Approval Details

Valid E.O.

Validity

This Executive Order approved the specified parts on on November 12, 1976.
As of Sunday, December 16th, 2018 this Executive Order has not been overturned or superceeded.

Approved Parts

Models
1976 and older vehicles, Model A for vehicles with engine sizes greater than 140 CID, and Model B for vehicles with engine sizes 140 CID and less.

This Executive Order may be listed as:
  • C.A.R.B.E.O. D-69
  • Executive Order 69 / D69
  • ARB # D-69
  • Executive Order No: D-69
  • C.A.R.B. No. D-69
  • Resolution D-69
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-69 PDF

D-69 Document:



¥4                                State of California

                                  AIR RESOURCES BOARD
                                   November 12, 1976
                                     Staff Report
                                       (Revised)

                  Evaluation of the Condensator Inc. "Condensator
                    Model A and B8" Device for Exemption from
                          the Provisions of Section 27156 of
                                   the Vehicle Code


           Introduction

           The Condensator Inc., 2010 Trimble Way, Sacramento, California

           95825, has applied for a Véehicle Code Section 27156 exemption

           for its "Condensator" device.    The appl%cant intends to market

           the device for installation on 1976 and older model year vehicles

           (Exhibit A).
8




     11.   System Description

           The Condensator device is a crankcase vapor/liquid separator which

           incorporates an air bleed valve and a "catalytic filiter" component.

           It is installed in the PCV system.


           In operation blow—by gas coming from the crankcase via the PCV vailve

           enters the device at point "B" as shown in the attached installation

           instructions (Exhibit B).    The gas mixes with the incoming air bleed

           from point "H".   The mixture enters the glass jar and passes through

           the "catalytic filter" consisting of "chemically treated" si]ica:

           glass beads enclosed in a metal screen.      The mixture then is directed

           up and out of the device to the engine induction system.


III. System Evaluation

    A.    Laboratory Tests

         To permit an evaluation for determining if the installation of

         the device will adversely effect the exhaust emission control

         system of the motor vehicles the applicant submitted the

         following test data:

         1.    Bench flow data of the air bleed valve.

         2.    Back—to—back emission test data on a 1973 Dodge 318—2V

               using the CVS—75 Test Procedure, and EPA Highway Fuel

               Economy Test (HFET).   The tests were conducted by Olson

               Labs, Inc., Anaheim, California.

              Back—to—back loaded mode test at 12" Hg manifold vacuum

              on a 1976 Cordoba using a direct tailpipe sampling method.

              The test was conducted at Engine Energizing and Auto

              Electric, Citrus Heights, California.

              Back—to—back 50 MPH loaded mode test on a 1971 Toyota using

              a direct tailpipe sampling method.   The test was conducted

              at Marconi Technical Center, Sacramento, California.


         The ARB Laboratory performed the following confirmatory tests:

         1.   Air bleed bench flow test with increasing and decreasing

              vacuum.

              Back—to—back tests on a 1971 Pinto, 2.0L 2V and on a 1973

              Dodge, 318 2¥ using the following emission test methods:


               a}       One CVS—75.

.              b)       Two Hot—Start CVS—72.

               c)       Steady state test at idle, 20, 30, 40 and 50 MPH

                        at road load horsepower.


         The applicant and ARB bench flow characteristics are compared

         in Figure 1.        The emission test results are summarized in

         Table I through V inclusive.


    B.   Analysis of Test Results

         1.)        Applicant‘s Emission Tests

                    The CVS—75 back—to—back emission test data submitted by

                    the applicant showed that HC decreased by 17%, CO by 18%,

                    and NOx by 11%.   A reduction of HC and CO emissions means

                    better fuel combustion and is usually accompanied by an

                    increase in NOx emission.    lt is likely that one or more

                    of the applicant‘s data points have been affected by test

                    variability.   Additional confirmatory emission tests

                    were performed by the ARB to determine the effect on the

                    emissions.


                    The loaded mode tests on a 1976 Cordoba and a 1973 Toyota

                    showed about 50% reduction in HC concentration.    However

                    these test data were not meaningful since the back—to—back

                    tests were not performed under similar conditions.      Table

                    II shows the horsepower and speed changed on the 1976 Cordoba

                    and the horsepower also changed on the 1973 Toyota when

                    tested with and without the device.


