Emissions Testing Services, Inc. EPA 13 Mode Test Protocol

Composite Summary of Results

ALGAE-X Magnetic Fuel Conditioner Model 500
Cummins NTC 350 Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine
13-Mode U.S. EPA Steady-State Tests
No. 2 Diesel Fuel

Description HC CO N0x Particulates Fuel Consumption
Baseline in g/HpH 0.38 0.94 5.84 0.17 151.3
Baseine in g/KwH
(avg. of 3 tests)
0.28348 0.70124 4.35664 0.12682
With LGX 500 g/HpH 0.33 0.82 5.21 0.06 141.68
With LGX 500 g/KwH
(avg. of 2 tests)
0.24618 0.61172 3.88666 0.04476
Improvement *13.2% *12.8% *10.8% **64.7% ***6.4%

* Reduced Gaseous Emissions
** Reduced Particulate Emissions (soot)
*** Improvement in Fuel Ecenomy
HC / CO / N0x / Fuel are expressed in grams per brake horsepower hour (BHP/HR)
Particulates are expressed in grams per horsepower hour (HP/HR)

FDGM Detail Of DTI Test Report U.S. Navy

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose
This test report documents for FDGM, Inc., the requirements, responsibilities, results, and actions accomplished by Dynamic Testing (DTI) during the MIL-S- 901D heavyweight, high impact shock testing of the MHC Isotta Fraschini diesel engine High Pressure Common Rail (HPCR) fuel injection system including Hoffman enclosure with Heinzmann Electronic Control Unit (ECU). In addition, FILTREX self-cleaning lube oil filter, SEPAR fuel/water separator, and the ALGAE-X fuel conditioner were tested.

This report covers the pretest period, the fixture and machinery installations aboard the floating shock platform (FSP), actual test operations, instrumentation setup, physical inspections, and operational tests. Operational performance tests were performed by FDGM, Inc., representatives.

1.2 Background

The Isotta Fraschini Motori Diesel Engine is mission-essential equipment aboard the MHC and MCM Class ships, and has been previously qualified.

In response to feedback from the fleet, FDGM, Inc., and Isotta Fraschini Motori developed several enhancements for the IF 6V-AM and 8V-AM engines installed onboard the MCM-3 and MHC-51 Class ships. The engine improvements listed in Paragraph 1.1 have been developed to reduce maintenance time and cost, to eliminate costly human error, to reduce the possibility of engine failure due to low load operations, and to enhance the engine performance.

This shock test was performed to qualify HPCR system components installed on the IF engine.

1.3 Objective

The objective of this report is to document the results of heavyweight shock tests performed on the diesel engine HPCR components, FILTREX ACXC-76-40-H Automatic Self-Cleaning Lube Oil Filter, SEPAR water separator, and the ALGAE-X fuel conditioner in accordance with MIL-S-901D (Navy) dated 17 March 1989. The report is to be submitted for fulfillment of requirements for shock qualification acceptance and installation on-board MCM-3 and MHC-51 Class ships.

2.0 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

2.1 Military Specification

MIL-S-901D (Navy), “Military Specification, Shock Tests, H.I. (High Impact); Shipboard Machinery, Equipment and Systems, Requirements for,” dated 17 March 1989

2.2 NAVSEA Drawing

NAVSEA Mounting Drawing No.53711-180-6644653 “C” (PBI DRAWING NO. 9700-180-053), Ship Service Generator Foundations

2.3 Dynamic Testing Drawing

DTI Drawing No. J-329, Rev A, “Test Fixture for UNDEX Testing the Raft Mounted 6V Isotta Fraschini Diesel Engine”

2.4 FDGM, Inc., Drawings

·  FDGM Drawing No. 150-062-00-1, REV.-, ENGINE MOUNT, SM20, LOW PROFILE.
·  FDGM Drawing No. MHC570, HOFFMAN BOX HPCR
·  FDGM Drawing No. MHC617, JUNCTION BOX (Injector)
·  FDGM Drawing No. MHC618, JUNCTION BOX (Sensor)
·  FDGM Drawing No. MHC620, HOFFMAN BOX WIRING DIAGRAM
·  FDGM Drawing No. MHC621, HPCR SYSTEM WIRING DIAGRAM MHC-51
·  FDGM Drawing No. MHC638, HPCR SYSTEM WIRING DIAGRAM MHC-52, 55, 58 & FOLLOW
·  FDGM Drawing No. MHC639, HPCR SYSTEM WIRING DIAGRAM MHC-53, 54, 56, & 57

2.5 Isotta Fraschini Drawings

Isotta Fraschini Drawing No. 74777F96, “Installation drawing, 6V-AM Engine Model 2894 F01 – Modified with 54SF SW/FW Cooler Assy & Vibracon Mounting System”
Isotta Fraschini Drawing No. 1T343399, “Installation Drawing, 8V-AM HPCR Fuel Injection System”

2.6 Manufacturers Technical Manuals

·  Vibracon® SM Manual No. 150.062.00-2, “Adjustable Steel Chocks Installation Manual with the Isotta Fraschini 6V-AM Torque Criteria”
·  FILTREX Model ACXC-76-40-H Automatic Self-Cleaning Lube Oil Filter Service Manual No. 42.3ACX.7.GB
·  Heinzmann ECU Service Manual No. MV99 002-e/07-99 and MV99 003- e/09-99
·  Power Star UPS model 6000 Technical Manual FDGM NO. MHC 592

