rexresearch.com

 

David LINDAHL

The Webster-Heise Valve

A Significant Improvement in the Internal Combustion Engine and its Fuels?

Congressional Research Service Report 820176 ENR

by David M. Lindahl
(Analyst in Energy Policy, Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Division)








Contents

I. Preface
II. Executive Summary
III. Introduction
IV. Physical Description
V. History
VI. Status and Outlook
VII. Potential Benefits
VIII. Is There a Federal Role?
Appendix I. Technical Analysis
Appendix II. Summary of Tests
References


I. Preface ~

This report is an analysis of the concept, technology, and hardware of a new valve to increase engine efficiency that has been developed by the Webster-Heise Corporation. The methodology used in this report consists of a discussion of the attempts to improve internal combustion, a physical description of the Webster-Heise Valve (WHV) and its operation, a history of the development of the valve, the current status of the device, the outlook for its possible acceptance, and its potential impact on various issues of national concern. The appendix consists of a more detailed analysis of the nature of the existing problems in current production systems, the theoretical reasons for these problems, and their theoretical solutions as related to the WHV. In addition, a summary of tests is provided so that the reader will have relevant data on which to base his own conclusions. The technical analysis (Appendix I) is a system approach (from carburetor to tailpipe) explaining the effects of the valve upon different aspects of combustion (before, during and after). To the extent that a phenomenon (such as differential vaporization) is repeated in analyzing these effects, any such repetition should be considered to be supplemental rather than additive.

 This report should not be considered to be a recommendation for or against the WHV or the related technology. There is not et enough evidence to support such a judgment either way. The data that is available, however, suggests that a closer investigation of it by the auto industry and by the Federal Government would not be inappropriate, and lower octane requirements can be even partially realized, the introduction of the WHV could be a very significant development.

II. Executive Summary ~

From the inception of the gasoline-powered spark-ignition engine, there have been numerous attempts to improve the condition of the charge reaching the cylinders. The carburetor allows the proper amount of gasoline and air into the engine but, because much of the fuel is in the form of liquid droplets (which will not burn in that form), combustion cannot occur at maximum efficiency. This causes undesirable effects such as "engine knock", imperfect fuel distribution to the cylinders, cycle-by-cycle variations, dieseling, engine deposits, less than optimum conversion of heat to work, increased engine wear, increased fuel consumption, loss of power, some driveability problems, and increased pollutant emissions.

The auto industry has attempted to solve the problems of inadequate vaporization by increasing the temperature of the intake manifold to heat the incoming air and fuel. This increases the rate of vaporization, but the high temperature in the manifold greatly reduces the density of the air that is admitted to the cylinders. This provides less air for combustion and expansion in the cylinders, resulting in reduced power. To deal with the problem of knock, tetraethyl lead or other additives are used to slow down the rate of consumption. They allow the engine to operate but introduce additional losses of thermal efficiency. The slower burn also gives nitrogen oxides (NOx), a principal contributor to smog and acid rain, a greater opportunity to form. Tetraethyl lead has been associated with health effects, particularly on children, and is currently being phased out of gasoline as a result. Both of these pollutants are currently the subjects of debate in the Congress.

The WHV was developed to deal specifically with the combustion problems caused by incomplete vaporization. It is not a carburetor by is a valve that fits below the carburetor and extends into the intake manifold. According to the Webster-Heise Corporation, it causes more of the gasoline in the air/fuel mixture to vaporize at any given manifold temperature and provides complete vaporization at intake manifold temperatures as low as 125 degrees F. This claimed achievement is made possible, according to the company, by a transverse shearing of droplets in the gasoline spray by highly turbulent air followed by passage through an area of lower pressure. These effects are produced by a matrix of thousands of small nozzles formed by two stainless steel concentric screens of different mesh size through which both gasoline droplets and air pass before reaching the intake manifold.

The turbulence and friction created by the passage of the air through the screens transfer enough energy to the gasoline to cause it to vaporize when it enters the low pressure area of the intake manifold, according to Webster-Heise (W-H). It is further claimed that, because of early gasoline droplet vaporization, the vaporized gasoline has time to mix uniformly with air prior to entering the intake valve of each cylinder. This pre-vaporized and then thoroughly pre-mixed fuel charge permits equal distribution t, and within, each cylinder, thereby satisfying the conditions required for efficient combustion. At temperatures lower than 125 F, even though the gasoline may not be fully vaporized, some efficiency gains are realized, apparently due to the small droplet diameters resulting from the finer atomization and to improved mixing.

The effects of the WHV on combustion are very important, according to its designers. The vaporization of the gasoline prevents its collection as liquid on the metal surfaces of the cylinders and pistons. This also prevents dilution of the crankcase oil and promotes more complete combustion because the oxygen in the air has greater access to the hydrocarbon molecules and can oxidize them more completely. Carbon deposits are less likely to form as a result. Vaporization also reduces the occurrence of fuel-rich pockets in the extremities of the cylinders where detonation would otherwise take place. Catalysts such as lead, which slow down to reaction rate, do not appear to be needed because the conditions causing knock are not present to the same degree. This allows the combustion to occur more quickly, meaning that lower-octane fuels can be used without knock, that more pressure can be exerted on the crank at the optimum moment, that NOx has less time to form, and that less heat can be transferred to the engine walls.

The WHV has been formally tested six times at EPA-recognized laboratories on all of the EPA vehicle tests on a wide range of octanes (97 to 75) and in the test laboratories of automobile and octane additive manufacturers. The test results vary to some extent with the type of test and the conditions under which they were run, but data (see Summary of Tests) comparing the W-H modified car with a baseline car (including the same car without the valve) show the following representative results:

1. Fuel economy increased from 6 to 20%;

2. Torque (power) at 1500 rpm increased 13 to 40%;

3. NOx emissions declined from 4 to 48%;

4. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions declined from 17 to 54%;

5. Hydrocarbon (HC) emissions declined from 5 to 13%;

6. Engine octane requirements declined by 10 to 15 points.

Tests to date indicate that the WHV enables an engine to operate on much lower octane than is possible in the unmodified engine. Because the charge is less likely to knock because of its conditioning by the valve, gasoline of lower octane (which burns faster than high octane) can be used effectively. In the W-H modification, gasoline with an octane rating of 75, blended and certified by the Phillips Petroleum Company, outperformed in all categories the 97-octane fuel used in the baseline car in comparative tests.

More work needs to be done to determine whether or not the test results obtained so far can be translated into commercial products with wide utility. However, the potential of a technological breakthrough of this magnitude provides a significant incentive for continued effort. If the valve were in use in all of the automobiles in the US and if the fleet obtained the same results on average that the test showed, the refining industry could save about 600,000 barrels per day (b/d) in crude oil by avoiding the extra processing now necessary to boost the octane of gasoline. It could also take much of the pressure off petrochemicals such as aromatics, which have other non-combustion uses. In addition to the 600,000 b/d that could be saved by the refineries, the gasoline conservation that could be realized by consumers through better fuel economy could be on the order of 650,000 to 2,300,000 b/d (somewhat more than the US imports of crude oil from Saudi Arabia). The market for lower-octane gasolines would provide independent refiners with an opportunity to avoid the expensive investment in reforming equipment now needed to compete with the major oil companies in the manufacture of premium unleaded gasoline. It would also greatly reduce the pressure to increase allowable lead levels in gasoline and could accelerate the phaseout of tetraethyl lead as a gasoline additive (assuming appropriate timing). The positive health effects of eliminating lead could be supplemented by positive reductions in uncontrolled NOx, CO, and HC emissions and thus in control costs. The lower cost (about 20 cents/gallon) of straight-run gasoline over premium unleaded could also benefit consumers.

Despite the fact that the production costs of the valve would probably be under $100 each and that it could be easily adapted to most new car engines, the institutional barriers to the acceptance of a new device can be formidable and preproduction testing may reveal unforeseen problems. In addition, the skepticism generated by the failure of others, plus the known costs and reliabilities of the technologies and products now in use, would have to be overshadowed by the performance and promise of a new technology and product. At this time, the auto companies, the most likely beneficiaries of the W-H technology, seem to be, for the most part, unsure of the next step. They have so far been skeptical. This may be due to the fact that it was not invented in their own research laboratories, and consequently they have no "in-house" experience with it. The relative advantages from the use of such a device could change if current trends toward fuel injection and dieselization continue, because the auto industry has invested large amounts of capital and effort in them. On the other hand, the US auto industry has a desperate need to improve its existing products without substantial price increases, a need which might accelerate the rate of testing of the valve and possibly facilitate its subsequent acceptance. The disincentives of the cost and time required to evaluate the valve must be weighed by a company against the incentives of potentially improved performance and greater buyer acceptance of the cars on which it is used.

