, oxidation or sludge, viscosity increases; with fuel dilution it decreases.  PoorQuality Fuel: It doesn’t take much of a restriction in an injector to lean out the fuel mixture. Only a small percentage of restriction in a single fuel injector can be enough to upset the air/fuel mixture and cause a misfire or poor combustion and rapidly hinder fuel economy. EPA-mandated minimum level of “detergents” to help prevent this. But the minimum levels mandated are not effective at preventing buildup. Fuels not containing enough lubricity will also not stop buildup from forming on fuel injectors.  Extreme Heat: Even in relatively mild temperatures, oxygen works to break down some of the chemicals in conventional lubricants.The extreme heat in engines actually promotes oxidation.When conventional oil contaminants break down, they coat components with varnish, deposits and sludge and leave the lubricant thick, hard to pump and with very poor heat transfer ability.  Deposits and Performance:Carbon deposits that built up on the intake valves and in the combustion chambers of the engine not only hurt performance, but fuel economy as well.Today, vehicles go a lot longer between scheduled tune-ups. Regular engine decarbonization is not addressed more often. Untreated gasoline is causing power-robbing deposits to build up in your engine.These unburned hydrocarbons can cause an engine to fail a smog check because the unburned hydrocarbon (HC) content in the exhaust may exceed the emission test standards.These carbon deposits can actually act as a sponge, momentarily absorbing some of the fuel that is needed for proper combustion. Unburned hydrocarbons built up in the exhaust system can cause excessive heat and back pressure if clogging the catalectic converter or damage O2 sensors that relate directly with the on board computer and air/fuel mixtures.
  25. 25. DIESEL Low Emissions High Performance UNLEADED  Helps burn fuel more completely (improves MPG)  Reduces contaminates in oil (fewer oil and filter changes)  Lowers engine exhaust temperatures  No knocking even when using low octane fuels  Increases horsepower & torque  Adds lubricity to diesel fuel by increasing cetane rating  Meaningfully reduces harmful emissions: DP, HC, NOx, CO2, CO  Prevents carbon deposits (engine & exhaust) The some of the keys to increasing a business’s bottom line is to have a product that lowers maintenance costs, increase equipment life, and improves performance without significant investments. ECO-FuelSaver has everything needed to help save money on engine wear and fuel usage as well as lowering harmful emissions that are a regulatory concern. It is a well tested, all-in-one product that covers a spectrum of issues.  Helps keep fuel systems clean (injectors)  Helps performance inefficiencies of Biofuels
  26. 26. Southwest Research Institute® (SwRI®), headquartered in SanAntonio,Texas, is one of the oldest and largest independent, nonprofit, applied research and development organizations in the United States. The Institute occupies more than 1,200 acres and provides more than 2 million square feet of laboratories, test facilities, workshops and offices. In 2012, SwRI sponsored $7.4 million in internal research to develop innovative technologies that ultimately benefit clients. SWRI fuels and lubricants research The Fuels and Lubricants Research Division at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) is internationally known for its fuels and lubricants research activities and continues to uphold the longstanding tradition of quality and client response, started more than 60 years ago. SwRI helps clients get automotive products to the market and keep them there in response to regulation and competition. A broad range of services is available for product research, product development and product qualification of automotive components and automotive fluids for on-road, off- road, rail, and water-borne transportation systems as well as recreational vehicles and stationary power equipment. SwRI'sAutomotive Engineering (the Fuels and Lubricants Research Division and the Engine, Emissions and Vehicle Research Division) is certified to ISO 9001:2008 "Quality Management Systems - Requirements," accredited to ISO/IEC 17025:2005 "General Requirements for the Competence ofTesting andCalibration Laboratories" and certified to ISO 14001:2004 “Environmental Management Systems.”The Fuels and Lubricants Research Division has also achieved FordTier I status for providing engineering services. In conjunction with these divisional quality system accomplishments, the Petroleum Products Research Department is a Nuclear Procurement IssuesCommittee (NUPIC)- approved laboratory and the Fuels and Lubricants Research Division has maintained its status as an American Chemistry Council (ACC)-approved laboratory.