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF TESTED ITEMS

The HPCR system for an Isotta Fraschini Motori 8V-AM engine. The HPCR system components are:
·  1T343380 Common Rail Left IFM
·  1T343379 Common Rail Right IFM
·  1R343393LA Double Wall Drain Tube IFM
·  1R343394LA Fuel Injector Return Drain Tube IFM
·  1T343395LA Tube Injector Pump to Rail 1&2 Left and 3&4 Right IFM
·  1T343396LA Tube Injector Pump to Rail 1&2 Right and 3&4 Left IFM
·  1T343397LA Tube Rail to Injector Nozzle IFM
·  1T343398LA Tube Cross-Connect Rail to Rail IFM
·  1P613171 Pressure Transducer IFM
·  1P611870 Rail Pressure Relief Valve IFM
·  1S343550 Fuel Injector Complete IFM
·  76969F91 Mod. Fuel Injection Pump IFM
·  MHC 570 Hoffman Enclosure with ECU IFM
·  MHC 618 Junction Box Sensor IFM
·  MHC 617 Junction Box Injector IFM
·  FILTREX Model ACXC-76-40-H Automatic Self Cleaning Lube Oil Filter
·  SEPAR Water Separator Model No. 2000/18 UMK.
·  ALGAE-X Fuel Conditioner Model FC

3.1 Overall Equipment Dimensions/Weight/Center of Gravity

3.1.1 Engine with HPCR System Installed

Wet weight: 6,009 pounds
Sub-base: 1,680 pounds
Vibracon® and hardware: 47 pounds
Engine dimensions (overall): 66.9 inches long by 52.7 inches wide by 58 inches high
Engine center of gravity:
Fore/aft: 18.9 inches aft of the front crankshaft end
Vertical: 4.3 inches above the centerline of the crankshaft
Athwartship: 0.4 inches starboard of the engine centerline

3.1.2 FILTREX ACXC-76-40-H Automatic Self-Cleaning Lube Oil Filter

Wet weight: 302.4 pounds
Dimensions (overall): 38.5 inches long by 19 inches high and 15 inches wide.

3.1.3 SEPAR Water Separator

Wet weight: 35 pounds
Dimensions (overall): 24.6 inches long by 9 inches wide and 18 inches high.

3.1.4 ALGAE-X Fuel Conditioner

Wet weight: 25 pounds
Dimensions (overall): 18 inches long and 3.5 inches in diameter

3.1.5 Hoffman Box with ECU

Weight: 45 pounds
Dimensions (overall): 24 inches high by 24 inches long and 9 inches wide

3.1.6 Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS)

Weight: 229 pounds
Dimensions (overall): 30 inches high by 19 inches long and 20 inches wide
This unit was shock isolated and not part of the test for qualification.

3.1.7 Junction Box (Sensors)

Weight: 15 pounds
Dimensions (overall): 11inches high by 8 inches long and 4 ¾ inches wide

3.1.8 Junction Box (Injector)

Weight: 15 pounds
Dimensions (overall): 11inches high by 8 inches long and 4 ¾ inches wide

3.2 FSP-Borne Weight Pounds

Diesel engine: Isotta Fraschini ID36 SS8V- AM – 6,009 lbs.
FILTREX Automatic Self-Cleaning Lube Oil Filter Model No. ACXC-76-40-H. – 302 lbs.
SEPAR Water Separator Model NO.2000/18UMK – 35 lbs.
ALGAE-X Fuel Conditioner Model No. FC UNIT – 25 lbs.
UPS Model 6000 – 229 lbs.
Hoffman Box with ECU Model MVC 01-10/20 – 45 lbs.
2 Junction Boxes (Sensor & Injector) – 30 lbs.
Raft – 1,680 lbs.
Test fixture – 3,357 lbs.
Piggy-back DAU (not part of IF Test) – 700 lbs.
Canopy – 7,000 lbs.
Total Weight Borne by FSP: 19,412 lbs.

4.0 TEST REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Ordering Data per MIL-S-901D

4.1.1 Applicable Specification

MIL-S-901D (Navy), “Military Specification, Shock Test, H.I. (High Impact); Shipboard Machinery, Equipment and Systems, Requirements for,” dated 17 March 1989

4.1.2 Equipment Class

Class I – Hard mounted
Hoffman Enclosure with ECU
ALGAE-X Fuel Conditioner mounted on FSP
FILTREX Lube Oil Filter mounted on FSP

Class II – Resilient Mounted
Engine with HPCR System
SEPAR Water Separator mounted on subbase
Junction Box (Sensors) mounted on subbase
Junction Box (Injector ) mounted on subbase

4.1.3 Shock Grade

Grade A for all test items.

4.1.4 Shock Test Type

Type A – Principal Units
Hoffman Enclosure with ECU
Junction Box Sensors

Junction Box Injector
Filtrex Lube Oil Filter
ALGAE-X Fuel Conditioner mounted on FSP
Separ Water Separator mounted on subbase

Type B – Subsidiary Components
Engine with HPCR System

4.1.5 Mounting Location

All test items were hull mounted

4.1.6 Test Classification

Heavyweight

4.1.7 Mounting Orientation

·  Engine mounted on a raft with the crankshaft parallel with the fore/aft axis of the FSP, which coincides with the fore/aft axis of the ship.
·  Hoffman enclosure with ECU mounted on fixture with the front & back parallel with the fore/aft axis of the FSP, which coincides with the fore/aft axis of the ship.
·  FILTREX mounted a fixture parallel to the port & starboard axis of the FSP, which coincides with the port/starboard axis of the ship.
·  ALGAE-x mounted a fixture parallel to the port & starboard axis of the FSP, which coincides with the port/starboard axis of the ship.
·  The two Junction boxes (sensor & injector) mounted on the subbase with the front /backs parallel to the port & starboard axis of the FSP, which coincides with the port/starboard axis of the ship.