More testing of the valve is clearly needed on a wide variety off vehicles to establish a larger data base before its full potential can be precisely determined. This would presumably be the responsibility of private industry bit some have proposed that the Federal Government might take an active role in evaluating it. The Government has testing facilities and vehicle fleets that are sometimes used for such purposes. Such testing, however, can be expensive for the Government as well and the desirability of doing it must be weighted against competing demands on Government resources. Because the effects of the valve touch upon several major issues of concern to the Congress (lead levels in gasoline, oil conservation, air quality, competitiveness of the auto industry, and others), this may be an appropriate course of action for consideration independent of the auto industry responses.

III. Introduction ~

The history of the spark-ignition gasoline-powered engine is filled with attempts to improve it. Although there have been many modifications made in engine design over the past century, the fundamental process of delivering air and gasoline to the engine has not changed much over the years. Gasoline is still sprayed by the venturi jet of the carburetor through a needle valve into the intake manifold as air passes through it. This causes the gasoline to atomize into droplets which may be further reduced in size through secondary atomization when they strike the throttle plate (when it obstructs the flow at low engine speeds). This atomization increases the surface area of the droplets and increases the amount of vaporization that can occur. Because of the extremely short time available for vaporization to occur in the manifold, however, this is not generally sufficient to fully vaporize all of the gasoline. The presence of the liquid gasoline (rather than gasoline vapor) in the cylinders contributes to a variety of mixing, distribution, combustion, and lubrication problems. The carburetor, therefore, does an excellent job of metering out precise amounts of gasoline and air to maintain the proper air/fuel ratio but, except for breaking the liquid gasoline into small droplets which result in some vaporization, it does not completely overcome the phase problem. In order to increase the rate of vaporization, most automobile manufacturers use high temperature (in the form of a hot spot on the bottom of the manifold or a heated water jacket around the manifold) to force more of the gasoline into a vaporized state. These elevated temperatures, however, reduced the density of the air reaching the cylinders, resulting in less power output from the engine. Baffles are often used to promote mixing of the air and gasoline but these tend to restrict the flow and provide surfaces on which the gasoline can impinge and recondense.

Dozens of inventors, both individually and as employees of large corporations, have attempted to solve this phase problem but have been ultimately unsuccessful. These devices failed because of several common characteristics:

1. They were not variable but were optimized for only one steady-state condition (a fixed screen, for example). As a result, any change from the optimum engine speed would mean reduced performance which on the average was almost always worse than that for the unmodified car.

2. They constituted restrictions because they reduced the space open to the passage of air and fuel, especially at high engine speeds, and consequently reduced the power the engine was able to produce.

3. Their gains were offset by losses (usually power or emissions) that made the devices impractical.

4. They attempted to modify carburetion in some way. Even though the carburetor is a very efficient metering device, it atomizes the gasoline but does not fully vaporize it.

5. They attempted to improve the vaporization rate of gasoline in the area above the throttle plate. As soon as the improved mixture, if any, impinged on the throttle plate it would reformulate droplets and destroy the gain.

6. They did not work (for some combination of the above reasons).

Some of these devices, such as the Pogue carburetor and its variations (which was marketed but turned out to be unsatisfactory because it was difficult to keep in proper adjustment), have been the subject of extreme claims. Because of the intense concern over fuel economy in the wake of serious international oil emergencies, the interest of the public, the auto industry, and the Federal Government has been raised and eventually dashed by these well-intentioned inventors who proved not to have the answer they sought. It should be noted that this applies to large corporations, including the auto companies, as well as to individuals. Some improvements in carburetion have been realized, but the fundamental phase problem still remains. Very little work, however, was done on charge conditioning below the carburetor.

As a result of this succession of technological disappointments, Americans have become highly skeptical of any new device that promises to improve combustion. This makes it more difficult than ever for a new idea to succeed. To do so, it must overcome the inertia of justified doubt generated over the last 50 years and especially over the last 10.

Sherwood F. Webster and Richard L. Heise claim to have discovered a means of vaporizing gasoline rapidly at low temperature. Their valve is a significantly different approach from the many devices which have preceded it. They have demonstrated in 6 formal tests and numerous informal ones that this has the effect if improving fuel economy, improving torque, reducing harmful exhaust emissions, improving driveability, and reducing the octane requirements of the engine on which it is used. Considerably more testing is needed, however.

Although some earlier devices employed a screen, it was a single screen that was fixed horizontally in the path of the air/fuel mixture. The WHV uses two screens, which have specific shapes, sizes, and proximity to each other that are critical to the process of early vaporization (see Physical Description). The valve conditions and gasoline and air so that each cylinder receives a charge that can burn more efficiently.

It is not unusual for major innovations to come from outside the auto industry. As Gushee, et al., point out (Ref. 1):

"The tendency of innovations is to emerge from outside the industry. Several recent studies have shown this happening at a three to one ratio. The reason for this is that external industries do not have the commitment to the existing technology and do not have to worry about losing their existing market.

"Typically, an innovation is introduced on a small scale, tested, and proved; gradually, it penetrates the market. The period of experimentation varies widely depending on numerous factors, and involving the complexity of the innovation, the extent of the supporting system for the existing technology, and the social values affected. Several years is almost certainly the shortest period in which a major innovation can fill a market opportunity.

"In the auto industry, technological change seems to take a long time -- at least it seems like a long time while one is in the period of change. Today’s spark ignition engine produces about 10 times the horsepower per pound of engine that Henry Ford’s best efforts could produce in 1900, but all 7 decades have been needed for this progress to occur. In the area of technological substitution, these time lags are also apparent. It took 20 years for power brakes to be installed on half the new cars, 15 years for air conditioning on half the new cars, 10 years for power steering on half the new cars."

In a recent study on the competitive status of the US auto industry, the National Research Council and the National Academy of Engineering concluded the following (Ref. 2):

"The clear competitive advantage accruing to products with advanced efficiency performance has created an incentive for the development of improved hardware. If the real price of oil continues to rise and we experience significant supply interruptions, the future of product innovation may become more radical...

"We are concerned with the general price of innovation as well as its general character. The first is the diversity of technology growing out of the innovative process; the issue is essentially whether, for any given system, a new dominant design is apparent. The second aspect is the extent to which innovation departs from design concepts currently in use, whether innovation is epochal or incremental..

"The evidence suggests that innovation in the 1970s generally has proceeded first where the cost of change (in terms of its impact on the existing process) has been least. This serves to underscore the potential for change in future years. The technologies involve not only new design concepts but also in many cases totally new physical or mechanical and chemical principles. And indications are that such developments are not the flight of some engineer’s fancy; extensive development work is under way in all areas and in some cases has been speeded up remarkably in the last two years...

"In terms of product technology, a period of intense technological competition may be just ahead."

The WHV might be considered "incremental" in terms of its potential impact on the auto industry in that it probably would not require substantial change in the existing equipment or production techniques. Its impact outside of the industry, however, could be considered "epochal" in terms of eliminating the need for gasoline additives, reducing crude oil imports, and improving air quality. In contrast, downsizing has been incremental in terms of technology but epochal in that it requires major changes in capital, labor components, management, and organization.

IV. Physical Description ~

The WHV is a relatively simple device, but it has a highly complex effect on the air and gasoline that pass through it and on the combustion that results. Of the 26 claims that were made in the two patent applications, all 26 were granted by the US Patent Office. It is covered by two patents each in the US and in 9 foreign countries (Japan, West Germany, UK, France, Italy, Sweden, Canada, Mexico and Brazil)(Refs. 3, 4). A related patent covering turbine and oil-burner applications has also been issued (Ref. 5) and one covering non-combustion applications such as spray drying, fluid-bed operation, and desalination is pending (Ref. 6).