  27. 27. ECO-Fuel Saver has been proven to increases fuel mileage. SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE FUELSAND LUBRICANTS RESEARCH DIVISON SAE J1321 FuelConsumptionTest Program SwRI Project 08.17922.01.001 / December 21, 2012 Vehicles: One control truck and two test trucks. Description: Freightliner Cascadia with a Cummins ISX-450ST engine rated at 450 hp and a Fuller ten speed transmission.The trucks had an average of 150,000 engine miles prior to test. Each truck had identical 48-foot trailers with concrete blocks. Each truck had a gross vehicle weight of approximately 75,000 lbs.All trucks used No. 2 diesel for test. After the first segment came back with positive fuel gain results, added miles were put on the two test trucks using EFS.When Segment 2 test was completed, it showed a 1.08% increase over segment 1. Result: the more miles traveled using the product the greater the overall fuel economy. (CompleteTest Result Data on File)
  28. 28. About ESDC: A division of CAD Railway Industries EngineSystems Development Centre Inc. (ESDC) is an applied Canadian research center dedicated to large-bore diesel engines. It is their desire to provide cutting edge research in diesel engine technology that is needed to meet national goals of obtaining reduced emissions, while providing industry with better fuel economy and higher power density. Highly qualified researchers, experienced chemists and engineers perform full-scale engine testing and discrete component analysis.With their expertise in engines, fuels and lubricants, they have developed techniques for continuous, real-time, measurements of engine output in direct relation to fuel and lubrication. ESDC's engine testing facility covers an area of 20,000 square feet housing state-of-the-art equipment and engine test-beds that are capable of providing a wide spectrum of scientific data to simulate any condition. Specialists in lubrication and fuel technology conduct on-going research aimed at improving diesel engine fuel consumption and reducing exhaust emissions. All this allows ESDC to offer a new dimension of R&D to corporations and government organizations requiring comprehensive analysis.
  29. 29. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eco-FuelSaver (EFS), a fuel additive was tested and evaluated on a single cylinder medium-speed diesel research engine at Cad Railway Industries’ test facility in Montreal.The prime objective of this project was to determine the impact of additive on fuel economy, exhaust emissions and in-cylinder conditions.The evaluation was based on the procedure developed byCad Railway Industries, “Simplified Fuel AdditiveTest (SFAT)” included in the new revision of RP-503 procedure, the recommended practice for locomotive diesel fuel additive and fuel savings device evaluation. Baseline and performance tests were performed during 20 hours (3- day runs).The test modes were chosen to simulate five important operating modes of ALCO 12-Cyl locomotive engine (2600 rated horsepower @ 1050rpm), namely; Notch #3, Notch #4, Notch #5, Notch #6, and full load (Notch #8). Engine operating parameters, fuel consumption and exhaust emissions were collected and recorded during baseline and performance runs. The performance test showed that the maximum reduction in brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) was at Notch #5 (746Nm @960rpm), in the range of (1.84%, 2.12%), with 90% confidence. Also significant emission changes were the following: Carbon Monoxide (CO) reduced by about 10% at Notch #8, #5, #4 and #3 and by 3% at Notch #6. NOx also reduced more than 12% at Notch #5, #4 and #3.While reductions in both Particulate Matters (PM) andTotal hydrocarbons (THC), are considered significant at Notch #6 by about 7%, the changes ofTHC and PM at other engine test modes is not considered statistically significant. Bore scope inspections after 80 hours of additive usage showed no abnormal wear or deposits. INTRODUCTION A diesel fuel additive developed by International Eco Fuels Inc. was evaluated on a SingleCylinder medium speed Research Engine at CAD Railway Industries from July 27 until Sep 6, 2011.The objective of the test was to determine the effects of Eco-FuelSaver on engine fuel consumption, exhaust emissions and in-cylinder conditions.A description of the test approach and the test results are presented in the report. five important operating modes of ALCO 12-Cyl locomotive engine (2600 rated horsepower @ 1050rpm), namely; Notch #3, Notch #4, Notch #5, Notch #6, and full load (Notch #8). Engine operating parameters, fuel consumption and exhaust emissions were collected and recorded during baseline and performance runs. The performance test showed that the maximum reduction in brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) was at Notch #5 (746Nm @960rpm), in the range of (1.84%, 2.12%), with 90% confidence. Also significant emission changes were the following: Carbon Monoxide (CO) reduced by about 