In the Matter of the Complaint Against JOEL ROBINSON d/b/a NATIONAL FUELSAVER CORPORATION, 667 Washington Street at Brookline, MA 02146 and JOEL ROBINSON d/b/a R. F. SQUARED, INC., 4504 Del Amo Boulevard, Space "D" at Torrence, CA 90403 P.S. Docket No. 10/1 May 8, 1981 William A. Duvall Chief Administrative Law Judge APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT: Thomas A. Ziebarth, Esq. Brendan J. O'Brien, Esq. Consumer Protection Division Law Department United States Postal Service Washington, D.C. 20260 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Joel Robinson, Pro se Technical Director National Fuelsaver Corporation Brookline, MA 02146
The Consumer Protection Division, Law Department, United States Postal Service (Complainant) filed a Complaint on November 14, 1980, in which it charged that Joel Robinson d/b/a National Fuelsaver Corporation, 667 Washington Street, Brookline, Massachusetts 02146 and Joel Robinson d/b/a R. F. Squared, Inc., 4504 Del Amo Boulevard, Space "D", Torrence,1/ California 90403 (Respondent) are engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money or property through the mails by means of false representations in violation of 39 U. S. Code 3005.
It is alleged that attention is attracted to the scheme by means of advertisements appearing in publications of general circulation which are calculated to induce readers thereof to remit money or property through the mails.
Copies of advertisements used by Respondent and said to be typical of those referred to above were attached to the Complaint, and copies of these advertisements are attached hereto as Appendices A and B.
In paragraph (3) of the Complaint it is alleged that by means of such materials, and others similar thereto, Respondent represents, directly or indirectly, in substance and effect, whether by affirma- tive statements, omissions or implication that:
(a) The installation of GASAVER on an automobile will cause a dramatic increase in gas mileage of up to 48% or better;
(b) GASAVER has passed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) H-74 test (emission reduction) and was granted the EPA's approval to market the system; and
(c) The fuel economy claims for GASAVER are supported by scientific research tests.
Lastly, it is charged that the aforesaid representations are materially false as a matter of fact.
The case involves the mail order advertising claims for an automobile retrofit device called the GASAVER. The advertising and promotional materials used by Respondent represent generally that the installation of this device will result in a substantial improvement in fuel economy in the average automobile.
The Gasaver device consists of a plastic container which is designed to hold 12 ounces of GASAVER SOLUTION. The device is connected to the automobile by cutting the rubber tubing in the vacuum line leading out of the base of the carburetor. A small plastic "T" connector is inserted into the vacuum line and a length of plastic tubing is connected to the base of the "T" connector and the horizontal opening located at the top of the plastic container.
Air is admitted to the plastic container by means of an air inlet tube leading to the bottom of the container. The vacuum created by the engine draws air from the closed space above the fluid thereby creating a slight vacuum within the plastic container. This, in turn, draws replacement air into the container through the air inlet tube. The replacement air percolators through the GASAVER solution at the rate of approximately one bubble per second when the engine is running at normal speeds.
Respondent contends that through the action described above tiny quantities of the platinum salt dissolved in the GASAVER solution are transported through the plastic tube, into the vacuum line, through the carburetor and into the cylinders of the automobile.
These microscopic quantities of platinum allegedly act as a catalyst by causing a more complete and efficient combustion of the gasoline within the cylinders thereby substantially improving fuel economy. (Comp. Br. pp. 5-6; CX 14, p. 3)
The Respondent, Joel Robinson, appearing pro se , in answering the Complaint denied the foregoing charges and allegations, and he specifically denied that he is "d/b/a R. F. Squared, Inc., 4504 Del Amo Blvd., Space 'D', Torrence, CA 90403."
Appearing as witnesses for Complainant were Natalie J. Hubert, a postal inspector, and John R. Heywood, Ph.D., a professor of auto- motive engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Respondent's witnesses included: John R. Brown, a ceramic engineer employed by Corning Glass Company; Stephen Gordon, an employee of Respondent; Clyde M. Adams, a metallurgical and chemical engineer; and Joel Robinson, Respondent.