The valve is mounted at the intake manifold opening below the carburetor and throttle plate and extends down into the intake manifold (Figures 1 and 2). Air and gasoline are received from the carburetor and are directed through a slight funnel (the central down-tube) to promote centralized charge mixing. As needed, additional air can be drawn down the outer down-tube. At high speed or load conditions, air only is allowed into the outer down-tube (Figure 3). At the bottom of the central down-tube, the gasoline/air mixture changes direction by 90 degrees and is directed toward the double-screen assembly that surrounds the valve (Figure 4). The bottom of the valve is solid and slightly concave to aid in the redirection of the mixture. Because the flow from the central tube must cross the radial jump space between the central tube and the screens, it accelerates after changing direction and strikes the screens with force. The screens consist of a cylindrical #50 stainless steel mesh (coarse) immediately followed by a #120 stainless steel mesh (fine). The mesh sizes are critical and so is their proximity; they must be in contact to maintain the appropriate level of turbulence and to form the matrix of thousands f orifices that the gasoline and air must pass through. The air forces the gasoline through the orifices to produce droplets of extremely fine diameters. Because of the lower pressure in the intake manifold, the high level of turbulence, and the higher energy level of the air, vaporization of the gasoline is believed to occur within a short distance after leaving the outer screen. Because moving air is the driving force and because turbulence is created by its passage through the valve, the gasoline vapor and air are thoroughly mixed. The radial structure of the screen assembly directs the gasoline/air mixture evenly toward the cylinders to that all receive the same quantity and quality of charge.

Figure 1 ~ Vertical cross-section of the Webster-Heise Valve (WHV) indicating the range of movement and the direction of flow in the intake manifold.

Figure 2 ~ Cut-away view showing placement of the WHV in the intake manifold below the carburetor.

Figure 3 ~ Vertical cross-section showing the central and outer down-tubes (note direction of fuel flow).

Figure 4 ~ Cross-section (horizontal) indicating the position of the central and outer down-tubes relative to the double-screen assembly and the radial jump-space (note direction of flow).

The valve is automatically regulated by engine demand. A one-inch vacuum is maintained by a vacuum regulator which senses the pressure at a point above the valve (but below the carburetor throttle plate) and at a point below the valve in the intake manifold. As the accelerator is depressed and more gasoline and air are required, the manifold vacuum is lowered. The vacuum regulator senses this pressure change and relaxes enough to permit the valve t descend further into the manifold under the greater force of the increased flow of gasoline and air. This exposes more of the double screen to accommodate and to process the greater flow. Because of this variability, there is no restriction to the flow except for a one-inch pressure drop (maintained by a vacuum differential valve) which enhances the vaporization effect and which constitutes a restriction only at wide-open throttle. As the velocity of the flow diminishes with lower engine demand, the vacuum regulator causes the double-screen assembly to retract to maintain the one-inch differential under all speed and load conditions.

The "double down-tube" is especially important to the performance of the valve. All of the gasoline droplets and most of the air from the carburetor are directed toward the center of the top of the valve where they are collected in a shallow funnel which accelerates them (through a Bernoulli Effect) through the center tube. As it exits the bottom of the tube, the gasoline/air mixture is forced outward in a radial pattern toward the double-screen assembly that surrounds the flow. Before the mixture reaches the screen, it must traverse a "radial jump space" across the width of the larger, outer tube. This causes the mixture not only to change direction by 90 degrees but also to accelerate toward the double screens. At the same time, air and a very small amount of gasoline vapor descend under atmospheric pressure through the outer down-tube. In addition to providing the radial jump space that the primary flow must cross, this secondary flow around the center tube adds more turbulence when it intercepts the primary flow and greater volume of air when needed under high-speed or high-load conditions.

V. History ~

Development of the WHV began in 1978 when Sherwood F. Webster and Richard L. Heise decided to combine their knowledge and experience in an attempt to reduce the fuel consumption and pollution levels of modern internal combustion engines (Ref. 7). Webster had worked in this field since 1959, mainly with variable venturi carburetors and cold manifolds, and Heise was well known in the Phoenix area as a master mechanic. At the outset, they decided that their approach would be to atomize all of the fuel below the throttle plate rather than to attempt separation of the gasoline into its light and heavy components. They concluded that a cylindrical valve that could move up and down in the intake manifold in response to engine demand would be the best way to eliminate the problems that were know to exist with fixed systems.

The problem confronting them at that point was the need to find a simple yet satisfactory atomizing mechanism to reduce the diameters of the gasoline droplets. Even though both inventors were familiar with the failure of single horizontal screens in the past, they decided to experiment with a variety of screens, not knowing whether any would work in their application or not. A test apparatus was constructed consisting of a simple venturi extending above the container of water in which it was immersed and an air compressor which directed a continuous flow of fast-moving air over the venturi to simulate the flow of the charge through an automotive carburetor. Various screen sizes from #50 to #250 were tried with no success. The water would merely run in large drops down the side of the screen onto which the flow was directed. After two months of screen testing, it was apparent to both Webster and Heise that a single screen would not work, as earlier inventors had already shown. In the process of changing from one screen size  (#50) to another (#120), however, Heise accidentally held both screens together and noticed to his astonishment and that a totally unexpected phenomenon was occurring. The water was no longer falling in large drops on the impact side of the double screen combination, but the entire flow was passing through the screens in a virtually invisible mist. Only when a watch crystal was placed in the flow downstream from the screens did small droplets reform and become invisible,

On the basis of that discovery, they added a double screen assembly to the valve and assumed that they had achieved a major breakthrough in automotive fuel conditioning. They assembled an early prototype of the valve and eagerly installed it on a 1972 Chevrolet pickup truck. They were disappointed to discover that not only was there no apparent gain, they actually lost fuel economy. This setback was followed by a period of trial and error during which numerous modifications were tried and rejected as ineffective. After a succession of these failures, they concluded that the problem was due to the fact that the flow from the carburetor was not striking the screens with sufficient force because of the low angle of approach. To correct this situation, they developed the double-down tubes, which provided space between the bottom of the central tube and the double screens to force the flow to strike the screens directly at right angles rather than at an acute one. After further experimentation, they observed that the maximum effect appeared to occur when the pressure differential between the interior and the exterior of the valve was held to a constant one inch. A vacuum valve was used to replace the spring which originally controlled the action of the valve so that more precision could be obtained. As a result of these incremental improvements to the basic valve over a 6-month period, the fuel economy of the truck was raised by about 0.5 mpg at a time from 12.5 mpg to 16.0 mpg with noticeably better performance, according to Webster and Heise.

As the gains became more apparent so did the need for more sophisticated testing. Webster and Heise formed a corporation to attract the capital necessary to complete the development of the valve. Approximately $450,000 was raised privately, including $75,000 from Webster. This was used to cover the cost of patents, tests, vehicles, and equipment (including a complete dynamometer), professional services, legal fees, and travel (Ref. 8). Both Webster and Heise have worked exclusively on the development of the valve since 1978.

In early 1980, after the initial development work was completed, the inventors asked the Ethyl Corporation to test the device. Webster and Heise suspected, but had not yet confirmed, that use of the valve reduced engine octane requirements. Their presumption was that Ethyl would be interested in an alternative to chemical octane because of the lead phasedown in gasoline that was underway as a result of the Clean Air Act. Ethyl agreed to test it at its research laboratory near Detroit (see Test 1, Summary of Tests). During the test at Ethyl, an octane requirement reduction of 10 points was established, an improvement in distribution was verified, and no loss of power was measured. (See Test 1, Summary of Tests)(Ref. 9). Ethyl wanted to dismantle the engine and the valve to analyze it further over a one-month period, which was acceptable to Webster-Heise, but would not agree to cover Webster-Heise’s expenses during the test period. As a result, Webster and Heise decided to use their limited funds for testing at other certified laboratories.

In August 1980, tests were conducted at the Environmental Testing Corporation (ETC) near Denver, CO (an EPA-recognized test facility). These tests, as shown in the summary of tests, confirmed earlier, less complete tests that had shown gains in fuel economy, reduced emissions, and lower octane requirements. On the basis of these tests, invitations were sent to all of the major automobile and oil companies to attend the formal introduction and demonstration of the valve at ETC on October 15, 1980. Fifteen major corporations sent representatives who witnesses the operation of the test car and a baseline car (see Test 4, Summary of Tests). EPA tests were run on both cars, and three different fuels were used (97-indolene, 85 pump-grade unleaded, and 75-octane specially blended and certified by Phillips Petroleum Co.). The gains demonstrated in these tests were consistent with the earlier tests. At the demonstration, John Marsh, Jr., the WH counsel (now Secretary of the Army), offered to license the valve to any US corporation and to provide a 5-year moratorium on its use in foreign cars imported to the US.

Following the demonstration, the Standard Oil Company of Ohio (Sohio) expressed interest in the WHV. In arranging for further testing, Sohio noted (Ref. 19):

"The data from these previous tests do indicate the potential for reduction in octane, improved fuel economy, reduced emission, and possibly improved driveability. Together these results, if realized, could represent significant value. Therefore, we are now exploring ways to further evaluate the valve."