10% at Notch #8, #5, #4 and #3 and by 3% at Notch #6. NOx also reduced more than 12% at Notch #5, #4 and #3. While reductions in both Particulate Matters (PM) and Total hydrocarbons (THC), are considered significant at Notch #6 by about 7%, the changes of THC and PM at other engine test modes is not considered statistically significant. Bore scope inspections after 80 hours of additive usage showed no abnormal wear or deposits. Overall evaluation summary: Parameter Overall performance results Assessment Brake Specific Fuel Consumption BSFC (Ib/hp-hr) (with 90% confidence interval) Notch#5: 1.84% to 2.12% reduction significant Notch#4: 1.75% to 1.80% reduction significant Notch#3: 1.75% to 1.77% reduction significant Carbon Monoxide, CO (g/hp-hr) About 10% reduction at Notch#8, #5, #4, #3 significant 3% reduction at Notch #6 significant Corrected NOX (g/hp-hr) About 12% reduction at Notch#5, #4, #3 significant Total Hydrocarbon, THC (g/hp-hr) About 7% reduction at Notch #6 significant Particulate Matters, PM (g/hp-hr) About 7% reduction at Notch #6 significant In-cylinder harmful effects No visual damage Overall evaluation summary:
  30. 30. Exhaust emissions results Engine was run on 0.3% additive in three separate days:Aug 26, Sep 2 and Sep 6 of 2011.The comparison between each individual day’s data and baseline data is summarized below.The raw engine emissions were converted to brake-specific values in g/hp-hr and detailed results are shown in table 5 and table 6.The differences between 3-day averaged baseline and 3-day averaged performance data are presented. Exhaust emission results for NOx and CO shows that there are significant changes compared to baseline, especially at lower loads, Notch #5, Notch #4 and Notch #3. According to the criteria recommended in the RP-503 practice, since the % change in the average fuel consumption at Notch #3, #4, #5 and #6 fall beyond the variability of the data in the baseline and performance, the % reductions (improvements) in brake specific fuel consumption (Ib/hp-hr) are considered statistically significant. Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) during baseline and performance runs are presented in Table 3. Table 3: BSFC results for baseline and performance tests BSFC (Ib/hp-hr) Notch #3 Notch #4 Notch #5 Notch #6 Full-Load Baseline 0.514 0.508 0.475 0.442 0.395 Performance (0.3% additive) 0.505 0.499 0.466 0.436 0.391 % change to Baseline -1.75% -1.77% -2.00% -1.36% -1.01% % change with 90% confidence -1.75% to -1.77 -1.75% to -1.8% -1.84% to -2.12% -1.33% to -1.38% -1.01% to -1.02% . Below is the summary of baseline and performance BSFC results: BSFC Average (Ib/hp-hr) Standard Deviation (σ) Variability (2xσ)/Average Average Baseline 0.395 0.0015 0.76% Average Performance (0.3% additive) 0.391 0.0015 0.77% According to the criteria recommended in the RP-503 practice, since the % change in the average fuel consumption at Notch #3, #4, #5 and #6 fall beyond the variability of the data in the baseline and performance, the % reductions (improvements) in brake specific fuel consumption (Ib/hp-hr) are considered statistically significant. 3.4 Exhaust emissions results Engine was run on 0.3% additive in three separate days: Aug 26, Sep 2 and Sep 6 of 2011. The comparison between each individual day’s data and baseline data is summarized in Table 4. The raw engine emissions were converted to brake-specific values in g/hp-hr and detailed results are shown in table 5 and table 6. The differences between 3-day averaged baseline and 3-day averaged performance data are presented in table 7. Exhaust emission results for NOx and CO shows that there are significant changes compared to baseline, especially at lower loads, Notch #5, Notch #4 and Notch #3. Below is the summary of baseline and performance BSFC results: The readings were recorded every 30 min during the whole test. Average values of Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) during baseline and performance runs are presented in Table 3. Table 3: BSFC results for baseline and performance tests BSFC (Ib/hp-hr) Notch #3 Notch #4 Notch #5 Notch #6 Full-Load Baseline 0.514 0.508 0.475 0.442 0.395 Performance (0.3% additive) 0.505 0.499 0.466 0.436 0.391 % change to Baseline -1.75% -1.77% -2.00% -1.36% -1.01% % change with 90% confidence -1.75% to -1.77 -1.75% to -1.8% -1.84% to -2.12% -1.33% to -1.38% -1.01% to -1.02% . Below is the summary of baseline and performance BSFC results: BSFC Average (Ib/hp-hr) Standard Deviation (σ) Variability (2xσ)/Average Average Baseline 0.395 0.0015 0.76% Average Performance (0.3% additive) 0.391 0.0015 0.77% According to the criteria recommended in the RP-503 practice, since the % change in the average fuel consumption at Notch #3, #4, #5 and #6 fall beyond the variability of the data in the baseline and performance, the % reductions (improvements) in brake specific fuel consumption (Ib/hp-hr) are considered statistically significant. 3.4 Exhaust emissions results Engine was run on 0.3% additive in three separate days: Aug 26, Sep 2 and Sep 6 of 2011. The comparison between each individual day’s data and baseline data is summarized in Table 4. The raw engine emissions were converted to brake-specific values in g/hp-hr and detailed results are shown in table 5 and table 6. The differences between 3-day averaged baseline and 3-day averaged performance data are presented in table 7. Exhaust emission results for NOx and CO shows that there are significant changes compared to baseline, especially at lower loads, Notch #5, Notch #4 and Notch BSFC results for baseline and performance tests CAD Railway: Brake specific fuel consumption results
