Approval Details

Valid E.O.

Validity

This Executive Order approved the specified parts on on August 1, 1974.
As of Sunday, December 22nd, 2024 this Executive Order has not been overturned or superceeded.

Approved Parts

Models
1974 and older vehicles

This Executive Order may be listed as:
  • C.A.R.B.E.O. D-35
  • Executive Order 35 / D35
  • ARB # D-35
  • Executive Order No: D-35
  • C.A.R.B. No. D-35
  • Resolution D-35
For Free CARB Executive Order Status verification, email an image of the device Executive Order label as well as the Year/Make/Model and Test Group # of the vehicle to [email protected]

Download: Executive Order D-35 PDF

D-35 Document:

CARB_D-35

a‘ State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD EXECUTIVE ORDER D—35 Relating to Exemptions under Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code HYDRO—CATALYST CORPORATION "PRECOMBUSTION CATALYST—CALIFORNIA DESIGN" Pursuant to the authority vested in the Air Resources Board by Section 27156 of the Yehicle Code; and Pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned by Section 39023 of the Health and Safety Code; WHEREAS: It has been found that the "Precombustion Catalyst—California Besign" device has no statistically significant effects on exhaust emissions; IT IS ORDERED AMND RESOLVED: That the installation of the "Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" device manufactured by the Hydro—Catalyst Corporation has been found to not reduce the effectiveness of required motor vehicle pollution control devices and, therefore, is exempt from the prohibitions of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code for 1974 and older model—year vehicles. The device consists of two formed screens made of fine mesh wire cloth mounted under each carburetor barrel. The upstream screen is plated with cadmium and the downstream screen with nickel. This Executive Order is valid provided that installation instructions for this device will not recommend tuning the vehicle to specifications different than those listed by the vehicle manufacturer. Changes made to the design or operating conditions of the device as submitted to the Air Resources Board for evaluation that adversely affect the performance of the vehicle‘s poliution control devices shall invalidate this Executive Order. Marketing of this device using an identification other than that shown in this Executive Order or marketing of this device for an application other than those listed in this Executive Order shall be prohibited unless prior approval is obtained from the Air Resources Board. This Executive Order does not constitute any opinion as to the effect that the use of this device may have on any warranty either expressed or implied by the vehicle manufacturer.

"Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" Executive Order D—35 THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CERTIFICATION, ACCREDITATION, APPROVAL, OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENDORSEMENT BY THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD OF ANY CLAIMS OF THE APPLICANT CONCERNING ANTI—POLLUTION BENEFITS OR ANY ALLEGED BENEFITS OF THE "PRECOMBUSTION CATALYST—CALIFORNIA DESIGN" DEVICE. No claim of any kind, such as "Approved by Air Resources Board" may be made with respect to the action taken herein in any advertising or other oral or written communication. ~ Section 17500 of the Business and Professions Code makes unlawful, untrue or misleading advertising, and Section 17534 makes violation punishable as a misdemeanor. Sections 39130 and 39184 of the Healith and Safety Code provide as follows: "39130. No person shall install, sell, offer for sale, or advertise, or, except in an application to the board for certification of a device, represent, any device as a motor vehicle pollution control device unless that device has been certified by the board. No person shall sell, offer for sale, advertise, or represent any motor vehicle pollution control device as a certified device which, in fact, is not a certified device. Any violation of this section is a misdemeanor." "39184. (a) No person shall install, sell, offer for sale, or adver— tise, or, except in an application to the board for accreditation of a device, represent, any device as a motor vehicle pollution control device for use on any used motor vehicle unless that device has been accredited by the board. No person shall sell, offer for sale, adver— tise, or represent any motor vehicle pollution control device as an accredited device which, in fact, is not an accredited device. Any violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor." On the basis of its evaluation of the "Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" device, the Air Resources Board has determined that the "Precombus— tion Catalyst—California Design" device does not have a beneficial effect on gasoline mileage or exhaust emissions. Any apparent violation of the conditfons of this Executive Order will be sub— mitted to the Attorney General of California for such action as he deems advisable. Executed at Sacramento, California, this [ day of. y, 1974. WILLIAM SIMMONS Executive Officer