4.1.8 Simulated Masses

None

4.1.9 Exceptions to MIL-S-901D

Shot sequence was 2, 3, 4, and 1 vice the standard 1, 2, 3, and 4. A fifth shot at 20 feet was conducted to validate Vibracon mount operations.

5.0 TEST INSTALLATION/CONFIGURATION

5.1 Equipment Installation

Photograph Nos. 1 and 2 show the equipment installations aboard the barge.


Photograph No. 1. Overhead view of FSP


Photograph No. 2. Overhead view of FSP

5.1.1 Diesel Engine with HPCR

The diesel engine was hard mounted utilizing 12 each Vibracon® SM 16 adjustable K-monel chocks installed between the engine mounting rails and the subbase secured with Grade 8, ¾” X 6” bolts.

The subbase was fabricated and provided by NAVSSES, Carderock Division. The installation of the diesel to the subbase was accomplished by FDGM.

The subbase/diesel assembly was installed on a test fixture designed and fabricated by Dynamic Testing (DTI). The interface of the subbase with the test fixture was accomplished via four 6E2000 resilient mounts provided by NAVSSES. The resilient mounts were integrated with a set of integral snubbers provided by DTI.

The diesel/subbase assembly with resilient mounts and snubbers were attached to the resilient mounts utilizing four each 1 1/4-inch diameter, Grade 8 hex head cap screws. The resilient mounts were attached to the test fixture utilizing eight each 7/8-inch-diameter, Grade 8 hex head cap screws. The test fixture was 24 inches tall and welded directly to the inner bottom of the FSP. The engine-to-subbase fasteners were installed and torque to 225 ft – lbs. I.A.W. Tech Manual S9233- B9-MMM-010 Diesel Engine Model 2894F01 ID 36 SS6V-AM Chapter 8.

5.1.2 Hoffman Enclosure with ECU

The enclosure with ECU was hard mounted to a bulkhead foundation with six 3/8” stainless steel bolts and self-locking nuts. The fixture was welded directly to the FSP innerbottom.

After the second shot, the enclosure was modified and four DTI-2A-038×38 shock mounts were installed. The mounts were attached to the bulkhead foundation with eight 3/8” Grade 5 bolts and self-locking nuts.

5.1.3 FILTREX Self-Cleaning Lube Oil Filter

The filter was hard mounted to a foundation with four 5/8” stainless steel bolts and self-locking nuts. The foundation was welded directly to the FSP innerbottom.

5.1.4 SEPAR Water Separator

The separator was hard mounted to a fixture with four 3/8” Grade 5 bolts and selflocking nuts and the fixture was attached to the engine sub-base with four ¾” Grade 8 bolts and 2 mm studs.

5.1.5 ALGAE-X Fuel Conditioner

The conditioner was hard mounted to a foundation with four 3/8” stainless bolts and self-locking nuts. The foundation was welded directly to the FSP innerbottom.

5.1.6 Sensor Junction Boxes

Junction box was hard mounted to a fixture by FDGM Inc. with three 3/8” Grade 8 bolts and stover nuts and the fixture was welded to the engine sub-base.

5.1.7 Injector Junction Boxes

Junction box was hard mounted to a fixture by FDGM Inc. with 3/8” Grade 8 bolts and the foundation was attached to the engine sub-base with ½” Grade 8 bolts and self-locking nuts.

5.2 Foundation Bolt Torques

The required mounting bolt torques were measured and recorded in Appendix B.

5.3 Mode of Equipment Operation

5.2.1 Diesel Engine with HPCR

The HPCR System was operating at a rail pressure of 400 bar (5,800 psi) during all shots of the test series. The UPS was powered by 115 VAC from ashore and the UPS supplied 28 volts of D.C. power to the HPCR Hoffman enclosure with ECU. The ECU provided 90 Volts DC (20A/ms rise time) output to the injector nozzles. The 90-volt DC signal to the solenoid on the injector nozzle opened the 3-way valve. The rail pressure was controlled by the ECU through the Governor Actuator. The excess fuel from the injector pump was returned to the supply tank. The excess fuel from the injector was returned to supply tank via 20-psi inline relief.

A 15-horsepower motor drove the HPCR injection pump and Governor Actuator. The injection pump supplied fuel to the common rail and injector. The engine camshaft position sensor was mounted on the actuator drive and a measuring pin was located in the injection pump drive coupling, the crankshaft speed and position sensor will use a test fixture adapter to mount sensor and measuring wheel. The measuring wheel was driven off the S/W pump drive. The crankshaft speed and position sensor was not driven by the crankshaft on the engine. The lube oil pressure, air boost pressure, jacket water temperature and exhaust temperature curves of the Heinzmann program were disabled. All eight nozzles were electrically connected, however, only six were supplied with high-pressure fuel from the rails.

5.2.2 FILTREX Self-Cleaning Lube Oil Filter

The oil filter was hydraulically pressurized at a typical operating pressure of 100
psi during the test.

5.2.3 SEPAR Water Separator and ALGAE-X Fuel Conditioner

The separator and fuel conditioner were filled with fluids during the test.

6.0 TEST METHOD

6.1 Test Facility

The test was conducted in accordance with MIL-S-901D at the facilities of DTI.  This test facility is approved for testing in accordance with NAVSEA INST 9491.1C.

7.0 SHOCK TEST ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

7.1 Operational Acceptance Criteria/Failure Definition

In accordance with MIL-S-901D, Paragraph 3.1.10.1, “Grade A items shall withstand shock tests in accordance with this specification without unacceptable effect upon performance and without creating a hazard.”

Momentary malfunction shall be considered acceptable only if it is automatically self-correcting and comes back up to normal operational status, or can be corrected/bypassed with limited operator intervention. This will be acceptable only if no consequent derangement, loss of operation, or compromise of the Grade A capability is caused by the momentary malfunction. Limited operator intervention does not include resetting internal circuit breakers, reseating of circuit cards, reconnecting cables, etc.