Sohio urged the Ford Motor Company to test the valve as part of a joint project. Ford agreed to a 3-week test, to be followed if successful by an 11-month testing program with the Webster-Heise Corporation. Ford required that Sohio not participate in the test and that no disclosure of data be made while the tests were being conducted.

The tests were conducted at the Ford Laboratory in Dearborn in late January 1981. The baseline tests were conducted prior to the arrival of Webster and Heise. In the first test with the valve (Figures 16 and 17), significant gains were shown in torque and fuel economy (see Test 5, Summary of Tests). Ford was concerned, however, that some of these gains might be due to the fact that the baseline engine (without the valve) had been contaminated with carbon during the baseline tests (Ref. 11). The second test (Figure 18) was a very demanding wide-open throttle test. The gains of the valve in this test were also apparent but above 3000 rpm they dropped to the level of the baseline production system with heat due to the limited sized of the prototype valve. Webster offered to enlarge the valve to accommodate these testing conditions but was told that no modification was necessary (Ref. 12). Ford then exercised its option under the testing agreement to terminate the tests. Ford informed Webster that, "It is Ford’s opinion that the Webster-Heise device is not the most appropriate means of eliminating the necessity for carburetor heat" and that, "The Webster-Heise devise is not of interest to Ford at this time" (Ref. 13).

The spark-advance test conducted at the Ethyl Corporation is a relatively severe engine test, although not as severe as the torque test at Ford and ETC, and it simulates the rapid acceleration sometimes encountered in normal driving. The valve apparently worked well in these tests, providing more fuel economy on low-octane gasoline than did the baseline engine. The early prototype valve completed the spark-advance test and did the same amount of work with approximately 4 inches more vacuum. This does not mean, however, that there was a restriction due to the presence of the valve (beyond the one-inch differential built into it). It does mean that the same work could be done at the same vacuum, although the effect diminishes as engine increases. In the spark advance tests at Ethyl, despite the octane and fuel economy gains, no loss of power was measured. In the Ford wide-open throttle test, the valve size limitation of the early prototype was encountered above 3000 rpm on 75 octane (R+M/2) gasoline. In order to accommodate these extreme conditions, a second-generation prototype was made 30% larger, so that it could descend further into the intake manifold under full throttle and expose more screen area to prevent any unwanted pressure drop. The vacuum differential at full throttle is about one inch due to the presence of the valve (not to be confused with the vacuum created by the throttle plate at lower rpm)(See Test 6, Summary of Tests). Despite the presence of manifold heat in Test 6, both the torque and fuel economy gains were substantial.

In order to fully evaluate the new, larger prototype, Webster and Heise decided to test it on a new state-of-the-art automobile with electronic carburetion (which maintains a relatively constant air/fuel ratio) and the latest pollution controls. A 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme was purchased and a complete baseline test prior to conversion was made at the Environmental Testing Corporation. The jacketed design of the Oldsmobile intake manifold, they discovered, was not amenable to heat removal. They also found that the design of the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) equipment did not allow for adjustment (less was needed to control NOx with the WHV) without altering other calibration in the closed-loop system. Without the volumetric efficiency gains from a cooler manifold and with the higher EGR, they were concerned that their gains might be reduced, particularly torque and NOx. The test (Test 6, Summary of Tests), however, showed significant gains over baseline, even with 75-octane fuel instead of 97-octane. NOx decreased 45% despite a larger spark advance, and other emissions also declined. Fuel economy increased from 31.4 mpg to 35.6 mpg, well above the EPA highway standard. Torque was also significantly increased. To confirm these results, the test was run again with the same (and in some cases even better) results. The emissions were even rechecked on another computer to verify readings. Webster-Heise concluded from this test that in an optimized engine (with a cooler manifold and less EGR) even greater gains might be achieved (Ref. 14).

VI. Status and Outlook ~ 

The Webster-Heise Corporation makes several claims for its valve and offers data from several tests (see Summary of Tests) in support of its claims. It is claimed by Webster-Heise that the valve does the following:

1. Reduces engine octane requirements by 10 or more points;

2. Reduces gasoline consumption by as much as 40%;

3. Reduces the formation of nitric oxides (NOx) by as much as 45%;

4. Reduces the formation of carbon monoxide (CO) by as much as 20%;

5. Reduces the formation of unburned hydrocarbons (HC) by as much as10%;

6. Increases torque by as much as 20%;

7. Eliminates stalling and flooding, especially on cold starts;

8. Reduce the formation of deposits that cause engine wear and contamination of lubricants;

9. Requires no maintenance.

Some automotive engineers, among others, are skeptical. Their concerns include the following:

1. The pressure drop resulting from the presence of the screen could result in a power drop;

2. The reduction in manifold heating could be a problem in sub-zero operation and could cause an increase in HC emissions;

3. It might "gunk up" over time and be rendered inoperable.;

4. There are more appropriate methods in development to achieve the same gains.

These points, both pro and con, are addressed individually in more details in the sections on pre-combustion, combustion, and post-combustion effects. Overall, there is not enough evidence, based on the number of tests, to be considered conclusive.

General Motors and Chrysler have reportedly expressed interest in the valve but have conducted no formal tests. R.M. Hokanson, the Chrysler representative at the ETC test on October 15, 1980, made a positive recommendation to his company (Ref. 15):

"I think this device has merit for our company and recommend that we investigate the possibility of testing this device on our products as soon as possible."

Despite recommendations such as these, no further testing has been done by any of the auto or oil companies. Most of the major oil companies have already made substantial investments in facilities to make premium unleaded gasoline. This product is more profitable (while it is in short supply) than the other grades of gasoline and cannot be readily made by many independent refiners. The market for high-octane unleaded gasoline is growing faster than any other grade because the octane requirement of cars increases as engine deposits accumulate. If all cars could use the same low-octane gasoline, it could make obsolete many of the existing facilities built at great cost by the majors. It could also eliminate the need for expensive octane additives and could improve the competitive position of the independents with respect to the major oil companies. Use of the valve, however, could also save the majors large investments in additional reforming facilities that might far outweigh these competitive aspects.

One problem that Webster-Heise could expect to encounter on the long path to acceptance would be that of competing technologies. All of the major automotive companies have invested large amounts of effort and capital in devices that may not be compatible with the WHV. Fuel injection has become increasingly popular as a means of restoring some performance and diesels have found favor as a means of improving fuel economy. Some companies have committed considerable resources to these approaches and may prefer to continue them rather than to adopt a new device. Others may conclude that in the medium term (3 to 8 years) other approaches might be more competitive. In addition, most auto companies have research projects of long standing that they may feel a need to protect from a competing device. It may be that the WHV will be found to improve the in-house projects as well. It has been suggested, for example, that the valve could be useful on a spark-assisted diesel. If so, companies that have shown a strong interest in dieselization may find this development to be complementary rather than contradictory. In any event, the reaction of the auto companies to this device could be expected to vary considerably depending on their own individual interests and priorities.

Another barrier of considerable significance is the not-invented-here syndrome. There is a strong preference in the auto industry to use ideas invented in-house. Innovation from outside the industry must compete with these projects in which an investment has already been made. In house projects that address the same problem will generally be given preference, if for no better reason than that the companies are already familiar with them and have databases for them. It is also possible that having been shown that a type of improvement is possible, they may seek some other means of achieving similar gains without employing a particular technology purchased from outside.

Because of the high cost of automotive testing, the valve has been tested on a limited number of test vehicles under a limited range of circumstances. As a result the database is not as large as most would like. The more data that becomes available, the stronger are the conclusions that can be drawn. Enough data has been obtained to demonstrate the promise of the valve, but not enough has been collected to erase all doubt among those who might risk large sums and professional reputations in developing and introducing the valve in mass-produced vehicles. It would clearly benefit from further testing, especially in actual road operation.

The cost of obtaining the rights to manufacture the WHV for use on new automobile engines may or may not inhibit its acceptance. The Webster-Heise Corporation has expressed willingness to accept "standard and customary" royalty followed in the domestic auto industry. That would consist of 5% of the manufacturer’s invoice cost for the first million valves, 4% for the second million, 4% for the third million, and 2% for all subsequent production (Ref. 16).

The response of the auto companies to date has been noncommittal. Only one company, Ford, has formally decided not to use the valve. Others may or may not; they have apparently not decided. Whether or not it will be accepted at all by the domestic auto industry is currently uncertain. If that proves to be the case, then foreign auto companies (who have reportedly expressed interest in the valve) may choose to pursue the necessary additional testing and development.