  31. 31. Table 4: Comparison between Baseline and Performance (0.3% additive) 26-Aug-11 % Reductions of 0.3% additive compared to Baseline N#8 % CHG N#6 %CHG N#5, %CHG N#4 %CHG N#3, %CHG THC (g/hp-hr) -8.36% -21.25% 4.59% 17.36% 3.50% NOX CORRECTED (g/hp-hr) -5.45% -3.63% -28.54% -18.86% -27.37% CO (g/hp-hr) -11.12% -6.28% -12.84% -13.91% -15.87% PM (g/hp-hr) 0.45% -8.84% -16.64% -10.90% -1.86% BSFC (lb/hp-hr) -0.18% -0.11% -1.52% -1.24% -1.28% exhaust temp -1.85% 0.23% -3.10% -1.45% -2.71% 02-Sep-11 % Reductions of 0.3% additive compared to Baseline N#8 % CHG N#6 %CHG N#5 %CHG N#4 %CHG N#3 %CHG THC (g/hp-hr) -8.70% -22.78% -0.52% 7.14% 5.84% NOX CORRECTED (g/hp-hr) -1.00% -0.60% -9.54% -29.68% -21.85% CO (g/hp-hr) -19.52% -5.20% -14.40% -16.68% -18.17% PM (g/hp-hr) 21.11% -19.79% 3.28% 2.36% -11.56% BSFC (lb/hp-hr) -1.02% -1.18% -2.10% -1.84% -2.04% exhaust temp -0.82% -3.02% -1.67% 0.00% -0.34% 06-Sep-11 % Reductions of 0.3% additive compared to Baseline N#8 % CHG N#6 %CHG N#5 %CHG N#4 %CHG N#3 %CHG THC (g/hp-hr) -10.47% -24.11% 11.17% 16.49% 8.08% NOX CORRECTED (g/hp-hr) -16.05% -15.45% -21.90% -27.95% -15.92% CO (g/hp-hr) -14.94% -9.75% -18.69% -18.93% -13.75% PM (g/hp-hr) 7.09% -23.85% -17.29% -22.27% -10.81% BSFC (lb/hp-hr) -1.14% -1.63% -1.98% -1.82% -1.37% exhaust temp 0.00% -3.49% -3.57% -4.35% -0.34% Comparison between Baseline and Performance (0.3% additive) CAD Railway: Brake specific fuel consumption results
  32. 32. 3-day averaged performance (0.3% additive) N#8 N#6 N#5 N#4 N#3 THC (g/hp-hr) 0.315 0.436 0.387 0.511 0.594 NOx (g/hp-hr) 10.4 11.7 10.5 12.1 15.6 NOx CORRECTED (g/hp-hr) 11.4 14.8 15.3 19.9 23.4 CO (g/hp-hr) 1.47 1.22 2.23 2.08 1.26 PM (g/hp-hr) 0.096 0.121 0.124 0.150 0.164 Table 7: % change of brake specific mass emission rates 0.3% additive concentration compared to Baseline Established Variability of the measuring device and data Notch #8 Notch #6 Notch #5 Notch #4 Notch #3 Total HC -9.18% -22.71% 5.08% 13.66% 5.81% 14% NOx -7.50% -6.56% -19.99% -25.50% -21.71% 7.5% CO -15.19% -7.08% -15.31% -16.51% -15.93% 4% PM 9.55% -17.49% -10.22% -10.27% -8.07% 10% Changes in average exhaust temperature measured at cylinder head were as follows: 0.3% additive concentration compared to Baseline Notch #8 Notch#6 Notch#5 Notch #4 Notch#3 Exhaust temp (°C) -0.89% -2.09% -2.78% -1.93% -1.13% Since NOx and CO have reduced beyond the variability of the data at baseline at all test modes, their reductions are considered significant. Therefore it can be concluded that the changes in NOx and CO as a result of 0.3% additive concentration are statistically significant. The results for Total Hydrocarbons (THC) and Particulate Matters (PM) are mixed. Although they have been reduced significantly at Notch #6 by 22.7% and 17.5%, % change of brake specific mass emission rates Table 6: Average brake specific mass emission rates 3-day averaged performance (0.3% additive) N#8 N#6 N#5 N#4 N#3 THC (g/hp-hr) 0.315 0.436 0.387 0.511 0.594 NOx (g/hp-hr) 10.4 11.7 10.5 12.1 15.6 NOx CORRECTED (g/hp-hr) 11.4 14.8 15.3 19.9 23.4 CO (g/hp-hr) 1.47 1.22 2.23 2.08 1.26 PM (g/hp-hr) 0.096 0.121 0.124 0.150 0.164 Table 7: % change of brake specific mass emission rates 0.3% additive concentration compared to Baseline Established measuring d Notch #8 Notch #6 Notch #5 Notch #4 Notch #3 Total HC -9.18% -22.71% 5.08% 13.66% 5.81% 1 NOx -7.50% -6.56% -19.99% -25.50% -21.71% 7 CO -15.19% -7.08% -15.31% -16.51% -15.93% PM 9.55% -17.49% -10.22% -10.27% -8.07% 1 Changes in average exhaust temperature measured at cylinder head were a 0.3% additive concentration compared to Baselin Notch #8 Notch#6 Notch#5 Notch #4 No Exhaust temp (°C) -0.89% -2.09% -2.78% -1.93% - Since NOx and CO have reduced beyond the variability of the data all test modes, their reductions are considered significant. Therefore it can that the changes in NOx and CO as a result of 0.3% additive conc statistically significant. The results for Total Hydrocarbons (THC) and Particulate Matters (PM Although they have been reduced significantly at Notch #6 by 22.7% respectively, in changes at other test modes are within the data variabil reductions or increases can not be statistically confirmed under the teste However in order to capture the impact of this additive on THC and PM, f testing under refined engine conditions