Functional tests of critical components must be successfully completed. All failures will be evaluated as to their effect on the mission keeping capability.

7.2 Mechanical Acceptance Criteria/Failure Definition

The absence of major physical damage and continued function in accordance with required engine performance characteristics before, during and after each shot will be the basis for passing the test. Major physical damage is defined as any damage which prevents primary functionality (operational) of the HPCR System under test, or if any portion of the HPCR System comes adrift so as to pose a hazard to adjacent Grade A equipment or personnel.

Minor physical damage to test items, such as small cracks, minor yielding of structure, out of tolerance clearances, and similar damage shall not be cause for shock test disapproval unless such damage causes unacceptable impairment of equipment performance, results in a hazard, or results in substantially shortened equipment useful life. The following examples would be considered minor damage and not be cause for disapproval: deformation of non-critical structure, fracture of any structurally insignificant welds, etc. In addition, damage to subsidiary components of the engine, which are not part of this test, shall not be cause for shock test failure.

Damage to any HPCR System component, which will result in fuel leakage, will constitute a failure of that component. Cracking in the welds or casing of any of the following components shall constitute a failure of that component: FILTREX Lube Oil Filter, SEPAR Water Separator and ALGAE-X Fuel Conditioner. Leakage from any of the following components shall constitute a failure of that component: FILTREX Lube Oil Filter, SEPAR Water Separator, and ALGAE-X Fuel Conditioner.

After each shot, the torque of mounting bolts were measured and the results recorded in Appendix B. If yielding of the attachment bolts occurs, the shot may be considered invalid. Excessive bolt torque loss may be evidenced by a single occurrence of significant rotation of the fastener. Fasteners were re-tightened after the first shot only to compensate for seating of mating surfaces.

7.3 Electrical Acceptance Criteria/Failure Definition

The electrical acceptance criteria will be based on continuous operation of the HPCR system. The input power shall be monitored for maintenance of the input power specifications. The analog and digital HPCR system I/O shall be monitored for proper continuous operation within the I/O specifications provided in the following table. A failure is defined to be any parameter out of pass/fail criteria specification and shall be accepted on a case-by-case basis Electrical monitoring was conducted by NSWCCD.

7.4 Post-Test Acceptance Criteria

If after the test examination reveals no impermissible damage and if HPCR system is capable of full power operation, the system shall be subjected to post shock acceptance testing. Testing shall include successful completion of remaining PMS-490 sponsored HPCR Endurance Test – US Navy cycles (100 hours). Results will be proved in under separate cover.

8.0 TEST INSTRUMENTATION

Instrumentation was installed on selected HPCR System components and on the FSP during the test series to monitor the shock-input parameters. One velocity meter (VM) and four accelerometers were installed and monitored during the test series to determine shock input and response to the equipment. Instrumentation locations are listed in the table below:

Item Orientation Location
VM1 Vertical Inner bottom blast side
A1V Vertical Top of test fixture
A2V* Vertical Top of engine left common rail, adjacent to a mounting bolt
A3V Vertical Top Rear of Hoffman Enclosure foundation
A4V Vertical 3 Left Injector, Top
A5V Vertical Top Rear of Hoffman Enclosure

Notes: A5V was added after the 2nd shot and the Hoffman Enclosure was modified with shock isolators. A2V was moved to the Lower Rail for the 5th shot and A3, A4, and A5 were removed.

9.0 TEST RESULTS

9.1 Test Schedule

Test No. Date Time (EST)
1 02 March 2001 10:01
2 02 March 2001 14:16
3 06 March 2001 12:47
4 06 March 2001 15:28
5 07 March 2001 13:47

9.2 Summary of Modifications Incorporated During Testing

9.2.1 After Shot 1, Test 2 (30-foot athwartship)

9.2.1.1 The sump drain lines were re-routed to improve gravity flow and reduce diesel fuel spillage. The drain lines were not test items; but were test support equipment.

9.2.1.2 Spacers were installed on the previously qualified junction box ears.

9.2.2 After Shot 2, Test 3 (25-foot athwartship)

9.2.2.1 The Hoffman Box installation was modified by installing four DTI-2A-038X38 mounts on the rear. Figure (1) shows the modification.

9.3 Survey Findings

Pre- and post-test inspections were conducted before and after each shock test.

9.3.1 Survey Findings Prior to Testing

9.3.1.1 Action: All components were visually inspected for any physical damage.

Observation: No physical damage was noted.

Resolution: None required.

9.3.1.2 Action: Record foundation bolt torque and electrical operational readings.

Observation: All foundation bolts were at the correct torque and all electrical readings were within stated specifications.

Resolution: None. Results are recorded in Appendix B. System was ready for test.

9.3.2 Survey Findings after Shot 1, 30-foot Standoff, 02 March 2001

9.3.2.1 Action: Conducted a visual inspection.

Observation# 1: The sump drain lines did not perform well and there was significant leakage of diesel fuel. Leakage occurred at most bolted surfaces immediately below the injectors.

Resolution: The sump return lines were re-routed to improve gravity flow into the sump and no further action was required. These lines were fixturing only and not test items.

Observation # 2: The pressure on the FILTREX dropped from roughly 105 psi prior to the test to 75 psi after the test.

Resolution: The FILTREX was re-pressurized to 100 psi prior to the next shot and no further action was taken and there were no visible leaks.

Observation # 3: The attachment flanges (ears) on the Junction boxes slightly deformed.