VII. Potential Benefits ~

The tests which have been conducted so far indicate that the WHV could have a significant beneficial impact on several major issues. The potential benefits described in this section are based on the assumptions that the demonstrated gains, which so far are suggestive but not conclusive, will be further substantiated in additional tests and that the use of the valve would be widespread. If that proves to be the case, then a substantial reduction in crude oil requirements may be possible at the refinery level. In addition, greater fuel economy in valve-equipped engines might lower the need for crude oil even more. To the extent that the valve can reduce the emission of pollutants and the need for toxic or carcinogenic additives to gasoline, air quality could be improved. If the valve proves to be a major advance in increasing the fuel economy and performance of modern internal combustion engines, it could be a major technological breakthrough that could attract new interest to domestic automobiles and increase the competitiveness of the US auto industry.

A. Refinery Feedstock Conservation ~

One of the problems facing refineries is the need to increase octane and to make increasing amounts of unleaded gasoline, especially premium unleaded, as the use of lead is phased out. The manufacture of unleaded gasoline has proven to be a costly process in terms of the extra crude oil consumed in making it and of the reconfiguration necessary to increase its octane above the 82 or 83 level that it has when it comes straight from the fractionating tower. The extra processing used to make unleaded fuels consumes about 9.2% more crude oil than does straight-run gasoline, according to the Ethyl Corporation (Ref. 17). The HCs used to increase the octane levels have many other uses in the petrochemical industry and their allocations have been a source of concern during oil supply emergencies.

The high cost of making premium unleaded gasoline, for which demand is increasing faster than for any other gasoline type, has placed the independent refiners at a competitive disadvantage to the major oil companied. Because the refining industry has been depressed and profits have been limited or nonexistent in recent years, most investors have been reluctant to lend the capital needed to build the octane improvement facilities necessary to compete with the majors for a significant share of the premium unleaded market. The majors have had considerably more financial flexibility in upgrading their production facilities during this period. As a result only the majors, to a large extent, are able to make the high-octane unleaded gasoline that will perform satisfactorily in new cars after engine deposits accumulate and their octane requirements increase. In the US, there are 115 refineries (nearly 40% of the total) that lack the catalytic reformers needed to make unleaded gasoline, and all of these have capacities of 48,000 b/d or less (Ref. 18). This is a major reason for the independent refiners’ desire to have allowable lead levels in gasoline increased despite strong environmental opposition to that proposal. Lead is preferred by refiners because it is the least costly octane enhancer currently available. The Lundberg Letter recently observed that, "The emergence of premium unleaded allows regular unleaded to drop in octane, and refinery profitability to be enhanced" (Ref. 19).

If the entire fleet of automobiles in the US could use gasoline 10 octane points lower than that currently sold with no offsetting losses in fuel economy, performance, or emissions, it would greatly reduce the crude oil requirement of the refining industry, eliminate the need for large capital investments in facilities, improve the competitive position of small refiners, and reduce the cost of making acceptable fuels for new cars.

In its analysis of the potential impact of the WHV on refining, the PACE company, well known for its consulting and engineering work for the refining industry, reached the following conclusion (Ref. 20):

"When we evaluated the impact of a 10 octane (R+M/s) reduction in our 1990 base case, over 600,000 b/d less crude oil were required to meet the product slate. This reduction is due to fuel savings in the refinery based on the assumption that the fuel quality was reduced and less processing was needed. If further efficiency can be gained through fuel/engine optimization, savings would be greater."

PACE also noted that the production of lower-octane gasoline could use components, such as naptha, which have clear octanes of 40 to 65 and which are normally surplus for many refiners.

The objective, according to PACE, should be (Ref. 21):

"...To simultaneously minimize fuel consumed in the engine and the refinery. Most of the refinery fuel saved in our analysis occurs in about the first 5 octane number reduction, thus the optimum engine to take advantage of octane in this range would result in maximum miles per barrel of crude."

PACE also identified seven areas of refining that would be helped by the production of low-octane gasoline that could be used in engines equipped with the WHV (Ref. 22):

1. Reforming feed rates and severities would be reduced;

2. Processing severity would be decreased and per-barrel utilization of crude oil would be increased;

3. The need for hydrocracking would be decreased;

4. The need for alternate blendstocks would be decreased;

5. The availability for aromatics would be increased;

6. The need for liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) would be reduced; and

7. The need for octane additives would be eliminated.

B. End-Use Fuel Conservation ~

As indicated in the section on fuel economy, the improvements in fuel economy with the WHV vary with the type of driving and other factors. The range of improvement is about 10 to 20%, with 15% possibly representative of the average improvement that could be expected in normal driving. Of the valve were in use in all of the cars in the US and if the best-case improvement of 20% were realized, the daily savings in gasoline consumption could be approximately 1.3 million b/d. At the worst case improvement of 10%, the demand for gasoline could be reduced by 650,000 b/d. This, combined with the fuel conservation at the refineries, could yield total savings of more than 1.25 million b/d (37% of total crude oil imports in the second quarter of 1982 and 79% of the crude oil imports from OPEC during that period)(Ref. 23).

Because several years would probably be required for all of the vehicles in the fleet to be equipped with the valve, the reduction in gasoline consumption would be gradual as the number of cars using it increase. Nearly a decade would probably be required for most of the fuel economy improvement to be realized. This could be accelerated, however, if the market acceptance of new valve-equipped cars were to exceed the normal rate of replacement. The primary point of introduction would most likely be in new cars, but retrofitting old ones is also a possibility. If the engine deposits were removed, most older cars cold probably use the valve. Cars 5 years old or newer might require a change in EPA regulations preventing changes to an engine once it is certified.

C. Air Quality ~

The emission improvements indicated with the valve could become a major factor in the debate over air quality in general and gasoline lead levels in particular. Lead and other additives such as aromatics (benzene and others) are either toxic or carcinogenic and pose a public health threat (Ref. 24). Reducing automotive pollution is of major importance in achieving better air quality because it is responsible for approximately 50% collectively of all the HC, CO, and NOx that are emitted each year (Ref. 25). A substantial reduction in these automotive emissions could greatly improve air quality, particularly in urban areas where concentrations of pollutants are especially high.

The automobile industry has made substantial progress in pollution control, but the results have been achieved at a high cost to the consumer. Performance has been sacrificed in many models in order to achieve lower emissions and higher fuel economy in new cars. The control devices themselves (such as dual-bed converters) can become clogged or contaminated and can cease to function properly. When they malfunction, the pollution levels can rise to extremely high levels and in some rare cases can prevent restarting once the engine is stopped. Because the controls can be troublesome and sometimes do not work well enough to get through the EPA certification process, the automakers must occasionally ask for emission wavers. In addition, these controls are relatively complex and add up to $600 to the cost of new cars (Ref. 26).

Much of the controversy is currently focused on lead because the independent refiners have asked that the lead levels allowed in gasoline be raised. This request, if granted, would permit them to increase the octane ratings of their gasolines so that they could compete at lower cost with the major oil companies. The majors, however, contend that the exemptions gave the small refiners (and blenders who are not mentioned at all in the regulations) a competitive advantage and, as a result, the special exemption should be removed entirely (Ref. 27). The independent refiners, however, claim that they cannot afford the average investment of $10 to $20 million each for the reformers necessary to chemically raise the octanes of their unleaded gasolines (Ref. 28).

Extensive testimony was received by Congress on the subject, most of it strongly against weakening of the lead standards. Very little support was offered for eliminating the standards completely. A cost-benefit analysis prepared by the EPA did not support an easing of the lead levels, estimating that elimination of the standard would save the refining industry $100 million per year but would cost between $140 million and $1.4 billion per year to treat an additional 200,00 to 500,000 children for the lead poisoning that would be caused by the higher lead levels (Ref. 29). An EPA official recently said in a memorandum that lead air pollution monitors had repeatedly underestimated the lead content of air because they were located "at sites which were not designed to measure maximum lead concentrations" (Ref. 30).

NOx is best known as the principal cause of smog, but it is also an important factor in acid rain. The importance of NOx in the debate over acid rain was summarized in a report for the Canadian Embassy (Ref. 31):

"NOx currently is responsible for approximately one-fourth to one-third of the acid rain -- but this proportion is expected to increase over the next two decades. In parts of the West, NOx is already the major contributor to acid rain. If current trends continue, by 1990 NOx-caused rain could equal or exceed the acid rain caused today by SO2.