—   ?.}   ARB Laboratory Emission Test
.         The ARB Laboratory test data indicates a significant

          increase of NOx emission on the two vehicles tested

          as a result of the device installation.


          for the 1971 Pinto, Table III shows HC decreased 12%,

          CO increased 3%, and NOx increased 15% when tested by

          the CVS—75 cycle.     Table IV shows there was no change

          on HC, CO increased 6%, and NOx increased 17% when

          tested by the Hot Start CVS—72 cycle.     Table V shows

          no significant change in HC, CO decreased, and NOx

          increased with a maximum of 54% at 30 MPH during the

          steady state emission tests.


          The test results on a 1973 Dodge also showed an increase

‘         in emissions by CVS—75 and CVS—72 tests.     Steady state

          test data however, showed wide data variability and was

          not acceptable.     Table III shows HC increased by 12%,

          CO decreased 14%, and NOx increased 14% when tested by

          the CVS—75 cycle for the Dodge.     Table IV shows HC

          increased by 10%, CO decreased 32%, and no significant

          change in NOx when tested by the hot start CVS—72 cycle.


.        3.)   Bench Flow Test

               Data on air bleed flow rates are plotted as shown in Figure

               1.     Both the applicants and ARB flow curves showed the flow

               rates exceeded 0.5 CFM at 12 inches and higher vacuum, with

               a maximum of 0.58 CFM.


               The ARB staff uses maximum air bleed limits as a basis of

               judgment for the leaning effect of air bleed device.     A

               maximum air flow of 0.3 CFM at greater than 7 inches Hg is

               the allowable limit for enginé sizes 140 CID or less and

               maximum flow of 0.5 cfm for engine sizes greater than 140

               CID.     These air flow limits have been judged by the staff

               to not have a significant effect on the performance of the

.              exhaust emission control system.     The tests show the air

               flow permitted by the "Condensator" device substantially

               exceeded the established flow limit for vehicles having

               140 CID or smaller engines, and marginally exceeded the

               flow limits for vehicles having greater than 140 CID

               engines thus accounting for the increase in NOX emission.


    C.   Manufacturer‘s Claims

         Mr. Elmer Bush, the inventor, claims the installation of the

         device on the vehicles will reduce emission, engine maintenance,

         cause the catalytic converter to last longer, and improve fuel


@       woe mm sove         O         HoN} 34 D1 X t
    ‘oo wab6zizia iN360n3    Qul(& HeVHO M3DZi3!0 CI—NO°E   ‘ON


economy.    This is done by removing the entrained oil and

burning the heavy hydrocarbon in the blow—by gas in the

presence of a catalytic filter before allowing the gas to

enter the engine induction system.     If the heavy oil and

hydrocarbons are allowed to enter the engine combustion

chamber, the inventor claims, the mixture will not burn

sufficiently under normal firing conditions causing the

formation of carbon in the cylinders, plugs, and rings, and

an increase in exhaust emissions.


After the completion of the exhaust emission tests at the ARB

Laboratory the device was disassembled and inspected.     There

was no observed evidence of any polymerization or gumming around

the catalytic filter indicating the absence of any chemical

reaction.   The inventor was also unable to submit satisfactory

documentation showing the chemistry involved in the claimed

catalytic reaction.     The staff believes that no catalyst is

present to induce a reaction of the hydrocarbons at blow—by

gas temperature as claimed by the inventor.


It is the staff‘s judgment that the device simply removes the
oil entrained with the blow—by gas which then accumulates in

the glass jar.    On vehicles with excessive blow—by caused by

worn out piston rings the quantity of entrained oil may be

significant.     Therefore older vehicles, which use excessive


           oi1l, could possibly benefit from the installation of the

           device.    However it is the staff‘s judgment that the majority

           of in—use vehicles will not display the benefits claimed by

           the inventor.    The ARB staff has discussed with the applicant

           our differences of opinion regarding his advertised claims.


           The Condensator is also an air bleed device.    Previous tests

           by the ARB have shown the leaning effect of this device may

           produce some measurable improvements in fuel economy of older

           vehicles which operate on richer air fuel mixtures.    On newer

           engines with leaner air fuel mixtures the use of an air bleed

           device will not have any significant effect on fuel economy

           and may in fact cause misfiring due to excessive leaning.     ARB

           tests on the "Condensator" and the applicant‘s test data did

           not show any significant improvement in fuel economy of the

           vehicles tested.