Respondent, by means of various advertisements, including, but not limited to, form letters and reprints of articles, seeks remittances of money through the mails. These solicitations appear in the following exhibits which were received in evidence as indicated:
CX-1 A sales letter inviting remittances for the
GASAVER device.
CX-2, 10 A reprint from the publication, EASY READER
entitled, Believe It or Not: A Fuel Saver that
Really Works. This reprint invites further
inquiries to Respondent's Brookline, MA address.
CX-3, 8, 12 A reprint from the publication, DESIGN NEWS
entitled, Metering Device "Replaces" Catalytic
Converter . This article also invites further
inquiries to Respondent's Brookline, MA address.
CX-4, 9 A reprint from the publication, THE BOSTON PHOENIX
entitled, Relocating the Catalyst . This
article
lists the prices for the Gasaver and states that
it may be obtained directly from National
Fuelsaver Corp. at the Brookline, MA address.
CX-6 A sales letter similar to CX-1 setting forth
Respondent's prices and inviting the direct mail
purchase of the device to the Brookline, MA
address.
CX-14 A reprint from the publication, IN BUSINESS
entitled, Marketing An Energy-Saving
Invention .
Readers are invited to send for further
information to the Respondent's Brookline, MA
address.
Respondent, in its advertising material, makes the representa- tions set forth in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. The following excerpts do not purport to set forth all the language on which the representations may be based, but more than enough examples are given to establish a firm basis for each of the representations. Each representation is quoted and then followed by language on which it might have been based.
"(a) The installation of GASAVER on an automobile will cause a dramatic increase in gas mileage of up to 48% or better."
CX-1, paragraph 3:
Burning a higher percentage of each gallon of fuel means that fewer gallons will be required.
CX-2, 10: . . .with 15 to 25% savings in gasoline (column 2)
CX-5, 13:
Test results showing a maximum of 48.3% improvement and an average of 28.3% improvement.
"(b) GASAVER has passed the Environmental Pro- tection Agency's (EPA) H-74 test (emission reduction) and was granted EPA's approval to market the system."
CX-2, 10, column 3:
It should be noted that after passing the EPA's H-74 test (emission reduction) Gasaver was granted the EPA's approval to market the system.
CX-14, page 3:
When the Gasaver passed the Environmental Protection Agency's "Hot-74" pollution control test last year, Robinson was given permission to market the product.
"(c) The fuel economy claims for GASAVER are supported by scientific research tests."
CX-4, p. 1, CX-9, p. 2: . . . preliminary test results . . . confirmed Robinson's claim of 20 percent mileage improvement.
CX-5, 13:
Postal Inspector Natalie J. Hubert was the first witness for the Complainant. She testified as to the background and history of this proceeding. After the proceeding had been initiated in regard to another matter, certain circular matter and reprints of articles were received by a representative of the Postal Inspection Service from Respondent. It was later decided to investigate the efficacy of the Gasaver. The product was purchased and arrangements were made to have it evaluated. (Tr. 6-23)
Complainant's next witness was John B. Heywood, Ph.D., Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and Director, Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Dr. Heywood did his undergraduate work in Mechanical Engineering at Cambridge University and his graduate work at M.I.T. He then worked for the British Central Electricity Generating Board on magnetohydrodynamic power generation. Since that time, he has been on the faculty in the Mechanical Engineering Department at M.I.T., working on problems related to automotive engines, gas turbines and boilers. He is now Director of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory and the Faculty Coordinator for Transportation Programs in the Energy Laboratory at M.I.T. His current research is focused on the operating and emissions characteristics, and fuels require- ments of internal combustion engines and gas turbine engines. He is also involved in studies of automotive technology and the impact of regulation. He has published extensively in these areas in the technical literature. He is a consultant to the U.S. Government and a number of industrial organizations. (CX-16a; a more detailed statement of Dr. Heywood's extensive education and experience is found at CX-16b and c.)