9.3.2.2 Action: Recorded foundation bolt torque and electrical operational readings.

Observation: Representatives from both FDGM and NSWCCD recorded electrical operational readings. There were no anomalies reported in the electrical operations. Hold-down bolts were re-torqued and are recorded in Appendix B. Several engine mounting bolts showed approximately 1/16” turn of loosening and the ALGAE bolts showed about 1/8” turn of
loosening.

Resolution: None required. All bolts were re-torqued to original status.

9.3.2.3 Action: Verified operation the HPCR system and associated components.

Observation: The HPCR system was successfully operated for five minutes after the detonation.

Resolution: The system was powered down after five minutes of operation.

9.3.3 Survey Findings after Shot 2, 25-foot Standoff, 02 March 2001

9.3.3.1 Action: Conducted a visual inspection and verify operation of the HPCR system and associated components.

Observation # 1: Just prior to the shot, the hum associated with the system drive motor changed and the motor stopped operating at detonation. It was discovered that a fuse in the 220V house power was blown.

Resolution: Initially it appeared that the system drive motor had failed. However, after investigating the problem it was discovered that a chain reaction of events led to the motor being inoperative. The 28 VDC from the UPS was lost prior to the shot due to a power supply failure (verified by the power monitoring effort). The loss of 28 VDC caused the governor actuator to go to maximum fuel position and the electronic metering units to stop functioning thus causing increased fuel pressure. This increased pressure created an excessive load on the motor, which then in-turn blew the fuse.

Observation # 2: The circular manual cleaning handle on the FILTREX broke and came adrift.

Resolution: None, the FILTREX handle is only required for manual cleaning and is not mission-essential. Manual cleaning can still be conducted by using remaining attachments.

Observation # 3: The 28 VDC power from the UPS to the Hoffman enclosure was interrupted. The power supply failed shortly prior to the shot and this was seen by the electrical power monitoring team. It was also noted that the bungee corded mounting fixture impacted hard structure at detonation.

Resolution: The power supply was replaced and the bungee cords were reconfigured prior to the next shot.

Observation # 4: As trouble-shooting continued, it was discovered that the ECU also failed and prevented the fuel injectors from actuating. At this point it was evident that failure of the ECU caused the failure of the power supply.

Resolution: The ECU was visually inspected and no cause of failure was identified. An identical ECU was installed and the engine was successfully run for 10 minutes. The Hoffman box with the ECU installed was modified by installing four DTI-2A-038×38 mounts on the rear (see Photograph No. 6).


Photograph No. 6. Modified Shock Isolated Hoffman Box Mounting

9.3.3.2 Action: Recorded foundation bolt torque and electrical operational readings.

Observation: Representatives from both FDGM and NSWCCD recorded electrical operational readings. There were anomalies reported in the electrical operations when the 28VDC was lost and the system drive motor stopped. Also, it was noted that the signal to the fuel injectors was lost prior to the loss of the 28VDC. Bolt torques were verified and recorded in Appendix B.

Resolution: None required. Bolts were left in the as-found condition. The electrical monitoring failures noted are detailed in Paragraph 9.3.3.1 above.

9.3.4 Survey Findings after Shot 3, 20-foot Standoff, 06 March 2001

9.3.4.1 Action: Conducted a visual inspection and verified operation of the HPCR system and associated components.

Observation # 1: HPCR continued to operate at detonation and ran for approximately 13 minutes before being secured.

Resolution: None required.

Observation # 2: The manual clean hydraulic housing on the FILTREX unit came dislodged when bolts pulled out of the aluminum casing and the piece was found laying on the deck approximately two feet from unit. There appeared to be only three or four thread engagements into the casing. See Photograph No 7 of the adrift housing, and Photograph No. 8 shows the stripped threads.

Resolution: None. Unit failed the test and will be modified and tested on a LW or HW machine at a later date.

Photograph No. 7. Broken Housing on FILTREX

Observation # 3: The Vibracon mount on the left side of engine, at flywheel in (Left Side Number Six) appeared loose.

Resolution: None. It would be thoroughly evaluated after the final shot.

9.3.4.2 Action: Recorded foundation bolt torque and electrical operational readings.

Observation: Electrical operational functions were inoperative for this shot and no readings were recorded because of operator error. It was deemed that the shot did not need to be repeated just to collect the information because the HPCR continued to operate and the FDGM monitoring of injector firing and fuel pressure indicated that the system was working properly. The firing information was lost on 4 Left when an amp lead came loose. Everything else showed full operation. Bolt torques were verified and are recorded in Appendix B.

Resolution: None required. Bolts were left in the as-found condition. The electrical monitoring readings were taken after the fact and all reading were within specifications.

9.3.5 Survey Findings after Shot 4, 40-foot Standoff, 06 March 2001

9.3.5.1 Action: Conducted a visual inspection and verify operation of the HPCR system and associated components.

Observation # 1: HPCR continued to operate at detonation and ran for approximately 18 minutes before being secured.

Resolution: None. No action required.

Observation # 2: The Vibracon mount that appeared loose after the 20- foot shot appeared tight and torque reading indicated no loosening.

Resolution: Upon disassembly, it was noted that the Left Side Number Six Vibracon was tilted and was no longer adjustable. Photograph Nos. 9 and 10 show the slanted Vibracon mount. It is suspected that this slant occurred during the 20-foot standoff shot. Vibracons are not visible when installed. All Vibracon mounts were inspected and this was the only one with any damage. It was also noted that there was only 2 ¾ threads engaged on all of the Vibracons. The normal thread penetration should have been a minimum of five threads interlocking meaning that the item underwent test at a more severe setting then should exist in the most extreme installations on board ships. A decision was make to swap out the Vibracon mounts and conduct another 20-foot shot with just the engine serving as a dummy load to verify the Vibracon mount operations, as if they were installed at the extreme five-thread engagement position.