Iv.   Conclusion and Recommendation

      The ARB staff‘s engineering evaluation of the "Condensator"

      indicates the device when installed on a motor vehicle removes the

      heavy oil entrained in the blow by gas in the PCV system.     There is

      no catalytic reaction taking place in the device as claimed by the

      manufacturer.   The device also acts as an air bleed valve, producing

      a maximum leaning effect at idle conditions.


Our laboratory tests indicated the installation of the device

increased NOx emission of the motor vehicles tested.   It is

the staff‘s opinion that this increase in NOx emission is

primarily due to the leaning effect of the device.


The applicant, by letter dated August 25, 1976 (Exhibit C), stated

he has modified the design of the "Condensator" to meet the ARB

Criteria for air bleed devices by reducing the orifice size.    Modei

A incorporates an orifice size of 0.06" diameter, for applications

on engine sizes of more than 140 CIO, and Model B incorporates an

orifice size of 0.04" diameter for applications on engine sizes 140

CID and less.   The ARB staff has determined mathematically that the

above orifice sizes limit air flow rate to the established lTimits

used by the ARB on air bleed devices.   No further flow tests are

therefore necessary.


The ARB staff believes the installation of the "Condensator"

device incorporating the modified orifice size will meet ARB air

bleed criteria and will not adversely affect the exhaust emission

control system of motor vehicles.   The staff therefore recommends

that the Condensator Inc. be granted an exemption from the prohibitions

of Vehicle Code Section 27156 for its "Condensator" device for

installation on 1976 and older vehicles, Model A for vehicles with

engine size greater than 140 CION, and Model B for vehicles with

engine sizes 140 CID and less.


This report is being circulated to the persons listed in che

attached distribution list for whatever action they may deem

advisable.


                  Table I — CVS—75 TEST DATA COMPARISON
                           CONDENSATOR DEVICE
                        (Applicant‘s Test Data)

                                                      Grams Per mile
                                                                                       *HFET
                                     HC               co          NOx         MPG      MPG
1973 Dodge        Baseline            2 .1        20. 4           2.9          14.8     21.2
318 CID 2V        Device              1.8         17.2            2.6          15. 4    21.8
                  % Change            —17         —18             —11          +4       —3




               Table II — LOADED MODE TEST DATA COMPARISON
                           CONDENSATOR DEVICE
                           (Applicant‘s Test Data)


At 12 inches Manifold Vacuum

                                      HC (PPM)          cCO (%)         MPH     HP
1976 Cordoba        Baseline
                    Device                10

At Constant 50 MPH Speed

                                               HC(PPM)            C0 (%)      hP
1971 Toyota         Baseline                    175                 1.0        35
                    Device                       70                 1.0        40


*Highway Fuel Economy Test




                                      10.


                  Table II1 — CVS—75 TEST DATA COMPARISON
                            CONDENSATOR DEVICE
                          (ARB Confirmatory Test)


                                                   Grams per Mile
                                             wC     C0      Nox     MPG
1971 Ford Pinto           Baseline           2.4     26.5 _ 3.8      21.9
2.0L — 2Y                 Device             2.1     21240000419     18.7
                          % Change         ~12       +3     +290    —15

1973 Chrysler             Baseline           2.4     25.1     2.8    13.8
318 — 2V                  Device             2.7     21.5     3.2    13.0
                          % Change         +12      —14     +14      —6




                                     11.


           Table IV — Hot Start CVS—72 TEST DATA COMPARISON
                          CONDENSATOR DEVICE
                        (ARB Confirmatory Test)


                                                  Grams Per Mile
                                        HC        co          NOx    mpa
1971 Ford Pinto         Baseline        1.8        15.9        3.6   24.6
2. OL—2V                Device          1.8        16.9        4.2   24.2
                        % Change        0          +6     +17        —2

1973 Chrylser           Baseline        2.0        23.0        3.4   13.3
318 CID — 2 V           Device          2.2        15.6        3.3   14.4
                        % Change      +10         —32         —3     +8


               Table V — STEADY STATE DATA COMPARISON FOR 1971 FORD PINTO,
                              2.0L, 2V, CONDENSATOR DEVICE
                                     (ARB Confirmatory Test)


