Approval Details

Valid E.O.

Validity

This Executive Order approved the specified parts on on August 29, 1974.
As of Saturday, October 12th, 2024 this Executive Order has not been overturned or superceeded.

Approved Parts

Models
1974 and older, EXCEPT: (1) Vehicles with OE electronic ignition system (2) 1966-1970 vehicles with Dana or Carter NOx retrofit device using an electronic speed sensor

This Executive Order may be listed as:
  • C.A.R.B.E.O. D-36
  • Executive Order 36 / D36
  • ARB # D-36
  • Executive Order No: D-36
  • C.A.R.B. No. D-36
  • Resolution D-36
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-36 PDF

D-36 Document:

CARB_D-36

State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD EXECUTIVE ORDER D—36 Relating to Exemptions under Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code ENERGY INNOVATIONS "CGAS ENERGIZER £1—100" Pursuant to the authority vested in the Air Resources Board by Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code; and Pursuant to the authority vested in the undersigned by Section 39023 of the Health and Safety Code; IT IS ORDERED AND RESQOLYED: That the installation of "Gas Energizer EI—100" device manufactured by Energy Innovations of 32136 Beach Lake Lane, Westlake Village, California 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 except the following: 1. All vehicles equipped with an electronic ignition system. 2. All 1966—70 model—year vehicles equipped with a Dana or Carter NOx retrofit device using an electronic speed sensor. The "Gas Energizer EI—100" is a single wire cofl wound in alternating directions with a non—magnetic core. The coil is encapsulated in a plastic mold and is stationary mounted by plastic tie down fasteners. The device also includes two snap—fit electronic suppression cables. 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 criginally submitted to the Air Resources Board for evaluation that adversely affect the performance of the vehicle‘s pollution 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.

"GAS ENERGIZER E1—100" EXECUTIVE ORDER D—36 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 "GAS ENERGIZER EI—100" 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 Health 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 cert1f1ed 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." Any apparent violation of the conditions 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 &2 4 day of August, 1974. WILLIAM SIMMONS Executive Officer

State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD August 22, 1974 Staff Report Evaluation of the Energy Innovations "Gas Energizer EI—100" Non—Magnetic Coil for Exemption from the Prohibition of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code 1. Introduction Energy Innovations, 32136 Beach Lake Lane, Westlake Village, California 91361 has applied for exemption from the prohibitions of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code for its "Gas Energizer EI—100" device. This section prohibits the installation of any device which may reduce the effective— ness of the motor vehicle emission control system. The applicant is requesting the exemption be granted for all 1974 and older model—year vehicles except the following: 1 — All vehicles equipped with an electronic ignition system. 2 — All 1966—70 model—year vehicles equipped with a Dana or Carter NOx retrofit device using an electronic speed sensor. II. System Description and Function The device is a non—magnetic coil consisting of a single insulated copper wire wound in alternating directions around a Cycolac (pTasfic) core. The device shown in Figure 1 is 2 in. x 2 in. square,9 in. long, and weighs approximately 1—1/4 lbs. The coil shown in Finge 2 Has 200 to 214 turns and is encapsulated in Cycolac. It has an electrical resistance of 1.2 to 1.4 ohms and uses No. 22 SPN insulated copper wire. TVRS (TV and radio suppression) cables with snap—fit connection are inserted into the terminals at each end of the coil. The TVRS cables are connected to the OEM coil and to the distributor.

Evaluation of the Energy Innovations "Gas Energizer EI—100" Non—Magnetic Coil for Exemption from the Prohibitions of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code August 22, 1974 The applicant claims that the'“Gas Energizer E1I—100" will reduce the output voltage of the OEM coil if high and will increase the output voltage of the OEM coil if low. The ARB staff is of the opinion that this device would have an insignificant effect on the output voltage in efther direction since the device has no magnetic core and has a relatively small electrical resistance. III. System Evaluation A. Applicant‘s Data The applicant submitted superimposed spark curve pictures taken from a 1969 Lincoln Continental Mark III, see Figure 3. These pictures show a decrease in the output voltage. The applicant also submitted Olson Laboratories, Inc. report # 8855—5101 dated July 2, 1974. This report contains data from Federal hot CVS tests performed on the following vehicles: 1974 Ford Pinto, 2.3L, 4—cylinders, auto. trans. (915 KHN), 1967 Lincoln Continental, 462 CID, V—8, auto. trans. (TRA 886). The obtained data are as follows: Grams/Mile Ford Pinto _HC_ CcB _NOx_ Baseline 0.51 21.00 1.18 Device 0.99 20.09 1.07 % Change 94.1 ~4.3 —9.3