State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD July 23, 1974 Staff Report Evaluation of Hydro—Catalyst Corporation "Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" Device for Compliance with the Requirements of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code . Introduction On January 4, 1974, Hydro—Catalyst Corporation requested an exemption from the prohibitions of Vehicle Code Section 27156 for its "Precombustion" catalytic device. The staff reported its evaluation of the device to the Executive Officer on June 11, 1974 with the recommendation to deny Hydro—Catalyst Corporation‘s request for an exemption from the requirements of Section 27156. The recommendation was based on significant increases in hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen pfoduced by the device measured during emission testing at the Air Resources Board Laboratory. On June 18, 1974, the Executive Officer notified the Hydro—Catalyst Corporation of his denial of its application. On July 9, 1974, the Hydro—Catalyst Corporation submitted an application for a re—evaluation of a modified device relative to the requirements of Section 27156. This device has been identified as the "Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" device. I1. Device Description The modified device incorporates a screen array of the same design as the device that was initially submitted for evaluation. It consists of a pair of formed fine mesh wire cloth installed below {downstream) each

"Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" July 23, 1974 carburetor barrel. The screens are held in place by typical mounting . gaskets. Devices are avaiiable for 1—, 2— and 4—barrel carburetor installations. For a more detailed description of the screen design and device function, see Appendix 1, the staff report entitled "Evaluation of Hydro—Catalyst Corporation ‘Pre—Combustion‘ Catalytic Device for — Compliance with the Requirements of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code", dated June 11, 1974. The modified device does not employ initial Hydro—Catalyst device modifica— tions to the OEM engine settings whereas the initial Hydro-?ata1yst device did. In addition, the California Design device incorporate% changes to > x the gasket for six—cylinder Chrysler Product applications to conform with OEM one—barrel carburetors. III. Device Evaluation A. Applicant‘s Test Data The applicant submitted emission test data performed by Scott Laboratories on a 1972 Oldsmobi]e,v455 CID, 4—barrel carburetor and automatic transmission. These data were extracted from test results of a series | of tests performed on this vehicle to determine the emission effects of the screen device in combination with various changes in OEM engine settings. The submitted data are intended to show the effects of the screen device without any chariges to OEM engines settings as éompared to the baseline vehicle. Several factors preclude the possibility of directly comparing

"Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" July 23, 1974 the two sets of data. First, the device test was performed abproximately one month and 3,000 vehicle miles after the baseline tests. Second, the baseline test was performed acéording t6>the cold—start CVS test procedure and the device test was performed éccording to the hot—start CVS test procedure. Therefore, no conclu— sion can be made from these data. The submitted data are shown in Appendix II. The following is a summary of these data: Exhaust Emissions ° Device Type of Grams/Mi le Vehicle Installed Test HCG cCO NOx 1972 Oldsmobile No Cold CVS 1.39 17.59 6.67 Yes Hot CVS 1.24 13.57 4.70 Air Resources Board Test Data Emission tests were performed at the Air Resources Laboratory on the following vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions : 1972 Dodge Pick—up, 225 CID engine with T—barrel carburetor. 1972 Dodge Pick—up, 318 CID engine with 2—barrel carburetor. 1974 Chevrolet Pick—up, 350 CID engine with 4—barrel carburetor. A series of three baseline and three device hot—start CVS tests were performed on each vehicle. The tests were designed to statistically nest and balance the data obtained from the tests of the three vehicles. The vehicles were each adjusted to the vehicle manufacturer'$ engine settings for all tests. The following are the results of the emission tests:

"Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" July 23, 1974 Hot—Start CVS Fuel Device Avg. Grams/Mile Economy Vehicle Installed Ht ~COo 0X C02 MPG 1972 Dodge 225—1V No 2.09 45.14 3.30 541.9 14.3 Yes 2.28 42.31 3.48 535.5 14.6 Percent Change {9.1) (—6.3) (5.4) (—1.0) {2.0) 1972 Dodge 318—2V No 1.74 16.85 3.26 614.3 13.7 Yes 1.86 15.69 3.16 623.1 13.5 Percent Change (6.9) (—6.9) (—3.1) (1.4) (—1.5) 1974 Chevrolet 350—4V No 1.90 $.39 1.71 744.9 11.6 Yes 1.94 9.83 1.69 728.3 11.8 Percent Change (2.1) {4.7) (—1.2) (—2.2) {1.7) Fleet Avg. Percent Change {6.1) {—5.0) (0.7) (—0.8 ) {0.8) An analysis of variance statistical test with nested classification was used to evaluate these data. See Tables 1 through 4 for the statistical summaries. The analysis of variance shows no statistical difference between the emissions obtafined with and without the device at the 95% confidence level. Also, no significant difference was found in fuel economy at the 95% confidence level with and without the device. Although a 9.1% increase in HC and 5.4% increase in NOx was noted with the one—barrel carburetor, this effect was believed to be adversely influenced by intermittant operation of the vacuum spark advance temperature control unit on the vehicle. C. Durability Evaluation The 1—, 2— and 4—barrel carburetor devices were examined after the hot~start CVS test series. The wire cloths of all of the devices were relatively clean and undamaged. The 1—barrel carburetor device unci cconiitincecs ‘~ after testing is shown in Figure 1.

"Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" July 23, 1974 After compléting the hot—start CVS test series, the vehicle with the 4—barrel device accumulated approximately 2,000 miles of service. The wire cloth is coated with a residue probably composed of the dyes and additives found in the gasoline. The residue pattern appears to be briented according to the fuel passages. See Figure 1. The residue thickness would be expected to reach an equilibrium value which would not restrict air flow sufficiently to cafise an adverse effect on emissions due to the gasoline‘s solvent action. No other long term problems would be anticipated based on engineering jJudgment. Installation Instructions The Staff has verified that the suBmitted device installation instruc— tions reflect the proper OEM or exhaust retrofit device manufacturer‘s settings for idle speed and mixture ratio. The installation instructions do not contain any statements relative to ignition timing settings. Other items which the Staff required in the installation instructions were: (1) more specific instructions relating to any required choke adjust— ments; (2) the speéified torgue values corrected to show proper units {foot—pounds or inch—pounds); (3) clarify when the original carburetor mounting gaskets may be used or replaced; and (4) replace the carburetor mounting studs with longer ones when necessary rather than backing out the original studs from their mounting holes for adequate length. The applicant has satisfied all these installation instruction require~ ments.

"Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" July 23, 1974 IV. Conclusions and Recormmendations It is the Staff opinion that Hydro—Catalyst Corporations "Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" device has neither a statistically significant effect on exhaust emissions nor fuel economy. It is recommended that Hydro—Catalyst Corporation be granted an exemption from the prohibitions of Vehicle Code Section 27156 for its "Precombustion Catalyst—California Design" device for use on 1974 and older model—year vehicles.

TABLE 1 Hydrocarbons Hot—Start CVS—1 Exhaust Emission Tests Device: Hydro—Catalyst Yehicle #1: 1972 Dodge 318 CID, ¥—8, 2—barrel Vehicle #2:1 1974 Chev. P.U. 350 CID, ¥—8, 4—barrei Vehicle #3: 1972 Chev. P.U. 225 CID, 6—Cy1., l—barrel — Vehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Vehicle #3 Status Baseline w/Device Bas:line w/Device Baseline w/Device Test 1 1.88312 1.66092 ~ 1.96654 1.97853 2.22454 2.11763 2 ~1.71762 2.01534 1.86974 1.89728 2.05281 2. 34564 3 1.653249 1.91268 1.85081 1,.94325 2.00821 2. 36244 X (baseline) = 1.91176 X (w/device) = 2.02597 Analysis of Variance Sum of ‘ Mean Computed Source of Estimate Squares D.F. Squares F—VYalue Between Vehicles 0.46023 2 0.23012 15.91425 Between Devices | within Vehicles 0.07262 3 0.02421 167402 between Tests within Vehictes and Device 0.17352 > . 42 _ 0.01446 Critical F (3.12) = 3.4903 {95% confidence level) Not significant upon 95% confidence level.

TABLE 2 Carbon_Monoxide Hot—Start CVS—1 Exhaust Emission Tests Device: Hydro—Cat alyst Vehicle #1: 1972 Dodge 318 CID, ¥—8, 2—barrei Vehicle #2: 1974 Chey. P.U. 350 CID, ¥—8, 4—barrel Vehicle #3: 1972 Chev. P.U. 225 CID, 6—cy1., l—barrei Yehicle #1 Vehicle #2 ¥ehicle #3 Status Baseline w/Bevice Baseline w/Device Baseline w/Device Tests. 1 | 17.48377 16.84050 9.13490 ?0.02090 48.12819 42.98754 _2 ‘ 17.09191 15. 10659 9.77309 8.76980 45,82496 42.61895 3 | 15. 96081 15,12254 9.26830 10.72427 41,45636 41.41458 X (baseline) = 23.79137 X (w/device) = 22.61174 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Computed Source of Estimate Squares D.F. Squares F—Yalue Between Vehictes 3922.47750 2 1961.23875 794.51190 Between Device within Yehicles 14.31080 3 4.77027 1.93247 Between Tests within Vehicies and Device 29.62179 12 2.46828 Critical F (3,12) = 3.4903 (95% confidence level) No significant difference upon 95% confidence level.