                                                         Grams per Mile
                                               hC        co         NOx          mPG
     50 _MPH            Baseline               1.4       3.8         5.4         33.2
                        Device                 1.4       2.7         6.0         32.8
                        % Change               0       —29         +11           —1

     40 _MPH            Baseline               1.2       2.1         2.9         39.7
—/                      Device                 1.3       1.6         4.1    +    36.9
                        % Change              +8       —24         +41           —] ©

     30 _MPH           Baseline                1.3       5.5         1.3         38.6
                        Device                 1.3       3.2         2.0         38.3
                        % Change               0       —42         +54           ~1

     20 MPH             Baseline               1.6      14.4         0.6         32.6
                        Device                 1.1       4.0         0.6         38.1
                        % Change             —31       —72           0          +17

     Idle               Baseline |             0. 26     2.8         0.02         0.01
                        Device                 0.3       4.3         0.01         0.01


             EXECUTIVE ORDER AND STAFF REPORT OISTRIBUTION LIST


Mr. Tom Ziebarth
U. S. Postal Service
Consumer Protection Office
Washington, D. C. 20260

Mr. L. J. Herlach, Chief                   U. S. E. P. A.
Transportation Research Section            Attn:   Ralph C. Stahman, TAEB
U. S. Postal Service                       2565 Plymouth Road
11711 Parklawn Drive                       Ann Arbor, MI     48105
Rockville,     MD   20852

Mr. Paul Foldes                            Mr. Ben Jackson
Federal Trade Commission                   U. S. E. P. A.
Division of National Advertising           Ofice of Enforcement and
Washington, D.C. 20580                          General Counsel
                                           401 "M" Street S.W.
                                           Washington D.C.     20460

Mr. Kingsley Macomber                      Mr. Taketsugu Takei, Director
Chief Counsel, ARB                         Department of Consumer Affairs
P. 0. Box 2815                             1020 "N" Street
Sacramento, CA      95812                  Sacramento, CA 95814


                                                                               EXHIBIT A

/                                State of California
                                AIR RESOURCES GOARD

/’   Air Bleed and Vapor Injector Devices Specification and Application
                                for a SBoard Finding

                      ;                               Model:
     1.   Device name and model:       Condensator/ Supplementary Carburetor

     2.   Manufacturer:     Condensator Inc.

          Address :    2010 Trimble Way

             Sacramento, California 95825               Telephone (916) 485 —4014

     3.   Authorized representative:     Elmer W. Bush, President ‘
          Address:    2010 Trimble Way

             Sacramento, Calif, 95825                   Telephone   _(916) 485 —4014

     4.   Purpose of the device and operating principles:             Crankcase
               emission collector and supplementary carburetor

              see exhibit "A"

.    5.   Engine system in which the device is fnstalled:              PCV line

     6.   Technical drawings enclosed:       Yes        __X    No
     7.   Device description:       enclosed       __—__See exhibit "A" and "B",




     8.   Installation instructfons including required adjustments of
          device and engine:        enclosed       ——    adjustments see #9 on

                installation instructions.    Exhibit "B".


       Llist of vehicles requested for the Board finding:                   Hodel—Year(s)

         X           less than 140 CID    __x         140 CID and greater                KX      _
       Exemptions :        systems with no PCV

10.    _                  devices submitted for ARB evaluation:

       Yes       X            No

11.    When engine is turned off is device normally:                Open          : Closed _X_

12.    Safety features (Explain):                 see Exhibit "D",




(13.   Backfire and syphon protection (Explain)}:                 Backfire will not
             penetrate catalytic filter which is incorporated into PCV line for

             double protection.    see Exhibit "B" and "D‘".

 14.   Emission test data supplied:             Yes    _X                 No
                                                  se'e"'E5EEiEit    HEII’      ||W'a-nmu.


 15.   Air flow data in CFM admitted into the manifold through the device over

       0—24 in. Hg. vacuum range submitted: _               Yes     __X         No
                                                              see Exhibit "C"
 For Vapor Injectors Only

 16.   Size and material of fluid container:



 17. Fluid specifications:


 Coments::




                      (Use extra sheets if needed)



Document Created: 2006-05-19 09:49:14
Document Modified: 2006-05-19 09:49:14

| Previous E.O. D-68 | Next E.O. D-69-1 | Next E.O. D-70