are warranted. Page 7 of 17 Table 5: Average brake specific mass emission rates 3-day averaged BASELINE N#8 N#6 N#5 N#4 N#3 THC (g/hp-hr) 0.347 0.564 0.368 0.450 0.561 NOx (g/hp-hr) 11.2 12.5 13.1 16.3 19.9 NOx CORRECTED (g/hp-hr) 13.4 15.9 18.1 23.8 27.8 CO (g/hp-hr) 1.34 1.48 2.48 2.32 1.37 PM (g/hp-hr) 0.097 0.122 0.126 0.152 0.166 Average brake specific mass emission rates Average brake specific mass emission rates Changes in average exhaust temperature measured at cylinder head were as follows: (0.3% additive) N#8 N#6 N#5 N#4 N#3 THC (g/hp-hr) 0.315 0.436 0.387 0.511 0.594 NOx (g/hp-hr) 10.4 11.7 10.5 12.1 15.6 NOx CORRECTED (g/hp-hr) 11.4 14.8 15.3 19.9 23.4 CO (g/hp-hr) 1.47 1.22 2.23 2.08 1.26 PM (g/hp-hr) 0.096 0.121 0.124 0.150 0.164 Table 7: % change of brake specific mass emission rates 0.3% additive concentration compared to Baseline Established Variability of the measuring device and data Notch #8 Notch #6 Notch #5 Notch #4 Notch #3 Total HC -9.18% -22.71% 5.08% 13.66% 5.81% 14% NOx -7.50% -6.56% -19.99% -25.50% -21.71% 7.5% CO -15.19% -7.08% -15.31% -16.51% -15.93% 4% PM 9.55% -17.49% -10.22% -10.27% -8.07% 10% Changes in average exhaust temperature measured at cylinder head were as follows: 0.3% additive concentration compared to Baseline Notch #8 Notch#6 Notch#5 Notch #4 Notch#3 Exhaust temp (°C) -0.89% -2.09% -2.78% -1.93% -1.13% Since NOx and CO have reduced beyond the variability of the data at baseline at all test modes, their reductions are considered significant. Therefore it can be concluded that the changes in NOx and CO as a result of 0.3% additive concentration are statistically significant. The results for Total Hydrocarbons (THC) and Particulate Matters (PM) are mixed. Although they have been reduced significantly at Notch #6 by 22.7% and 17.5%, respectively, in changes at other test modes are within the data variability, thus their reductions or increases can not be statistically confirmed under the tested conditions. Since NOx and CO have reduced beyond the variability of the data at baseline at all test modes, their reductions are considered significant.Therefore it can be concluded that the changes in NOx andCO as a result of 0.3% additive concentration are statistically significant. The results forTotal Hydrocarbons (THC) and Particulate Matters (PM) are mixed.Although they have been reduced significantly at Notch #6 by 22.7% and 17.5%, respectively, the changes at other test modes are within the data variability, thus their reductions or increases can not be statistically confirmed under the tested conditions. However in order to capture the impact of this additive onTHC and PM, further engine testing under refined engine conditions are warranted. CAD Railway: Brake specific fuel consumption results
  33. 33. The main objective of this project was to evaluate the effects of diesel fuel additive – EFS, supplied by International Eco Fuels Inc. on engine brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC), exhaust emissions and in-cylinder conditions following the SFAT procedure. Emission results were obtained and calculated using the EPA CFR40 Part 92 emission calculation procedure and emission testing guidelines. The fuel analysis result, enclosed at the end, shows that the Eco-Fuel Saver (EFS) did not cause the fuel characteristics to change beyond the EPA specifications for ultra low sulfur No. 2 diesel (base fuel) and all the measured properties are within limits and acceptable. The collected data confirms that the additive had an effect on BSFC. The reduction in specific fuel consumption was between 1.75% and 2.1% (with 90% confidence interval) which was observed near medium and lower engine loads. From emissions’ stand point, the reductions of CO and NOx were statistically significant. Carbon oxides reduced more than 10% at four out of five engine operating modes, and NOx more than 12% at three out of five operating modes and not significantly changed at the rest.WhileTHC and PM decreased by 7% at Notch #6, their changes at other four operating modes were not considered statistically significant, as the variation of these two parameters is within the established variability of the data and measuring equipment. The exhaust temperature has also decreased 2% to 3% on average, with the highest drop at mid engine loads. The bore scope inspection showed that tested diesel fuel additive had no harmful effects on in-cylinder engine components wear and deposits. Finally, in order to fully capture the effects of this fuel additive on the locomotive engines, the execution of phase III and IV of the RP-503 are warranted. (CompleteTest Result Data on File) CAD Railway: Brake specific fuel consumption conclusion