Evaluation of the Energy Innovations "Gas Energizer EI—100" Non—Magnetic Coil for Exemption from the Prohibitions of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code August 22, 1974 Grams/Mile Lincoln Continental _HC_ cCO NOx Baseline 2.38 37 .22 6.16 Device 2.36 36 .40 5.79 % Change —0.8 —2.2 —6.0 An evaluation of the above data indicates that the increase in HC from the Ford Pinto may have been due to a possible misfire or a restart during the test. Consequently, the ARB staff performed a confirmatory test series on an identical Ford Pinto to investigate this increase in HC. In additioh, a 1974 Dodge 360 CID was used to investigate detailed electrical system characteristics. B. ARB Testing The ARB performed calibration tests to investigate the effect of the "Gas Energizer EI—100" on the engine electrical system. A 1974 Dodge Monaco, 360 CID, V—8, auto. trans. (DH 430—41657587) vehicle was used. The following results were obtained with the engine in the unloaded condition. 1. Centrifugal spark advance — degrees (BTDC) RPM_ Baseline Device 1000 7 8 1500 21 21 2000 23 23 2500 25 26 3000 27 27

Evaluation of the Energy Innovations "Gas Energizer E1—100" Non—Magnetic Coil for Exemption from the Prohibitions of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code August 22, 1974 2. Secondary voltage rise time (microseconds) RPM Baseline Device 750 25 22—30 2000 20 18—22 3. Spark duration {milliseconds) RPM Baseline Device 750 1.2 1.2 2000 1.0 1.0 4. Available secondary voltage (KV) RPM Baseline — Device 650 Idle (in gear) 16 19 750 15 18 2200 9 11 5. Idle exhaust emissions HC_in_PPM x%_C0 RPM Baseline Device Baseline Device 650 Idle (in gear) 62 121 0.6 0.7 750 95 93 0.3 0.5 2200 54 50 0.1 0.1 The above data indicate that no significant effects occur beyond what is considered normal test variability.

Evaluation of the Energy Innovations "Gas Energizer EI—~100" Non—Magnetic Coil for Exemption from the Prohibitions of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code August 22, 1974 Confirmatory emission tests were performed by the Hot CVS—1 test method on a 1974 Ford Pinto, 2.3L, 4—cylinders, auto. trans. (195 LEK)}. This vehicle is simtlar to the vehicle tested by Olson Laboratories Inc. and submitted by the applicant. Three back—to— back Hot CVS exhaust emission tests were performed with and without the device. The following data were obtained: HC. co NOx ues Avg. Baseline 0.74 15.5 1.21 17.0 Avg. Device 0.77 15.8 1.24 16.9 Avg. % Change 4.1 _ 2.0 2.5 ~0.6 The above data indicate that the device did not produce any significant effects on exhaust emissions or fuel economy. IV. Conclusion and Recommendation Based on the staff‘s evaluation and the available test data, the use of the "Gas Energizer EI—100" would not result in any significant effect on exhaust emissions or fuel economy of a motor vehicle. It is the staff‘s opinion that "Gas Energizer EI~100" manufactured by Energy Innovations of Westlake Village, California should be granted an exemp— tion from the prohibitions of Section 27156 of the Vehicle Code for 1974 and older model year vehicles except for the following: 1 — All vehicles equipped with electronic ignition systems. 2 — AMl 1966—70 model—year vehicles equipped with an NOx retrofit device using an electronic speed sensor such as the Dana or Carter device.

Figure 1 GAS ENERGIZER DEVICE

~ TULZN yineen 2 tid—bnt K419 sn PPLZ C > WIPE L2 e {‘j La MA EM OM 11. WE4EgH T or Cco q4{L. i

J — & enornarmm wWIRE — SiZE AREA ETTANCE : 4. WEIGMT 5. EQDT— L. EN C TH PEP lbs i cCO PITIH DPDiA, = |.2 maldtes ; ; C ME L_JL". 4 ,0IPA C LC MATERIAL HEAT TREAYF FINISH 1 RAW MATERIAL SIZ E Nx Ni u: 153 t CoyCLaAcX C UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, DIMENSIONS REFERERNCE SCALE ARE N fmoipnos AND yOLERANCES ARE : 13 ANGLE FRAC‘; ' es3 |40 Lz 1 +‘ HARRY FRANK5 CONSULTING ENGINEER 1BNODXZNG CHATSW ORTH, ~~~GHAwING ocm 1 m ,~ L2 pi CALIFORNIA 91311 —. {—100 corm }|3 1

er" Spark Curves of BaselTine Versus "Gas—Energiz from 1969 Lincoln Continental Figure 3 Baseline at 750 RPM "Gas Energizer"at 750 RPK Baseline at 1800 RPM Baseline at 3500 RPM


Document Created: 2005-09-01 12:39:42
Document Modified: 2005-09-01 12:39:42

| Previous E.O. D-35 | Next E.O. D-36-1 | Next E.O. D-37