TABLE 3 Oxides of Hfitrogen Hot—Start CVS—1 Exhaust Emission Tests Device: Hydro—Catalyst . VYehicle #1: 1972 Dodge 318 CI0, Y—8, 2—barrel Vehicle #21: 1974 Chey. P.U. 350 CID, V—8, 4—barrel > Vehicle #3: 1972 Chey. P.U. 225 CID, 6—cy1, l—barrel Yehicle #1 Vehicle #2 Vehicle _#3 Status Baseline w/Device Baseline . w/Device Baseline w/Device Test 0 — _ — ol 1 3.28011 3.05696 t 71.67738 1. 72541 3.92070 2.94271 2 3.28557 3.27417 1.76230 1.60365 3.03460 3.77239 3 3.20463 3.16331 1.69848 1.74240 2.95532 3.72594 K (baseline) = 2.75768 Y (w/device) = 2.77855 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean _ Computed Source of Estimate © Squares D.F. Squares . _F—Value Between Vehicles 10.3178 2 5.15889 58.93710 ‘Between Device t within Vehicles 0. 06032 3 0.02011 , 0.22930 Between Tests within n Vehicles and Device 1.05218 142 ©.08768 Critical F (3, 12) = 3.4903 (95% confidence level) Not significant upon 95% confidence level.

TABLE 4 EuelEconomy Hot—Start CVS—1 Exhaust Emission Tests Device: Hydro—Catalyst Vehicle #1: 1972 Dodge 318 CID, V—8, 2—barrel Vehicle #2: 1974 Chev. P.U. 350 CID, ¥—~8, 4—barrei VYehicle #3: 1972 Chev. P.U. 225 CID, 6—cy1l., l—barrel £1 vehicle‘ #1 Yehicle #2 Yehicle #3 Status Daseline w/Device Baseline w/Device Baseline w/Device Tests _ . . K 13.68247 13.73410 11.49567 11.62937 14.38756 _ 14.46170 2 13.70908 13.52329 11.59403 12.12500 14.19325 14.44727 3 . 13. 82234 13.36659 11.69480 11.77532 14.41829 14.81784 X (baseline) = 13.22228 X (w/device) = 13.32005 Analysis of Variance Sum of Mean Computed Source of Estimate Squares O0.F. Squares F—Value Between Vehicles 23.65917 2 11.82959 408. 93742 between Device — within Vehicles 0.23807 3 0.07936 2.74325 between Tests within ° Vehicles and Device 0. 34713 12 0.02893 Critical F (3, 12) = 3.4903 (95% confidence level) Not significant upon 95% confidence level. 10

FIGURE 1 Photograph of Hydro—Catalyst Corporation‘s "Precombustion Device—California Design" Device 1.

APPENDIX 1 State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD June 11, 1974 Staff . Report Evaluation of Hydro—Catalyst Corporation "Pre—Combustion" Catalytic Device for Compliance with the Requirements of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code T. Introduction The Hydro—Catalyst Corporation, Holmdel, New Jersey has applied for an exemption from the prohib}tions of Section 27156 the Vehicle Code for'its "Pre—Combustion" catalytic device. Section 27156 prohibits the advertising, sale or installation of any device which reduces the effectiveness of motor véhicie emission control systems. Thg applicant is requesting that fhe.exemption be granted for 1974 and older model—year vehicles. I1. Defiice Description and Function The Hydro—Catalyst Corporation‘s "Pre—Combustion" device is designed to position a pair of formed screens under {downstream) each carburetor barrel. The applicant produces devices to fit engines with 1—, 2— . and 4— barrel carburetors. See Figure 1. The screens are made of — fine mesh wire cloth and formed into conical and parabolic shapes. The upstream screen is plated with cadmium and the downstream screen with nickel. The screens are mated in assembly by a mounting gasket