  34. 34. July 13, 2012 Fernando Medina Gonzalez ECO-FUEL SAVER Dear Mr. Medina, Enclosed you will find the general results of the performance evaluation conducted to a gasoline light-duty vehicle using the commercial additive ECO-FUEL SAVER. The vehicle used for was a VW Jetta Classic GL Team TT model year 2012, with automatic transmission and 2.0 L engine displacement. The test, partially based on the Mexican official norm NOM-047-SEMARNAT-1999, were: • Static test: cruise engine speed (@2500 +/- 250 rpm) and slow engine speed (idling) • Dynamic test at constant cruise speed (40 km/h) The results, in general, indicated a positive effect when the additive is used on the evaluated vehicle: • 21% increase in fuel economy. • 37 – 42% reduction in CO2 emissions. • >84% reduction of CO emissions (static test). • >79% reduction of Nox emissions. Additional details of the results obtained in this study can be found on the technical report attached to this summary. Of note, the results presented here are valid for the evaluated vehicle. The performance of other vehicles when using the additive can be different to the one described on this document, depending on the technology, miles traveled, maintenance and driving conditions of those vehicles. Sincerely, Dr. Alberto Mendoza Dominguez Professor, Department of Chemical Engineering Research Chair, Air Pollution Engineer Group Tecnologico de Monterrey, Campus Monterrey Cam Eugenio G 648949, Mon Full Report On File
  35. 35. Comment: All of the above results meet their respective specification limits. Comment: All of the above results meet their respective specification limits. Result ResultEN590-04MGO “with” ECO-Fuel Saver (1 in 2,000)Independent Laboratory Ltd www.independentlaboratory.ie Unit 36 & 37, Docklands Innovation Park Eastwall Road, Dublin 3, Ireland Tel: 01-2401 374/3 Email: info@independentlaboratory.ie Confidential Report: J-377/12 Tests performed and methods: Density IP160, Flash Point IP34, Suspended Water Content by Modified Method ASTM D1744-92, Kinematic Viscosity IP71, Distillation IP123, Sulphur Content by Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence IP336, Cetane Index IP380, Copper Strip Corrosion IP154, Cold Filter Plugging Point IP309, Cloud Point IP219, Particulate Contamination IP 440, Cetane Number DIN EN 15195, PAH Content DIN EN 12916, Carbon Residue DIN EN ISO 10370, Ash Content DIN EN ISO 6245, Oxidation Stability DIN EN 15751 and HFRR Lubricity DIN EN ISO 12156-1. Marine Fuel Oil / Marine Gas Oil - MGO Full Report on File
  36. 36. ON SITE – EMISSIONTESTING ANALYSIS Two FeathersContracting: Emission testing was conducted at one of their mining operations located at Graymont Limestone mine on Oct. 12 andOct. 24, 2012 to determine if Eco-Fuel Saver would reduce toxic gas emissions from the company's off road mining equipment. Exshaw's location on Highway 1A is the gateway to an area that is surrounded by many ecologically pristine and sensitive areas.The area is surrounded by glaciers thousands of years old as well as many very sensitive alpine micro-climates. Because of its location, the businesses operating in Exshaw are extremely aware of their environmental responsibility. Eco-Fuel Saver was added to the diesel fuel supply and the loader was then run under normal work conditions over the next 10 days, then was retested. It should also be noted that because of the increased combustion efficiency, atmospheric oxygen (O2) was increased by 4%.Oxygen, of course, is not a toxic exhaust emission gas.The exhaust gas plume on any engine burning an EFS enhanced fuel will be considerably cooler than an engine running on a fuel not enhanced with EFS. Any reduction in exhaust gas heat helpsTwo Feathers Contracting mitigate their impact on global warming and helps preserve the many glaciers in the surrounding areas. *The regular driver of this loader also reported a much better throttle response with Eco-Fuel Saver.This is an older loader with over 18,000 hours run time, and the amount of diesel particulate (DP) smoke coming out the exhaust stack was cut almost in half. Gases Particulate (DP) Carbons (HC) CO2 NOX CO O2 Ratio (AFR) Test 1 – Idle at 700 rpm 93.2 8 2.9 969 .01 16.5 .25 Test 2 – 1500 rpm 92.0 7 3.9 568 .01 15.1 53.94 Test 3 – 2100 rpm 92.6 6 4.2 650 .00 14.7 50.56 Average 92.6 7 3.7 729 .007 15.4 - TEST RESULTS WITH ECO-FUEL SAVER Exhaust Gases Diesel Particulate (DP) Hydro- Carbons (HC) CO2 NOX CO O2 Air – Fuel Ratio (AFR) Test 1 – 700 rpm 53.6 5 2.9 700 .02 16.8 .25 Test 2 – 1500 rpm 54.1 2 3.0 441 .01 15.9 56.88 Test 3 – 2100 rpm 55.8 3 3.9 349 .01 15.4 54.39 Average 54.5 3.3 3.3 497 .013 16.0 - Test Conclusions Exhaust Gases Diesel Particulate (DP) Hydro- Carbons (HC) CO2 NOX CO O2 Air – Fuel Ratio (AFR) Average w/o EFS 92.6 7 3.7 729 .007 15.4 - Average w/ EFS 54.5 3.3 3.3 497 .013 16.0 - % Reduction 41% 53% 11% 32% +46% +4% - MAKE: Kawasaki Loader MODEL: 95 ZV ENGINE: 15.0 LCummins ISM MILEAGE / HOURS: 18,500 / 18,574 HRS YEAR: 2004