Respondent's first witness was John T. Brown, Senior Project Engineer, Staff Melting Technology Group, Corning Glassworks, Corning, NY. Mr. Brown is a ceramic engineer with a B.S. degree from Syracuse University. He was instrumental in the development of a sensor device, the applicability of which in an automotive engine is to fine-tune the air/gasoline mixture which goes into the engine. The sensor utilizes platinum not for inducing or contribu- ting to combustion, but to gauge the products of combustion. Mr. Brown's only experience in the use of platinum as a catalyst in the combustion process in an internal combustion engine is his exposure to the Respondent's invention. He purchased 2 units and installed them in his automobile, but he has not subjected the engines to any chassis dynamometer tests. (Tr. 125-130) Mr. Brown claims no exper- tise in producing a catalytic design with the amount of exposure that is required to achieve a catalytic effect and he has had no training in internal combustion engines. (Tr. 133, 134)
Also called as a witness by Respondent was Stephen Gordon, of Brookline. Mr. Gordon is involved in several different types of work, one of which is in the sale and marketing of the Gasaver. It was he who arranged the test of the device by Transportation Manage- ment Corporation (TMC), and, primarily, under criteria established by that concern. TMC was, at the time of the performance of the test, the operator of the largest private fleet of vehicles in Massachusetts. The vehicles were used, for the most part, in the transportation of exceptional children between home and school. The details of the test will later be described. (Tr. 167-169)
Respondent's next witness was Clyde M. Adams, Jr., Cincinnati, Ohio, a private consultant in the area of materials and chemical engineering. Mr. Adams received the degrees of Bachelor of Science and Master of Science in Metallurgy at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1949 and 1950. He was on the faculty of the Metallurgy Department and the Chemical Engineering Department at M.I.T. from 1952-1968. From 1955-1968, he was in charge of the Welding Research Laboratory at M.I.T., which involved a lot of work with flames and combustible mixtures. In 1968 he went to the University of Wisconsin as Professor of Materials Engineering, and later, from 1968-1974, he was Acting Dean of Engineering. In 1974, he moved to the University of Cincinnati where he was both Professor and Dean of Engineering. In 1978 he went to Carnegie Mellon University where he stayed for one year as Professor of Metallurgy and Material Science. He left the academic field and began his present consultant business in 1978.
Mr. Robinson was the Respondent's last witness. Mr. Robinson received a Bachelor's degree from Boston University as an Industrial Engineer in 1964. For a time he was a manufacturer's representative overseas selling fuel additives designed to improve the efficiency of refineries, ship boilers and other heavy industrial fuel burners. Mr. Robinson developed a special interest in catalysis and chemistry. The first prototype of the Gasaver was built in the Spring of 1978. (CX 4, pp. 1-2)
Charge 3(a) The installation of GASAVER on an automobile will cause a dramatic increase in gas mileage of up to 48% or better.
Dr. Heywood testified that about 95 percent of the fuel energy that enters an automobile engine is released as energy that does useful work in pushing the pistons up and down causing the car to move. The remaining 5 percent leaves the engine through the exhaust valve as hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Another exhaust product is carbon dioxide. Of the hydrocarbons, 2 to 3 percent remain unburned because they are pushed into what are called the crevices. These crevices are relatively cold and the fuel is not able to burn them. Carbon monoxide escapes because there was insufficient oxygen in the engine to permit the fuel to burn more completely. (Tr. 77-80)
The basic claim with respect to the Gasaver is that it achieves more complete burning of the fuel inside the engine. If, in fact, a Gasaver worked perfectly and caused a 100 percent burn of the fuel that entered the engine, and assuming that the carburetor, spark-timing and ignition system remained unchanged, it is Dr. Heywood's judgment that the maximum gas economy improvement that would result would be 5 percent. (Tr. 84) Dr. Heywood noted that Respondent's literature states that air bubbles are pulled through the device at the rate of about one bubble per second, and that platinum is transported with the air molecules. Possible transport mechanism theories include:
(1) Gasaver solution in the device is sufficiently disturbed by the air bubbles that the liquid splashes up into the air, which carries it through the vacuum system into the intake system and into the engine. Dr. Heywood said that this possibility is not feasible because, at the rate of one bubble per second, the liquid would not be sufficiently disturbed to permit the system to work.