Photograph No. 9. Slanted Vibracon Mount

Observation # 3: Opened and inspected the SEPAR.

Resolution: No leaks were found and no physical damage to the casing was noted.

Observation # 4: Opened and inspected the ALGAE-X.

Resolution: No leaks or physical damage was found.

Observation # 5: Conducted a non-destructive dye-penetrate test on the engine block at all interface locations with the HPCR.

Resolution: No cracks or deformations were noted. Photograph Nos. 11, 12, and 13 show some of the penetration check results.

9.3.5.2 Action: Recorded foundation bolt torque and electrical operational readings.

Observation: Representatives from both FDGM and NSWCCD recorded electrical operational readings. There were no anomalies reported in the electrical operations. Bolt torques were verified and recorded in Appendix B.

Resolution: None required. Test series was complete.

9.3.6 Survey Findings after Shot 5, 20-foot Standoff, 07 March 2001

9.3.6.1 Action: The HPCR was removed from the engine and other associated hull-mounted items were removed in preparation for the Vibracon validation test. New Vibracon mounts were installed with the correct, five-thread interconnection.

Observation # 1: All Vibracon mounts performed correctly. After the detonation all mounts remained adjustable and the torques were verified and found to be around 175 foot-pounds and this was considered to be an acceptable seating in torque loss.

Resolution: None. No action required.

Observation # 2: The instrumentation data traces received from this test were invalid.

Resolution: It was discovered that a lead wire on the velocity meter came loose and this caused all channels to indicate erroneous data. A review of the VHS photographs taken at detonation indicated that the barge displacement and movement was similar to all other 20-foot standoff shots. After discussing the situation with NSWCCD Code 623 it was decided that a repeat test was not required to receive instrumentation data.

10.0 PERSONNEL PRESENT

Inspector Representing Test No(s).
Tim Nogosky DTI 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Mike Pearson DTI 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Calvin Milam DTI 1, 2
Charlie Hill FDGM 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
John Vincent FDGM 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Ron Pifer FDGM 1, 2, 3, 4
Rick Malesky NSWCCD 1, 2, 3, 4
Jim Robinson NSWCCD 1, 2, 3, 4
Bill Varmecky Machine Support 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Kurt Millson NSWCCD 1, 2, 3, 4
Chris Cheeseman NSWCCD 1, 2
Mack Gaubatz MARITECH 1, 2
Paul Holifield ANTEON 3, 4, 5

11.0 SIGNATURES

Prepared by: _______________________________
Calvin P. Milam, Chief Engineer

Approved by: _______________________________
R. D. Fairfield, Executive Vice President
& General Manager

Appendix B

Torque Verification Recordings

EQUIPMENT TORQUE VALUE Initial Torque 1st Shot 2nd Shot 3rd Shot 4th Shot
8 FUEL PUMP
MOUNTING BOLTS
45 Nm (33 FT LB) 45Nm 45Nm 45Nm 45Nm 45Nm
4 RIGHT RAIL MOUNT
on manifold
16 Nm (12 FT LB) 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm
6 RIGHT RAIL MOUNT
on rail
16 Nm (12 FT LB) 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm
6 LEFT RAIL MOUNT
on manifold
16 Nm (12 FT LB) 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm
6 LEFT RAIL MOUNT
on rail
16 Nm (12 FT LB) 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm 16Nm
12 INJECTOR CLAMP
BOLTS
20 Nm (14 FTLB) 20Nm N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 SEPAR MOUNTING
BOLTS
40 Nm (30 FT LB) 30′ lbs 30′ lbs 30′ lbs 30′ lbs 30′ lbs
4 FILTREX MOUNTING
BOLTS (14 mm 8.8)
130 Nm (96 FT LB) 100′ lbs 100′ lbs 100′ lbs 100′ lbs N/A
4 HOFFMAN BOX
MOUNTING BOLTS
(3/8″)
40 Nm (30 FT LB) 40Nm 40Nm 40Nm 40Nm 40Nm
11 ENGINE MOUNTING BOLTS 305 Nm (225 FT LB)
W10″
W4″
200′ lbs
225′ lbs
200′ lbs
225′ lbs
225′lbs
225′ lbs
*160
to
220′
lbs
**200
to
225′
lbs
4 ALGAE-X 3/8″ X 8.8 40 Nm (30 FT LB) 30′ lbs 30′ lbs NA NA 23′ lbs
6 JUNCTION BOXES 40 Nm (30 FT LB) Hand Tight 40Nm 40Nm 40Nm NA

* 4” Extension` 10” Extension ** 4” Extension 10” Extension
1L = 190 1R = 190 1L = 220 1R = 205
2L = 175 2R = 160 2L = 220 2R = 200
3L = 220 3R = Missed 3L = 225 3R = 200
4L = 190 4R = 175 4L = 205 4R = 200
5L = 190- 5R = 175 5L = 220 5R = 200
6L = 175 6R = 160 6L = 225 6R = 200

LG-X 500 Fuel Conditioner Evaluation For Cesmec In Chile

EVALUATION OF A DEVISE TO BE USED IN DIESEL ENGINES

1. GENERAL DESCRIPTION

At the request of Mr. Cuculiza, we proceeded to evaluate a device to be used in diesel engines; of brand name ALGAE-X, model LG-X 500 and of USA origin.

In accordance with the information provided by the manufacturer, the objective of this devise is to improve the performance of the engine and keep it internally clean. As a bend result of using this device a better combustion should be attained; obtaining a reduction in fuel consumption, a lesser accumulation of deposits in the engine and in the filters and a reduction in the emission of contaminant particles.

2. PROCEDURE

The tests were performed in a 1994 Chevrolet truck, model ISUZU NPR, with 345,670 km at the beginning of the test.