"NOx pollution also is associated with the production of ozone. High levels of ozone cause crop damage, forest damage and a number of respiratory problems. Ozone, like acid rain, is a product of atmospheric chemistry acting on pollutants. It, too, is principally a trans-boundary pollutant; most of the damage is done outside the state or province where the NOx originates.

"NOx from metropolitan centers along the Pacific Coast is being deposited hundreds of miles to the east in the Sierras and Rockies in the form of nitric acid-contaminated rain or snow. Studies published in Science magazine show that precipitation with 4.6 pH (at least 5 times normal acidity) is occurring frequently in parts of Colorado. Mountain lakes in Colorado and California are becoming acidic, with local residents concerned about potentially adverse consequences for the tourism and recreation industries."

Most of the emission standards promulgated under the Clean Air Act of 1970 are under pressure for revision. Under the Act, the 1971 NOx levels were supposed to be reduced by 1976, but subsequent administrative and legislative actions have delayed the deadlines for NOx, CO (a poisonous gas), and HC (which can be carcinogenic). The current NOx standard of 1 gram per mile would probably provide for a steady reduction in NOx over the next decade but, if the auto industry request for a relaxation of the standard to 2 grams per mile were granted, there would probably be no decrease but a slight increase instead (Ref. 32). The industry, on the other hand, claims that these reductions would allow them to save billions of dollars in "unnecessary controls" which cold be used to increase the competitiveness of their products and which might not have a substantial effect on the environment and human health. The standard for HC is 0.41 gram per mile, and for CO is 3.4 grams per mile.

Data from initial tests of the WHV suggest that its widespread use could make possible a solution to this economic/environmental impasse. Because of the substantial reduction of NOx and CO (and HC to a lesser extent), the stricter standards could be met with existing equipment. It is very possible that some pollution controls could even be removed outright or replaced with less expensive ones. The dual-bed converter and closed-loop feedback systems, for example, probably could be removed in favor of simpler pre-1981 systems (Ref. 33). A smaller, less expensive converter might be possible, and some controls such as knock sensors probably could be eliminated. Even though some catalytic conversion and exhaust recirculation would still be required, it may be possible to reduce the cost of necessary emission controls by about $300 per car (Ref. 34). This could more than offset the cost of the WHV, which almost certainly would cost less than $100 each.

D. Competitiveness of the US Auto Industry ~

The US auto industry is in trouble. Since the turn of the century, it has had a vital place in the economy; its success and its productive genius have long been a source of national pride. For a number of reasons, including increased concerns over fuel economy and air quality and the pressure from low-cost high-quality imports, the domestic industry has serious problems to overcome.

The importance of the industry to the economy is well known. Employment in 1978 was 14 million people, about one-fifth of all the jobs in the nation (Ref. 35). Indirectly, many more people in other industries rely on sales to the auto industry and on purchases by its workers. It is not surprising, therefore, that the current depression in that industry has been a great setback for the economy in general. In 1980, auto production was the lowest it had been in 20 years, while auto imports (mainly from Japan and Germany) were at record highs. In that year, the industry lost $4.2 billion, the largest loss in its history, and severe losses have been experienced in 1981 and 1982.

Compounding the problem for the auto industry is its need to meet this competition by investing in new models at a time when it can least afford to do so. The severe monetary losses have not only cut into income but also into company reserves. Faced with dwindling reserves, limited cash flow, and record-high interest rates in a highly competitive market, the industry is clearly in a dilemma. The industry has repeatedly recognized the need for innovation in its struggle for economic viability in the face of strong competition from foreign manufacturers. As the National Research Council and the National Academy of Engineering point out in their report on the competitive status of the US auto industry (Ref. 36):

"The transformation of the auto industry from a mature, technologically quiet industry into a hotbed of innovation and change creates opportunities for US firms to attain competitive advantages through development of radically new products. The same, however, can be said of the Japanese and the Europeans. Whether US-based production regains lost market share by creating and exploiting new markets depends on its ability to "out innovate" its competitors."

The least costly path to recovery would be for the auto industry to make the most efficient use of existing equipment and tooling while buying time to develop more advanced lines. The WHV, if proven successful and if accepted by the industry, could easily be adapted to most new cars at little or no additional cost because unnecessary equipment probably could then be removed. The only engine that it cold not be used on are those that do not have intake manifolds for the fuel such as port fuel-injection and some diesel engines. It might also be necessary to replace some intake manifolds that have baffles with simpler, straighter manifolds to increase the opportunity for thorough mixing of the gasoline vapor and air. Because it is self-regulated by engine demand, the same size valve could be used on a maker’s entire line of engines, thereby minimizing production costs. Test data indicates that the valve could be expected to increase  fuel economy and torque, to lower emissions and octane requirements, and to improve driveability, while possible saving the maker (and ultimately the consumer) about $200 per car. Lower engine maintenance costs and operating expenses, if realized across the fleet, could also be expected to increase buyer interest in new cars equipped with the valve.

When the valve was formally introduced to the automobile and oil industries on October 15, 1980, the Webster-Heise Corporation made an interesting proposal. It offered to grant US automakers a head start by preventing for 5 years the use of the valve on foreign cars imported to the US. If accepted, this could be expected to have the effect of shifting buyer interest away from the imports and toward the domestic models. The increased performance and lower operating cost of the modified domestic cars would probably increase their appeal in the marketplace. If that proved to be the case, then it is possible that the WHV could enhance the competitiveness of the US auto industry.

VII. Is There A Federal Role?

In a market economy, improvements in automotive technology are normally the province of private enterprise. Such innovation is a matter of entrepreneurial decision and risk; it ultimately succeeds or fails in the crucible of the competitive marketplace. This process, to which virtually all products and services are subject, is constant and pervasive. The Federal role, in theory and to a somewhat lesser extent in practice, is largely to be a rational consumer in this market and to regulate the marketplace in such a way that competition operates to the benefit of society. Occasionally, however, the Federal Government intervenes to accomplish certain consensus national goals. There are, therefore, cases both for and against Federal encouragement of the WHV.

Federal options in this matter include (a) no Federal action, (b) Federal laboratory testing of the valve in the wide range of vehicles and circumstances necessary for commercial utilization and publication of the results, and (c) Federal field testing of the valve by installation in a working fleet of Government vehicles over an extended period with published results.

The case for Federal action along the lines of (b) or (c) might be summarized as follows:

1. There is reason to believe that the market is working imperfectly in this case with the result that full testing and introduction of the valve is being prevented or delayed and consumers are being denied its benefits.

2. Significant progress in meeting certain important national goals is being frustrated by corporate timidity or an unfortunate confluence of market forces with respect to the Webster-Heise technology. The national interests being frustrated are:

a. Fuel self-sufficiency;

b. Reduction of severe balance-of-trade deficits;

c. Competitiveness of the US auto industry;

d. Environmental health and well-being;

e. Reduction of inflation.

3. The potential social benefits if this technology far outweigh the market rewards to be reasonably expected by auto manufacturers or commercial users of the WHV. For this reason, it is justifiable in theory and in practice that society (through the Federal Government) share in the cost of development and testing.

4. The cost of Federal laboratory or field testing is small relative to the potential benefits. Tests might be conducted on the Postal Service fleet, where a large body of information could be obtained on a wide variety of vehicles. Other Federally sponsored tests might be conducted by the NASA, EPA, DOT, and DOE, all of which have conducted similar tests in the past.

The case against Federal intervention with respect to the WHV might include the following:

1. The market is not working imperfectly in this case. The Webster-Heise technology has been in the marketplace for only two years; substantial testing has occurred and the results are known to a limited extent in the industry; much about the valve remains unknown and corporate decision-making is in progress.

2. All of the claimed societal benefits rest on the assumption that the technology works as claimed and that it would be practically and economically applicable to mass production and use. Similar societal benefits were or could have been argued over the past 50 years for scores of device which failed or had negative offsets in practical application.

3. Market acceptance of the Webster-Heise technology also rests upon its not being preempted by other technologies designed to achieve similar automotive goals; toward these ends a considerable research effort is currently underway both here and abroad. This is a matter for testing and decision-making in the marketplace without preferential government intervention.

4. Whether or not the market fully reflects the potential social benefits of this technology, if it works as claimed and is competitively superior to the other approaches, there is more than ample incentive for entrepreneurial venture investment. If the leading automotive and engine makers and users show reticence to being testing there may also be cause for reticence on the part of the Federal Government to subsidize testing when there are other technologies competing for market acceptance.