  37. 37. LakeO'Hara Lodge: EmissionTesting was conducted on August 15, 2012 and September 27, 2012 at the Lodge's facility near Field, British Columbia to determine if the addition of Eco-Fuel Saver into the truck’s diesel fuel would reduce toxic diesel emissions from the Lodge's trucks. Emission tests were performed on three (3) trucks of different makes, years, and mileage.These trucks were all in normal operating condition and were/are being used daily in the Lodge's normal operations.Tests were performed to monitor diesel particulate (DP) emissions as well as the five exhaust gases of hydro-carbons (HC), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxygen (O2). ON-SITE EMISSIONSTESTING ANALYSIS MAKE: Dodge MODEL: SprinterVan MILEAGE: 92,492 ENGINE: Mercedes Diesel YEAR: 2006
  38. 38. MAKE: Blue Bird Bus MODEL: BU MILEAGE: 81,302 ENGINE: Cummins YEAR: 1997 Lake O'Hara Lodge - Continued MAKE: Ford MODEL: F-250 Pick-Up / 330 Hp MILEAGE 58,488 ENGINE: 6.0 L. Diesel YEAR: 2007 This field test conclusively proves that when Eco-Fuel Saver is added to the fuel supply of Lake O’Hara Lodge's vehicles, it substantially reduced the emissions from this business's fleet of trucks.This test also proves that Eco-Fuel Saver quickly and fundamentally changes the way fuel burns in the combustion chamber upon introduction into the fuel supply. (CompleteTest Result Data on file)
  39. 39. We at Garden State Precast are proud to report the results from our most recent test at Garden State Precast in Farmingdale, NJ. We tested a 2006 MackTruck with a 455 HP Engine, which had twin 100 gallon tanks.The test truck has over 270,000 miles on it. One driver was selected for the 5 week test. Routes driven were a combination of local and highway miles. Payloads were heavy, consisting of 2 concrete highway dividers.The diesel fuel used for the test was from our tank and contained the winter blend mix. A baseline test was conducted over a two week period starting in the first week of December 2011 prior to the adding of EFS.The baseline test yielded a 4.74 MPG result. 1 ounces of EFS / 10 gallons of diesel fuel were added to both tanks (10 ounces / 100 gal. tank).The truck averaged 600 miles for each test. First test result came in at 4.83 MPG, 1.89% increase in fuel efficiency Second test result came in at 4. 7 MPG. Due to the Holiday, we were unable to get EFS into that particular fill up. Notice the result went back down to the baseline with no product in it. Third test result however, with EFS back into both tanks, yielded 4.9 MPG, a 3.37 % increase in fuel efficiency from the baseline. Fourth test result yielded 5.74 MPG!!!!That’s a whopping 21 % increase in fuel efficiency from the baseline. To: ECO-FuelSaver Date: 1/11/2011
  40. 40. Second test result came in at 4. 7 MPG! D Notice the result went back down to the b Third test result however, with EFS back in the baseline. Fourth test result yielded 5.74 MPG!!!!!! T Fifth test result yielded an unbelievable 6. baseline. We were so impressed and surprised with test just for verification. The final test result came in at 6.16 MPG!! staggering 29.9 %. In summary, as documented above, EFS ne to have the on-board computer adjust to t better and better, not to mention reducing In conclusion, actual results may vary acco consistency, and patience are the key to y David Schlameuss Vice President, Operations Garden State Precast, Inc Fifth test result yielded an unbelievable 6.18 MPG!!!!That’s an increase of 30 % in fuel efficiency from the baseline. We were so impressed and surprised with the results, just to make sure it was no accident, we ordered yet another test just for verification. The final test result came in at 6.16 MPG!!!!! Proving that EFS increased that Mack trucks fuel efficiency by a staggering 29.9 %. In summary, as stated above, once EFS was given the chance to clean out the engine and lubricate it, and have the on-board computer adjust to the re-formulated fuel. Once that happened, the results just kept getting better and better, not to mention that we are looking forward to reducing our maintenance and operating costs as well. In conclusion, we understand that results may vary according to the condition and type of vehicle, but we must say that the results with the 2006 Mack was amazing. The same as the results shown at the Southwest Research Institute’s SAE J1321 Type II test - the gains in fuel economy improved the longer a vehicle continues to use ECO-FuelSaver.These results tested by Garden State Precast are above average, and ECO-Fuel Saver is known to show greater results on earlier model vehicles, that are less fuel efficient than newer ones. Also, vehicles built before the use of emission reduction/control devices will show a dramatic reduction in harmful emissions once ECO-Fuel Saver is added regularly to the fuel supply. (CompeteTest Result Data on file)