Firstly, the truck was monitored without the devise during 5,481 km. Subsequently, a maintenance was performed to the vehicle, changing the oil and filter, taking an emissions reading and the installation of the device according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

3. RESULTS

According with the test performed the results obtained before and after the installation of the ALGAE-X devise, under the above mentioned procedure, are the following:

Fuel samples before and after processing it through an ALGAE-X STS 5000
Condition Total Mileage km Average Fuel Consumption km/lt Opacity Index (k)
Registered Value (l/m)
Opacity Index (k)
Standard Value (l/m)
Before installation of the device 5,481 4.80 1.56 ≤ 2.50
After installation of the device 17,409 6.11 1.05 ≤ 2.50


4. CONCLUSION

According to the results obtained from the before mentioned device it can be concluded that in accordance with the also before mentioned conditions, its use allows to obtain a significant reduction in fuel consumption and in the emission of contaminant particles. Additionally, the fuel particles are significantly reduced, which was evident by the clean condition of the filter.

AXI Technology Solves Water Contamination Of Underground Fuel Storage Tank

Report on 9,000 Litre Unleaded Underground Storage Tank Clean
30th November 2005, Plymouth, U.K.

Introduction

E&S Fuel Improvement Systems were asked to attend site by Wyatt Engineering Fuel Services and use our Algae-X fuel polishing technology to deal with water contamination within a 9,000 litre underground unleaded storage tank. At our request the tank contained approximately 5000 litres of fuel.

Initial Sample

Before commencing the cleaning and before the addition of the AFC705 Fuel Catalyst a sample was taken from the bottom of the tank. Inspection of the sample revealed the following:

• A large amount of free water.
• Suspended within the water was a large amount of fine sludge that settled out over time.
• Large amounts of rust particles.
• The fuel itself was slightly hazy and brownish in colour.

Cleaning

AFC705 was added to the tank at the ratio of 1:2500 (double dose), and the fuel was initially passed through the coalescer, magnetic fuel conditioner and one water block filter. The coalescer was drained regularly and the water and particulates were allowed to settle out before any unleaded was put back into the tank.

The pick up pipes position was changed frequently during the process to ensure as much agitation of the tanks contents allowing for maximum removal of contaminants. Regular samples were taken from after the water block filter, when these samples started to appear bright and clear to visual inspection the flow was changed to enable the fuel to be passed through a further water block filter for final polishing of the fuel. This was achieved after 2,500 litres. The fuel was then cycled through until a) the level of contaminants drained from the coalescer had been reduced to an acceptable level of rust particles (it would not be possible to remove 100% of small rust particulates from this particular tank, this was explained to the customer at the time), b) No free water was present in the samples drained from the coalescer, c) the sample taken from after the final water block filter was clear, bright and free from any visible contamination.

Final Sample

A final sample was taken from the bottom of the tank in the same manner as the initial sample. The sample was found to be clear and bright and clear of water. A greatly reduced number of rust particulates were present, however it was explained to the customer that the total removal of these particles would be virtually impossible. However given their nature in that they settle quickly to the bottom of the tank, they should cause no problems to his installation.

The customer was left with the remainder of the AFC705 catalyst and instructions to add this to the tank when he takes his next delivery and to ensure that his next delivery fills the tank.

Microbial Contamination

A test was carried out on both the initial and final sample using a liqui-kult test kit. The initial sample showed a light contamination and the final sample showed no contamination.

Recommendations

The following recommendations were explained to the customer on site. • Dosing of all tanks with AFC705 at a rate of 1:5000 every quarter. • Keeping his storage tanks as full as possible to prevent condensation. • A regular sampling procedure with a simple visual check to identify any potential problems quicker. The customer was shown our FS100 sampling pump. Conclusion It can be clearly seen from the photographs of the before and after samples that the mobile tank cleaning machine in conjunction with the AFC705 in a little over four hours on site has fully restored the fuel within the customers tank to its original state. This has saved on the costly disposal of contaminated fuel and the hazardous, time consuming, expensive and inconvenient way of cleaning the tank by putting someone inside which was the alternative. Provided the customers adopts a regime of preventative rather than reactive maintenance (regular dosing with AFC705) the need to carry out a full cleaning job such as this is greatly diminished.

AXI Performance Evaluation On A CFN Locomotive

CFN – Companhia Ferroviaria do Nordeste (www.cfn.com.br) – a Brazil railroad company with headquarters in Fortaleza running 7400km of railroad in the northeast of the country conducted an evaluation of an ALGAE-X Magnetic Fuel Conditioner in April 2004.

The locomotive used was an ALCO RSD8 with a 1050hp engine. 8 different load points were measured for 10 minutes each, first without and then with and LG-X 1500 Fuel Conditioner installed.

Load point Without LG-X
[kg diesel fuel]
With LG-X
[kg diesel fuel]
Difference in fuel consumption [%]
1 5.3 4.5 15.09
2 8.0 7.0 12.50
3 12.3 11.5 6.50
4 15.7 14.9 5.10
5 21.4 20.5 4.21
6 25.7 25.0 2.72
7 31.0 30.0 3.23
8 36.4 36.0 1.10
AVG. 6.31

Average fuel saving were 6.31%. Improvements in fuel consumption for point 2 and 3 (mainly used in maneuvering) came out to be 9.5% and 4.71% for point 4 and 5 (mainly used on trips). CFN is expecting to save about $ 30,000.00 a month just on fuel. Improved fuel quality also has a major impact on periodic maintenance. It extends filter and oil change intervals, fuel injectors and fuel pump life and environmental aspects due to reduced exhaust gases, particulate and soot.

CFN is expecting to save about $30,000 a month just on fuel.