APPENDIX 1 — with approximately 1/8 inch space between the screens, The applicant states that physical contact between the screens will destroy the device‘s catalytic effect. The mounting gasket is of typical laminated gasket material, f.e., nitrile rubber with asbestos fiber filler. _A coating of an electrolytic material is applied between the laminations. Grounding _ _tabs protrude from the electrolytic coating. In addition to the installation of the device, it is required that the vehicle‘s OEM engine settings be modified. The installation instructions specify advancing the initial timing up to an additional six degrees. The idle CO is adjusted by leaning the mixtfire to a constant misfire conditfon and then enrichening the mixture until only occasional misfires occur. The applicant states that through catalytic action the device will ~ precondition the air—fuel mixture in such a manner as to promote more efficient combustion. It is claimed that this enhancement is acfiié&ed by a precursory effect induced by the device to influence combustion and to lower the vehicle‘s fuel octane requireméent. Removal of engine carbon deposits, reduced air pollution and improved vehicle performance a;e also claimed. The staff evaluation concerns itself with only the effects of the device on exhaust emissions. fak n mewnnaon aunens 13.

APPENDIX 1 . III. Emission Testing ‘ The applicant submitted data obtained from a number of exhaust emission tests. However, the only data which compare the effects of the device with engine adjustments to a baseline vehicle are céntained in Scott Research Laboratories‘ reports SRL 1420 01 0174 . and ~SRL 1420 02 0374. The following are the results of baseline and device cold CVS tests performed on a 1973 Ford Mustang with .a 2—barrel carburetor and automatic transmission using Indolene 30 as the test fuel: _ cord cCVs e Baseline 246 35.66000 3.07 © 2s No s Device _ <op.56 ; 19.50 3.34 ~ > 100C‘ (Aug. 2 Tests) ~ C‘ Percent Change (3.66) (—45.32) (8.79) Additiona]bcqnfirmatory tests were performed at the Air Resources Board Laboratory to provide a better understanding of the device‘s effects. The following vehicles with automatic transmissions were used for the ARB tests: . '1972 Dodge Pick—up, 225 CID engine with 1—bb1 carburetor 1974 Dodge Pick—up, 318 CID engine with 2—bb1 carburetor 1974 Chevrolet Pick§up, 350 CID engine with 4—bb1 carburetor sheas s se NM«—' 14.

APPENDIX I A series of three baseline and three deQice hot CVS tests were performed on each vehicle. Thé vehicles were adjusted to the applicant‘s engine setting for the device tests. Indolene 30 .wgs used as the test fuel. The following are the results of the emission tests: n - . Device ' ' Ave. HotC VS grams/mile Yehicle Installed fl_(;___g_@__— NOx, 1972 Dodge 225—IV No 2.35 32.1 4.34 Yes _ C277 .100 4.06 Percent Change _ {17.9) (28.0) (—6.5) 1972 Dodge 318—2V No o orM dh2k . 349 ‘ " Yes CopmM 62530 0003.90, Percent Change ' j {10.9) (—57.0) (22.3) <. + 1974 Chev. 350—4V Ho 1.56 9.95 1.60. ‘ Yes 3.29 7.820 2.07 Percent Change <u (1Mo.0} (f—a1.4) (29.4) The inconsistent results obtained with the 225 CID Dodge in comparison with data from the other vehicles were determined by a subsequent — investigation to be the result of a malfunctioning carburetor. Con— <1 — sequently, the data obtained from tests of this vehicle are not conclusive. [o — O 215.

APPENDIX I The data obtained from the other tests indicate that the device adversely affects HC and NOx emissions and beheficially affects CO emissfions. These results can be expected as a consequence of advancing the spark timing and excessively leaning the idle mixture ratio. IV. Conclusions and Recommendations The staff conciudes that the timing and idle CO adjustments required with the installation of the Hydro—Catalyst device adversely affect HC and NOx emissions. The leaning of the air—fuel mixture also : substantially reduces CC emissions. No emission related éffects attributed to the catalyst could be determined in the evaluation. It is the staff recommendation the Hydro—Catalyst Corporation be — denfed an exemption to Vehicle Code Section 27156 for its "Pre— vvCombustion" device for installation on‘ 1974 and older model—year vehicles. 16.

wok +o | APPENDIX 1 — . ‘ O Figure 1 nb remmevess, . © | ‘ Hydro—Catalyst Corporation‘s | "Pre—Combustion" Device For A one—Barrel Carburetor Installation. a 5. > Grounding Tabs .{Typ. 2 Places Cadmium Plated | Wire Cloth Nfcke1 Plated ‘ Wire Cloth Nn e e Ne o se ~* . Direction of Flow 7. ' _ .

