Technologies

Services/Expertise (4)

Coal Stabilizer (4C)

Class Codes (4CC)

Documentations (4D)



Guarantee/Warranty (4G)

      Warranty Evaluation
      Protocol (4G-a)


Harmonics (4H)

Install Instructions (4I)

      Authorized Installers (4I-a)

3rd Party Lab Testing (4L)

3rd Party Emissions by Machine - (4MT)

Press Page (4P)



      New Service - Quotation

Specifications (4S)




EPA Report - August/1999 (Our Rebuttal)

NOTE: Please be thorough in reading the entire 15 pages of this report to see that the report states that it had produced "results".... in 2/3 less time than we state in our instructions... (lets be fair and accurate)... that is why we stress doing a "test" to eliminate any further doubts... Thank You...



EPA "No Trademark"
Rebuttal Trademarked in Indiana - renewal due 2007

EPA "Mfg by Inset Indus Inc"
Rebuttal Was never invented nor manufacturered by I.I.Inc.

EPA "Needs a bracket and wire for installation"
Rebuttal Does not need a wire or bracket for installation... Only would require a bracket to eliminate any vibration/rattling (vehicles).

EPA Tested with "special" gasoline fuel
Rebuttal When we contacted them to find out where we can purchase in the real world, they said that this gasoline was made specially for this test and you can NOT purchase outside a laboratory (page 4)...

EPA "Tested vehicles by miles: 900 miles, 4,000 miles & 2,200 miles based on a test period of 13 days..."
Rebuttal The 900 mile vehicle would have had to be driven approx. 69.2 miles per day, the 4,000 mile vehicle would have had to be driven approx. 307.7 miles per day, and the 2,200 vehicle approx. 169.2 miles per day...
Our instructions state that the timed limit of 60 days or not less than our "minimum" of 30 days... to show significant results... Testing was done on an "intermittent" basis... not as we recommend in our instructions... (continuous basis)...
Review analyses by Habitat for Humanity and see their analyses and comments according to doing the test as stated for at least 30 days...

EPA Page 2 of the report states: "report does not represent final EPA decision or positon"
Rebuttal But the way the analyses & report were presented leaves/leads one to come to the conclusion that it is negative in its essence, even when on page 10/11 of the report it stated, "showed NOX emissions reduction a positive impact"... (Chevy Lumina vehicle)

EPA Cut open a unit and dissected to find out how/why it works...
Rebuttal If it did not work as the report "implies", then why would anyone have a NEED to cut it open to find out why and how it does not work? Also, common sense... if something does not work, you should NOT have any results at all...
Please review the documentations section (4D) and see for yourself the various states (Calf, Colorado, Indiana, Wyoming), Duke Energy, an independent lab (for Duke Energy & State of Wyoming), US ARMY/Picatinny Arsenal and others stating that they received "results" from their own individual analyses... deducted from any political pressure or bias to not state all the facts or do the testing according to instructions...
Please also review the press page (4P) and you will also see the various newspaper articles stating the results from the "real world" and the undue political influences and pressure that this product has had... Including comments by a NJ State Senator (who installed on all his familys cars)...
Please review the installations since this report in section 5 and again see for yourself the various installations, clients' own comments and their own analyses and acknowledgements that this product/technology has produced results when "done by the instructions"... (Duke Energy, Habitat For Humanity, Washington DC Hospital Complex, Kean University, US DEPT HUD, and others...) Purdue Univ. with FAA approval for installation on an aircraft. (you don't get FAA approval on a technology that does not work).

EPA Tables 1 (page 12), Table 2 (page 13) and Table 3 (page 14) of their report
Rebuttal We flipped a coin and took Table 3 (page 14) and did a before and after analyses with percentage of changes and all the Test 1, 2, 3 baseline compared to Installed Test 1, 2, 3 (excluding Test 4 in only 1 case since not tested in all cases) we got the following analyses for this one section of this report)...


Table 3 (page 14): (9/11/98) (9/24/98) (13 days)


    Baseline Installed Diff % % %
TMC Chevy 0.066 0.055 -0.011 -16.7%
  Ford 0.064 0.054 -0.010 -15.6%
  Pontiac 0.053 0.060 0.007 13.2%
NMHC Chevy 0.054 0.047 -0.007 -14.8%
  Ford 0.053 0.045 -0.008 -15.1%
  Pontiac 0.044 0.051 0.007 15.9%
CO Chevy 0.806 0.598 -0.208 -25.8%
  Ford 1.034 0.541 -0.493 -47.7%
  Pontiac 0.740 0.805 0.065 8.8%
NOX Chevy 0.168 0.167 -0.001 -0.6%
  Ford 0.173 0.193 0.020 11.6%
  Pontiac 0.134 0.170 0.036 26.9%

NOTE: We can presume that they installed the unit "incorrectly" as to NOT get any results at all (Pontiac), since the others achieved performance.

Conclusion:
The EPA report was quite favorable as it indicated positive performances in spite of their "shortcuts". We suggest doing a test on your equipment "without" any shortcuts so that you can achieve the results so many others have....