Monday, January 23, 2012
Inventions Suppressed by the EPA
Or so we would be led to believe.
The solution to this quandary lies (as so many others) within the halls of our government, made visible when you take a little look at history.
The purpose of this agency is explained in its name, and it has accomplished many good and wonderful things. Things like environmental clean-up of hazardous waste, monitoring and cleaning up industrial pollution and tremendous fines for violators (which are rarely collected, except from the little guys).
In response to the outraged citizens' cry for help, our government, in conjunction with the newly formed EPA, established acceptable testing methodologies and dubbed them the "Federal Testing Protocols" or FTP. These tests put a vehicle through a series of driving conditions during which the exhaust was monitored and measured, and the claims either validated or invalidated.
Both the consumer and the successful inventor now had their champion. Someone they could trust to both protect the unwary and to defend the righteous. Inventors with discoveries to share with others turned to them, all to be turned away as abject failures.
In its entire history, the EPA has not found one single innovation to be effective at increasing fuel efficiency. After thousands (or tens of thousands) of inventions being tested by their protocols, not one has received their vote of approval.
Thousands of inventions proved false? Doesn't this strike you as odd?
As you read on, remember the phrase "your mileage may vary". This was the disclaimer put on every vehicle sold in the USA, which these tests validated. The reason is they have known since day one their tests were not conclusive, and this was their way out.
Here's how the testing procedures work.
A vehicle is presented to the testing facility, and subjected to a battery of tests where the vehicle is run under simulated operating conditions in a controlled environment. Samples (this fact is curiously not mentioned in their description) of the exhaust are taken throughout the entire course which are then tested for carbon content. Applying certain algorithms, and considering the displacement of the engine, the fuel consumption is determined.
Ask yourself one question. If you don't measure the fuel consumption, how can you get a mileage count?
Look at it like this. Take a bottle of water and remove an eye dropper full and have it analyzed. The results will show H2O and whatever trace minerals are present. Drink almost all the water and repeat the process. The tests will be identical, with the addition of a little of your saliva, because the percentages of the constituents are the same. Yet only a fraction of the water remains.
According to the EPA, both bottles hold the same amount of water.
With cars, the computer determines the percentages in the exhaust using what is known as an Oxygen Sensor. This device senses the oxygen present in the exhaust and sends a signal to the computer. The computer takes that signal and translates that into the Air-Fuel Ratio. Then, as the engine runs, it continues to adjust the AFR to keep it at the level for which it was programmed.
So, no matter how much fuel your system consumed, the computer, doing what it does, will always keep the ratio (the percentage values) within a certain range.
Let me repeat that. "The computer will always keep the percentage values of the exhaust within a certain range." So, these tests can never show a mileage gain, as all they measure are percentages!
So long as the computer modulates the fuel delivery, they can not show any gains in these tests with ANY device that works on engine efficiency. Ever. Period. End of discussion.
When I approached the EPA regarding the inadequacies of their testing protocols I discovered in validating The Gadgetman Groove, they referred me to a new program, called the Environmental Technology Verification Program (or the ETV) who "verifies the performance of innovative technologies that have the potential to improve protection of human health and the environment."
The problem is they refused to alter these protocols by adding the additional parameters of measuring the fuel consumed during the tests, or the quantity of the exhaust. Either of these would solve the issue, but they refused, stating this "does not fit accepted EPA testing protocols" and would thereby "render any results so obtained invalid."
After more than three months of communications with this division, they finally stopped answering my calls and my e-mails.
Why? I mean, if their mission statement says the ETV "develops test protocols" why won't they add these parameters? Is there something wrong with measuring the fuel? How would this invalidate the results?
The bottom line here is many thousands of people, myself included, have fallen prey to this falsehood. An unknown number of solutions have been created to solve our world's problems, and the respected authorities, through application of faulty and inadequate testing methods, shove them (and their solutions) into obscurity.
If they were to agree to adding to the protocols, it would prove conclusively the fraud that has been perpetrated on every fuel-efficiency developer since the mid-70's that has submitted their devices for validation.
And that, they will not do,
It is tme for us to make up our own minds, and to not only question authority, but to challenge it.