References ~

1. David Gushee, et al. (Congressional Research Service): "History and Future of Spark Ignition Engines"; Committee Print prepared for the Senate Committee on Public Works, Serial 93-10, USGPO (Sept 1973),p. 3-21

2. National Research Council and the National Academy of Engineering: "The Competitive Status of the US Auto Industry: A Study of the Influences of Technology in Determining International Industrial Competitive Advantage"; National Acad. Press, 1982, pp 132-157.

3. Sherwood Webster and Richard Heise: "Intake Manifold Variable Atomizing Valve", US Patent # 4,187,820 (Feb 12, 1980)

4. Sherwood Webster and Richard Heise: "Variable Capacity Fuel Delivery System for Engines", US Patent # 4,285, 320

5. Sherwood Webster and Richard Heise: "Fuel Delivery System for Combustion Devices", US Patent # 4,385,414

6. Sherwood Webster and Richard Heise: "Thermodynamic Conditioning of Air or any other Gas to Increase the Operating Efficiency of Diverse Energy Consuming Systems", US Patent # 4,493,750.

7. Sherwood Webster and Richard Heise: Personal Communication to David Lindahl, Aug 9, 1982

8. Ibid., August 10, 1982.

9. William Adams (Chief Engineer, Ethyl Research Lab.), Personal communication with David Lindahl, July 13, 1982.

10. Richard Smith (Mgr., Corporate Development, Standard Oil Co of Ohio), Personal communication to E. Taber, Oct 31, 1980.

11. Robert Sanborn (Assoc. Counsel, Ford Motor Co), personal communication to S. Webster, June 12, 1981.

12. S. Webster, personal communication to Donald Peterson, Feb 6, 1981.

13. Sanborn, p. 2-3.

14. S. Webster, personal communication to D. Lindahl, Aug 10, 1982.

15. R. Hokanson (Chrysler Corp.) "Demonstration of Intake Manifold Variable Atomizing Valve", Oct 20, 1980, p. 2

16. S. Webster, personal communication to D. Lindahl, Aug 31, 1982.

17. George Unzelman (Ethyl Corp.); "Return to Leaded Seen Saving 3 billion Bbl of US Crude"; Oil and Gas J., Oct 15, 1979, p. 106

18. Oil and Gas J.; "US Lead Entitlements Urged", May 31, 1982, p. 177.

19. Lunberg Letter; "As the Market Clears Artificial Price Spread Collapses", Vol. IX, # 32 (June 11, 1982), p. 6.

20. John Matson (PACE Co. Consultants and Enggrs.), Personal communication to S. Webster, April 10, 1981, p. 1

21. Matson, p. 2

22. PACE Co.; 4th Ann. PACE Energy and Petrochemical Seminar, Houston TX, Nov 1980, p. D-8.

23. Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, "Plunge in US Imports Radically Alters Crude Supply Mix", Vol. XXI, #35, Aug 30, 1982, p. 1-2.

24. McGinty, L.: "A Clean Case Against Lead in Petrol", New Scientist, May 27, 1982, p. 570

25. F. Bracco (Princeton Univ.), "Combustion and Chemical Kinetics in Internal Combustion Engines", Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 62 (1977), p. 162

26. Joseph Biniek, D. Lindahl: "Environmental Issues Associated with the Auto Industry", Congressional Research Service, Nov 2, 1981, p. 13.

27. Sandra Sugawara, "EPA Trying to Ease Out of a Leaden Box", Washington Post, May 21, 1982, p. A19.

28. Felicity Barringer, "Debate Over Lead in Gasoline Revs Up Again"; Washington Post (Oct 15, 1981), p. A-11.

29. Joel Schwartz (EPA), "Health Effects of Gasoline Lead Emissions", Cove Memorandum to accompany HUD official comments on the lead phasedown proposal (May 11, 1982), p. 7, 12.

30. Robert Kennedy (Chief of State and Local Controls Program Section, EPA). Internal Memorandum (Jan 27, 1982), p. 1.

31. Wellford, et al. (prepared for the Canadian Embassy), "Fact Sheet on Acid Rain". (1982), pp. 3-7.

32. Ibid., p. 3-7

33. Biniek and Lindahl, p. 18.

34. Sherwood Webster, personal communication with D. Lindahl (Aug 10, 1982).

35. Biniek and Lindahl, p. 3.

36. National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering, p. 154-156.

37. William Matthes and Ralph McGill, GM Res. Lab., "Effects of Degrees of Fuel Atomization on Single-Cylinder Engine Performance", Soc. Automotive Engineers Paper 760117, presented at the Automotive Engg. Congress and Exposition (Detroit, MI, Feb 23-27, 1976)

38. Paul Senders, "Handbook of Aerosol Technology", Van Nostrand NY, 1979, p. 264.

39. G. A. Harrow, "The Effect of Mixture Preparation on Fuel Economy" in Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine: Fuel, Lubricant and Other Effects, ed. By D. Blackmore and A. Thomas (Shell Res. Ltd), J. Wiley and Sons, NY 1977, p. 94.

40. D. Boam (National Engg. Lab., Glasgow), "A Computer Model of Fuel Evaporation in the Intake System of a Carbureted Petrol Engine", IMECE Conf. Publication 1979-9, Inst. Mech. Engg., London, 1979, p. 32.

41. D. Foringer (Gulf Res. and Dev. CO.), "Gasoline Factors Affecting Fuel Economy", Paper 650427 presented at the API Midyear meeting, May 1965, p. 243.

42. Foringer, p. 243

43. Ibid., p. 243.

44. Ibid., p. 243.

45. C. Bennett: "Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer", McGraw-Hill, NY, 1974, p. 244.

46. GM Corp.: "Theory and Diagnosis of Chevrolet Carburetors", Training Manual No. ST-339-71 (1971), p. 2

47. R. Collins (Physics Dept., Univ. Houston): "Flow of Liquids Through Porous Materials", Reinhold, 1961, p. 247-248.

48. Robert Perry and Cecil Chilton: "Chemical Engineers Handbook", 5th Edition; McGraw-Hill 1978, pp. 5-37.

49. K. Masters: "Spray Drying"; John Wiley and Sons, NY 1976, p. 184.

50. Perry and Chilton, pp. 18-61.

51. Ibid., pp. 18-64.

52. K. Masters, p. 299.

53. Ibid., p. 308

54. Ibid., p. 296

55. Sanders, p. 105

56. Perry and Chilton, pp. 18-61.

57. Masters, p. 16.

58. Donals Fitts (Univ. Pennsylvania Chem. Dept.): "Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics: A Phenomenological Theory of Irreversible Processes in Fluid Systems"; McGraw-Hill, 1962, p. 1.

59. Bennett, p. 1

60. Perry and Chilton, p. 14-15.

61. H. Pruppacher and R. Rasmussen (Univ. Calif. Dep.t of Atmospheric Sci.): "A Wind Tunnel Investigation of the Rate of Evaporation of Large Water Droplets Falling at Terminal Velocity in Air"; J. Atmos. Sci. 36: 1258 (July 1979).

62. H. Tennekes and J. Lumley: "A First Course in Turbulence"; MIT Press, 1972, p. 3.

63.  Ibid., p. 7

64. Ibid., p. 7

65. Ibid., p. 2

66. Tennekes and Lumley, pp. 2-4.

67. Ibid., p. 4.

68. Alan Pope and Kenneth Goin (Sandia Corp.): "High Speed Wind Tunnel Testing", J. Wiley and Sons, 1979, p. 101.

69. Perry and Chilton, pp. 5-49

70. Ibid., pp. 18-61.

71. Ibid., pp. 18-61

72. Masters, p. 212

73. Perry and Chilton, pp. 18-49

74. Perry and Chilton, pp. 18-60

75. Sanders, p. 146.

76. Felix Pierce (Virginia Polytechnic Inst Dept of Mech. Engg.): "Microscopic Thermodynamics: The Kinetic Theory and Statistical Thermodynamics of Dilute Gas Systems".

77. Harvey Palmer (Distillation Res. Lab., Rochester Ins.t of Technology): "The Hydrodynamic Stability of Rapidly Evaporating Liquids at Reduced Pressure"; J. Fluid Mechanics 75 (3): 487 (1976).

78. Ibid., pp. 487-489

79. H. Palmer (Univ. Rochester): "Enhanced Interfacial Heat Transfer by Differential Recoil Instabilities"; International J of Heat and Mass Transfer (Jan., 1981), p. 117.