  41. 41. Government of the NorthwestTerritories, Combined Services Facility: Testing was held on March 13 through March 19, 2013 inYellowknife, NorthwestTerritories.Testing was conducted to determine if Eco-Fuel Saver (EFS) would reduce toxic gas emissions from the NorthwestTerritories (NWT) airport and highway division's equipment. Yellowknife is the capital city of the NorthwestTerritories.The NWT is located in the far North of Canada, with its whole land mass located north of the 60th Parallel.The NWT encompasses a huge land area of 1,183,985 square kilometers (456,792 sq. miles). Emission testing was conducted on a variety of NWT maintenance equipment for both the airport and the territorial highway divisions. All fuel used during this test was Petro-Canada's standard #2 winter diesel fuel or standard regular 87 octane gasoline. After conducting the baseline test, Eco-Fuel Saver was added to the diesel and gasoline fuel supply of each vehicle and piece of equipment.The equipment was then run under normal working conditions over the next several days. NorthwestTerritories Airport and Highway Division MAKE: Mercedes Benz MODEL: MB - 450 hp MILEAGE : 114,000 kms ENGINE: MB 400 O, 12.8 L YEAR: 2009 ON-SITE EMISSIONSTESTING ANALYSIS
  42. 42. MAKE: Caterpillar Loader MODEL: 938 G – 167 hp HOURS: 7,800 Hrs ENGINE: 11.2 Litre YEAR: 2006 Government of the NorthwestTerritoriesContinued MAKE: Ford Pick-Up MODEL: F-250 MILEAGE: 105,668 kms ENGINE: 5.4 Litre Gas YEAR: 2007 MAKE:Titan HBR “CrashTruck” MODEL: E1 - 585 HP ENGINE: 8V92 Detroit, 12.1 Litre YEAR: 1996 MAKE:Volvo MotorGrader MODEL:G-720 B – 210 hp ENGINE:Volvo D7 YEAR: 2004 The large hydrocarbon decrease was a result of EFS's unique ability to reduce the “coefficient of friction” between the fuel molecules.This allows the fuel to flow and atomize better and more uniformly in all conditions, including extremely cold temperatures as encountered during the NWT testing.Average morning lows during testing was -36 degreesCelsius.The large hydrocarbon reduction is the result of a more efficient and cleaner “combustion burn” of the fuel that will yield increased fuel efficiency for the engine as well as a large reduction in the exhaust pollution.
  43. 43. Harley Davidson at Hacienda Harley in Scottsdale, Arizona: Positive increases in both torque and horsepower were shown with the addition of Eco-Fuel Saver into the fuel system.These tests were first performed on February 26, 2011 and then rechecked six (6) weeks later on April 16, 2011 to verify accuracy.These tests were administered by Harley Davidson employees using Harley Davidson dynamometer and testing equipment in their own facility.These tests were conducted without any input or interference by any Eco-Fuel Saver employees. Eco-Fuel Saver's involvement in this testing was limited to providing Eco-Fuel Saver to Hacienda Harley for the testing in "retail ready" sealed bottles. The testing protocol in this case was a simple and straight forward dynamometer test to measure whether Eco-Fuel Saver increased torque and horsepower if it were incorporated into the fuel supply on Harley Davidson motorcycles. The Harley's were hooked to the dynamometer and a computerized fixed fuel program was administered that supplied the exact amount of fuel in both tests to the engines as the engine rpm's were increased through the power band. In both tests and on both the torque and horsepower axis, the use of Eco-Fuel Saver immediately increased torque and horsepower: starting on the low end of the power band at 2000 rpm's and carrying that improvement past 5600 rpm's when the test was concluded. More often than not, whenever horsepower is significantly increased, low speed torque is reduced.As you can see, this is not the case when using Eco-Fuel Saver. On February 26, 2011 a 2008 FLTR Harley Davidson motorcycle was tested and conclusively showed a 6% increase in horsepower and a 7% increase in torque. In a second test conducted onApril 16, 2011, a 2007 XL1200N Harley Davidson motorcycle was tested and showed a 4% increase in both horsepower and torque with the use of Eco-Fuel Saver. Both of these tests followed Harley Davidson, DynoJet, and SAE testing protocols. Harley Davidson Dynamometer Testing ON-SITETESTING ANALYSIS
  44. 44. On February 26, 2011 a 2008 FLTR Harley Davidson motorcycle was tested and conclusively showed a 6% increase in horsepower and a 7% increase in torque. Harley Davidson Dynamometer Testing It is also noteworthy that in each test, the dyno runs with and without Eco-Fuel Saver took place within 15 minutes of each other.This was just enough time to add a few drops to the fuel supply of each bike and allow it to mix uniformly throughout the fuel.This also mitigated any major atmospheric changes in temperature or humidity.Testing protocols were consistent and uniform in both cases. In a second test conducted onApril 16, 2011, a 2007 XL1200N Harley Davidson motorcycle was tested and showed a 4% increase in both horsepower and torque with the use of Eco-Fuel Saver. Both of these tests followed Harley Davidson, DynoJet, and SAE testing protocols. In both tests, Eco-Fuel Saver conclusively proved that it did increase both horsepower and torque on both Harley Davidson engines once Eco-Fuel Saver had uniformly mixed with the fuel. See http://ecofuelsaver.com/web/harley_testing.html

×