(2) Something in the Gasaver solution evaporates in the air bubbles as they pass through the device into the engine. When he researched the literature on this possibility, however, Dr. Heywood found that there is no compound that would have a vapor pressure sufficient to create a significant platinum transport process. If, on the other hand, platinum were distributed through the fuel/air mixture that enters the cylinders, most of it would go straight through the engine and out into the exhaust because most of the mixture inside the cylinder does not come in contact with the walls of the combustion chamber or the valves. Even if some platinum should be deposited inside the cylinders, it would be covered by other deposits. Use of leaded gas over a period of weeks and months steadily deactivates the catalytic effect of platinum and fuel efficiency would be substantially reduced. (Tr. 85-87)
If the platinum catalyst could reach the cylinder, coat the walls of it, and remain there in a clean and active state, Dr. Heywood gave it as his opinion that half of the hydrocarbons, and much less of the carbon monoxide, which are emitted in the exhaust might get burned. When cognizance is taken of the manner in which the platinum is transported, the small amount that will be on the cylinder wall, and the fact that deposits will cover the small amount of platinum that coats the wall, his estimate of the amounts of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide that would be burned would be substantially lower. In any event, the 50 percent that, at best, would be burned would be 50 percent of the average 5 percent of the unused fuel that remains in a typical engine. (Tr. 92)
In order that the combustion process may be complete there must be sufficient oxygen present to fully burn the carbon and hydrogen in the fuel. The important variable is how the carburetor meters the fuel in proportion to the amount of air flowing through the engine. The presence of a catalyst does not compensate for a lack of oxygen. Once the oxygen is consumed no more combustion is possible. When there is insufficient air due to heavy acceleration very high, or very light loads, the carbon monoxide emissions rise substantially because of the insufficient availability of air. (Tr. 93-96)
The foregoing factors enter, with others, into Dr. Heywood's conclusion that an optimistic estimate of the present combustion inefficiency which, with perfectly catalytic walls, could be burnt up is between2 and 5 percent - much less than the 20 - 30 percent fuel economy gain claimed by Respondent. Gains of the latter magnitude are not possible through the proposed catalytic more- complete-combustion mechanism. (RX 15, p. 4)
Mr. Adams, Respondent's principal witness, indicated differences with Dr. Heywood's views starting with the statement by Dr. Heywood that there is little unburned fuel or unreleased energy of the fuel leaving the engine. Mr. Adams said that in a well-set-up, well-tuned engine the statement is essentially correct. It is not enough, however, according to Mr. Adams, that the fuel be completely burned. A very critical matter is the speed at which the fuel is burned and this is related to the intake into the cylinder of fuel and air, compression, ignition and combustion. Combustion, he said, ideally should occur when the piston is near top-dead center, when the fuel/air mixture is nearly at maximum compression. If it happens a little earlier, a little later, or if it occupies a long time span, as much as 20 percent of the energy will be lost. (Tr. 181-183)
For reasoning which Mr. Adams said "tailgates" on his remarks in the foregoing paragraph, he differed with Dr. Heywood's testimony that having platinum within the combustion process, itself, would not improve the miles per gallon or the useful work coming from the explosion. Mr. Adams said that people have experimented with pre-treatment of engine components with platinum, which has resulted in improved engine performance, but the improvement is relatively short-lived - one or two thousand miles.2/(Tr. 184-185, 215)
Finally, Mr. Adams differed with Dr. Heywood's testimony that the Gasaver could not effectively transfer platinum into the cylinders. He said that when the little bubbles go through the liquid solution they burst and the transport is comparable to a mist or a fog, and the platinum compound "appears to be a surface- active material, which like certain soaps and things tends to concentrate at surfaces." He adds that "if you take this stuff