80. [Missing ]

81. Ibid., p. 118.

82. H. Palmer (Univ. Rochester): "Spontaneous Comvection in Organic Liquids Evaporating at Reduced Pressures"; Petroleum Res. Fund Grant # 9146-AC7 (Oct 30, 1980), p. 1

83. Mohammed Anis and Paul Buthod (Univ. Tulsa, Dept. of Chem. Engg.): "How Flashing Fluids Change Phase in Pipelines", Oil and Gas J (June 24, 1974), p. 150.

84. Ibid., p. 151

85. Ibid., p. 151

86. Anis and Buthod, p. 151

87. Harrow, p. 89

88. Ibid., p. 93

89. J. Goulburn (Queen’s Univ) and D. Hughes (New Univ. of Ulster): "Mixing of Vaporized Petrol and Air in Automobile Inlet Systems", in Fuel Economy and Emission of Lean Burns, Inst. of Mech. Engineering Conference Publications, 1978-9.

90. Ibid., p. 100

91. Ibid., p. 115

92. F. Marsee and R. Olfree (Ethyl Corp): "Distribution Factors That Influence Emissions and Operation of Lean Burn Engines, Fuel Economy and Emissions of Lean Burn Engines, Automobile Div of the Inst of Mech Enggrs., Inst. Mech Eng. H,Q, June 12-14, 1979, p. 129

93. Goulburn and Hughes, p. 97

94. Toboldt and Johnson: Automotive Encyclopedia; Goodheart-Wilcox, 1977, p. 265

95. Ibid., p. 265

96. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 266

97. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 265

98. Ibid., p. 266

99. Ibid., p. 266

100. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 266

101. Ibid., p. 266

102. Ibid., p. 266

103. Ibid., p. 268

104. David Hwang (Ford Motor Co): "Fundamental Parameters of Vehicle Economy and Acceleration"; Automotive Fuel Economy, Soc. Of Automotive Enggrs., 1976, p. 266

105. Marsee and Olree, p. 129

106. Marsee and Olree, p. 132

107. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 95

108. R. Sekar (Cummins Engine CO): "A Primer of Charge Air Cooling", Soc of Automotive Enggrs., Automotive Engg., May 1982, p. 31.

109. Ibid., p. 31

110.Combustion Technology manual. Industrial Heating Eqpt. Assoc., 1980, p. 9

111. Ibid., p. 226

112. I. Robinson: "The Effect of Gasoline Additives on Fuel Economy", ed by D. Blackmore and A. Thomas (Shell Res. Ltd), J. Wiley and Sons, 1977, p. 84

113. Ibid., p. 13

114. "Combustion Technology Manual", p. 4

115. M. Rashidi (Univ. of Technology, Tehran): "The Nature of Cycle-by-Cycle Variations in the S.I. Engine from High-Speed Photographs", Combustion and Flame 42: 121 (1981).

116. G. Harrow and P. Clarke (Shell Res. Ltd.): "Mixture Strength Control of Engine Power" in "Fuel Economy and Emissions of Lean Burn Engines", Inst. Of Mech. Enggrs., Conference Publication 1979-9 (June 12-14, 1979), p. 12.

117. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 230.

118. Ibid., p. 230

119. Ibid., p. 2331

120. M. Khovakh: "Motor Vehicle Engines", MIR Publishers, Moscow, 1971, p. 142.

121. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 231

122. Ibid., p. 231

123. Robinson, p. 79

124. Khovah, p. 144

125. Ibid., p. 145

126. Khovakh, p. 123

127. Ibid., p. 143.

128. Ibid., p. 147

129. B. Seth (Princeton Univ.), S. Aggarval (Carnegie-Mellon Inst.) and W. Sirigano (Carnegie-Mellon Inst.): "Flame Propagation Through an Air-Fuel Spray Mixture with Droplet Vaporization", Combustion and Flame 39: 149 (1980)

130. Ibid., p. 165

131. Ibid., p. 164

132. Khovakh, p. 131

133. Ibid., p. 131

134. Ibid., p. 131

135. Ibid., p. 132

136. James Mattavi (GM Res. Lab.): "Fast-Burn Chamber Design Improves Efficiency, Lowers Emissions", Automotive Engg (Nov 1980), p. 90

137. Encyclopedia Britannica, vol 12, p. 389 (1972)

138. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 94

139. R. Burtner (Sun Group) and W. Morris (E.I. DuPont de Nemours Inc.): "The Effects of Refinery Gasoline Components on Road Octane Quality", Paper 780949, Soc. Of Automotive Enggs., 1979, pp. 3523-4

140. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 229

141. Rashidi, p. 111

142. H. Kuroda, et al.: "The Fast Burn with Heavy EGR"; Paper 78006, Soc. Of Automotive Engrs. 1979, pp. 5-7

143. Rashidi, p. 112

144. Ibid., p. 120

145. ibid., p. 121

146. Kuroda, et al., p. 7
147. Robert Loftness: "Energy Handbook", Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., 1978, p. 409

148. Harrow, p. 103

149. Y. El Banhavy and J. Whitelow (Dept. Mech. Engg., Imperial College of Sci. and Tech.): "Experimental Study of the Interaction Between a Fuel Spray and Surrounding Combustion Air"; Combustion and Flame 42: 274 (1981)

150. M. Harada, et al.: "Fast-Burn Engine Developed"; Automotive Engg., Feb 1981, p. 43.

151. J. Novak and P. Blumberg (Ford Motor Co.): "Parametric Simulation of Significant Design and Operating Alternatives Affecting the Fuel Economy and Emissions of Spark-Ignited Engines"; Report 780943, Soc. Of Automotive Engineers

152. Marks, p. 9-108

153. Novak and Blumberg, p. 3488

154. Ibid, p. 3491

155. Ibid., p. 3493

156. Ibid., p. 3497

157. US House of Representatives Committee on Govt Operations. Automotive Fuel Economy: EPA’s Performance. USGPO (May 13, 1980), p. 11

158. Ibid., p. 11

159. Khovakh, p. 139

160. Harrow, p. 101

161. Fed. Highway Admin. Dept. Transportation: "Purposes of Vehicle Trips and Travel"; USGPO (Dec. 1980), p. 10

162. Khovakh, p. 56

163. F. Braco (Princeton Univ.): "Combustion and Chemiscal Kinetics Problems in IC Engines"; Astronautics and Aeronautics 62: 172 (1977)

164. Andrew Adamczyk and George Lavoie (Ford Motor Co.): "Laminar Head-on Flame Quenching -- A Theoretical Study"; Report 780969. Soc. Automotive Engineers, 1979, p. 3661

165. Ibid., p. 3665

166. R. Blint and J. Bechtel (GM Res. Lab.): "One-Wall Quenching: An Unlikely Exhaust HC Source"; Automotive Engineering (April 1982), p. 61

167. Charles Westbrook (Lawrence Livermore Lab.), et al.: "A Numerical Study of Laminar Flame Wall Quenching"; Combustion and Flame 40: 93 (1981)

168. Craig Marks and George Niepoth (GM Corp.): "Car Design for Economy and Emissions"; SAE Report 750954 in Automotive Fuel Economy, Soc. Automotive Engineers, 1976, p. 159

169. El Bahnawy and Whitelaw, p. 271-272

170. Ibid., p. 270-271

171. Novak and Blumberg, p. 3496

172. Automotive Encyclopedia, p. 330

173. T. Wakisaka, et al.: "Measurements of Air Swirl and Its Turbulence Characteristics in the Cylinder of an IC Combustion Engine"; in Fuel Economy and Emission of Lean Burn Engines, Inst. Of Mech. Engineers Conf. Publications 1979-9 (June 12-14), p. 51

174. R. Thring (Ricardo Consulting Engineers Ltd): "The Effects of Varying Combustion Rate in Spark Ignited engines"; SAE Paper 790387 in Automotive Fuel Economy, part 2, Soc. Automotive Engineers, 1979, p. 229

175. Ibid., p. 233

176. Ibid., p. 233

177.Mattavi, p. 86

178. A. Mellor (Combustion Lab., School of Mech, Engg., Purdue Univ.); "Spray Combustion from an Air-Assist Nozzle"; Combustion Science and Tech. 9: 165-168 (1974)

179. Harrow, p. 98

180. Ibid., p. 98

181. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 235

182. Ibid., p. 232


Appendix One: Technical Analysis

Appendix Two: Summary of Tests




Your Support Maintains this Service --

BUY

The Rex Research Civilization Kit

... It's Your Best Bet & Investment in Sustainable Humanity on Earth ...
Ensure & Enhance Your Survival & Genome Transmission ...
Everything @ rexresearch.com on a Data DVD !

ORDER PAGE