APPENDIX II * sCOTT RE SEARCH LABORATORIES INC._ A 5 U B S i D i A R Y O Fo A M OE RoG C A No B i O C U L T U R oE , 1N C . PLUMSTEADVILLE, PENNA, 18949 PHONE 215 766—8861 TABLE 3 — 1972 EPA HOT START, A EXHAUST EXMISSION DATA SHEET uw Vehicle 1972 Olds CustomCruiser Odome ter Date 4/3/72 __ Liconse V{__lgy__gfi Finish 7100 .7 Progcct__12_302. Trans. Automatic Start 7093. 1 Run Carb. 6N bbols. Miles 7.6 Device Carb Catgllyt Engine v8 CID 455 o Dyn. Load Hflf_épLual 14.2 IGle X 600 (Prive) BIT 8" @ 1100 RPM Dyn. Inertia 5500# ___ Ahnalyst ___RrS Drivexr DG Calculator RS Dry Bulb 9 ; F 56.5 Baromatric Press., mm Hg 747.87 Wet Gulb Temp., P 78.5 CVS Pump Pross., mm Hg —11.97 Gr. Watar/Ll. Dry Air 32 * (P) Sample Pross., mm Hg 735 35.90 _ () Pactor_ 8319 M (V) CVS Pusp Disp., CFR 13760 ~—~ _ ‘ SanpleTcn'z 1 0R _579.7 (N) CVS. Punp Revolutions 24,689 DILUTE EXHAUST NEASUKEMENTS compoxeNnt + PVR/T FACTOR > GRAMS/HILE ppm NC dil. 89.93 * ppm HC air 9.41 ppin JC exh. 80. 52 10217 11513 x 1075 1.24 _ nc ppm CO exh. 435 e 3.054 x 106 13.57 co ppn RO * .ppm RO, ppm NOy, 110. 33 (ppm xo) (®) __91.78 10217 5.017 x 10~C 4 .70 RO, NOTES : 1. Lead free Indolene Casoline. 2. Factory idle mixture (4% turns from closed) © PLOLibefeaSIh hB bry, L ; +0 fan||! I!NI\R(NNOtl\\ lr ® Manihoniurtsibt, iob &

— APPENDIX II — 3COTT RESEARCH LABORATORIES INC. C hal_. A 5 U B § i D l A R Y O PA M OE Roi C A N B 1 0 C U L T U R oE , 1 N C . © PLUMSTEADVILLE, PENNA. 18949 PHONE 215 766—8061 REFoRE TEest—Aso BeromRe ENoNE pEPosiT NoRmauzamponN TABLE 1 — 1972 EPA COLD START 1 EXHAUST EMISSION DATA SHEET Vehicle _1972 OldsmoblleCustom CruiseDdometor pate 2/22/72 License __NJ _YQ\L_EEC;_ Finish 4186.7 Project 1283—00 Trans. Automatic Start 4179.0 Run #1 Cark. bbls . _4 Miles 7.7 Dovice None_ Engine CID 55 6 Dyn. Load _14.2_~BHP C 50 mpl Dr.,11 ldle KPH _600 1100 Neutral BIP 8.5 _BIDC pyn. Inertia 5500 7# L__ hnalyst W Driver DG Calculator DC Dry Bulb Fomp., F _____75 Barometric Press., mm Hg 7&8:27 _ vet Bulb Temp., P 5_/_4__ > CVS Pump Pross., mm Hg |____12.34 _ Gr. Water/Lib. bDry Air 40 (P) Sample Pross., mm Hg 23663. ) Factor_ 8587 {V) CVS Fump Disp., CFR 3290____ “ Sample Tomp., .R ___579.7 (N) CVS Pump Revolutions 24615 DILUTE EXNMUSYT MEASUREMENTS COKPONENT PN/TI FACTOR GRAMS/HILE ppm HC ail. _105.89 ___ pma HC air 15.95 pya HC exh. 89.94 10197 1.513 x 107C 38 _ ne pyie CO exh. 565 10197 3.054 x 10~9 7.59 co ppin NO _ L pym NOp 22222222222 151.72 L ppa HO,, (ppm xoJ (k) 130.3 10197 5.017 3 19~C 6.67 L.. NO, 19. eWns hig diimihh i iote s KAN NERNARDINO, CALIF, * MADISON HPIQHTS, MECHL


Document Created: 2005-09-01 12:41:54
Document Modified: 2005-09-01 12:41:54

| Previous E.O. D-34 | Next E.O. D-35-1 | Next E.O. D-36