Improved fuel quality also has a major impact on a periodic maintenance.  It extends filter and oil change intervals, fuel injectors and fuel pump life and environmental aspects due to reduced exhaust gases, particulate and soot.

AXI STS-5000 Automatic Fuel Conditioning and Filtration System Installation At A Mission Critical Data Center In The US

Two indoor, above ground tanks made of steel holding 3000 Gallons each supplying a standby generator at a critical facility. STS 5000-10GPM Fuel Conditioning and Filtration System is installed in between the tanks with a fuel manifold on inlet and outlet to cycle fuel or transfer fuel from one to another while polishing and filtering it. Customer uses 30 micron primary SEPAR filter elements and ALGAE-X 3 micron Water Block secondary filters in the STS.

The STS 5000-10GPM utilizes an ALGAE-X 3000 Fuel Conditioner to restore fuel quality and stabilize it.

Text of customer’s email message:

“We could clearly see a visible difference in the fuel clarity, color and opacity after we installed the ALGAE-X system. Now the STS automatically comes on once a week to keep my stored fuel in good shape (see lab report). What is remarkable is that the first time I got a new load of fuel from my high quality supplier I ran the STS 5000 and I clogged filters with this brand new fuel that came in … this is why I love your system and it gives me a safe feeling looking at fuel related gen set reliability.

John O.”

Extract from results:

Fuel samples before and after processing it through an ALGAX-X STS 5000
Parameter Before Sample After Sample
Color – ASTM D1500 No. 7 (dark) No. 4
Appearance / Workmanship – ASTM D4176 fail (solids) pass (clear)
Sediment and Water [%] – ASTM D1796 2.75 <0.05
Particulate Contamination mg/l – ASTM D5452 2400 115
Oxidation Stability – DuPo F21-61 No. 5 (pass) No. 2 (pass)
Bacterial Yeast and Fungus Cont. – (Mod) 907 Positive Negative

Fuel samples where analyzed by an independent fuel lab. Please see full lab reports for further details.

Engineered Systems Division Report Of Navy Fuel Analysis

On October 5th, 1998, we received a sample of fuel from Naval Surface Warfare Center in Philadelphia, PA. The sample was a heavier #2 diesel fuel. The sample was full of black agglomerations of bacterial and fungal growth (as is shown on test sample 9622). After a sample (designated as Navy 1 before) was sent to Analyst, Inc. in Oakland, CA, the remaining fuel was pumped through our MMI 1245-4 Diesel Fuel Polishing System, which includes an ALGAE-X MFC. Incorporating this unit into our proprietary filtration equipment provides a “total filtration solution”. After 2 hours of circulation, the fuel was “clear and bright”. A sample (designated as Navy 1 after) was taken and sent to the same lab and was given Lab Number 9645.

The results of the first lab sample were received October 12th, 1998, showing slight bacterial and heavy fungal growth, water and sediment at .05 of 1%, non-combined particulate contaminants at 4mg/L and total particulate contaminants at 31 mg/L. Three of these four tests were at the maximum limit or more.

The results of the second lab sample were received October 20, 1998, showing bacterial and fungal growth negative, water and sediment at 0, non-combined particulate contaminants at less than .001, and total particulate at 11ppm, well below the 20ppm allowed. The improvement in fuel quality between the first and second sample was amazing. The first sample looked like 5-day-old coffee and smelled like waste fuel. The second sample was extremely clear and smelled like fresh fuel.

The combination of the ALGAE-X unit with MMI’s fuel polishing system enhanced our ability to remove all of the water from the sample, eliminated the presence of microorganisms, and restored the “clear and bright” characteristics of the fuel. Copies of the sample reports are attached.

I hereby attest that the tests described above were conducted fairly and honestly in an effort to prove or disprove the validity of our system design.

Gerald M. Hill
Project Manager
Date:10/23/98

The tests were conducted as described above, to which I am witness.

Richard Vialton
Division Manager
Date:10/23/98

METERMASTER INC.
1440 S. State College Boulevard • Suite 5H • Anaheim, CA 92806
(714) 956-7571 • 1-800-800-5004 • FAX: (714) 956-7573

Summary Of Algae-X Performance Using A Dyno Test On Man Bus

OWNER – THARI
MAKE – MAN
MODEL – BO8 323
REG NR – FHX441N
KM – 35401

FUEL CONSUMPTION

Without ALGAE-X With ALGAE-X Improvement
At quarter load 18.5 l/100 km 18.0 l/100km 2.7%
At half load 27.8 l/100 km 27.3 l/100 km 1.8%
At full load 42.3 l/100 km 40.8 l/100 km 3.5%

EXHAUST GAS EMISSIONS

Without ALGAE-X With ALGAE-X Improvement
45% H.S.U. 40.9% H.S.U. 9%

EXHAUST GAS TEMPERATURES

Without ALGAE-X With ALGAE-X Improvement
At 1200 RPM 369 C 306 C 63 C (17.1%)
At 1400 RPM 425 C 281 C 144 C (33.9%)
At 1600 RPM 408 C 247 C 161 C (39.5%)
At 1800 RPM 395 C 240 C 155 C (39.2%)
At 2000 RPM 381 C 234 C 147 C (38.6%)
At 2200 RPM 375 C 235 C 140 C (37.3%)

Regards

BRADLEY LEACH

CFT Test Report On Exhaust Temperature

ATTENTION : ALL CLEAR FUEL TECHNOLOGIES DISTRIBUTORS

RE: ALGAE-X TEST CONDUCTED AT BARLOWS CATERPILLAR ISANDO

On 4th November 2002 we provided a test unit to Barlows on behalf of their customer Suiferfontein Mine to confirm Algae-X’s effectiveness. An LG-X 1500 Unit was tested on a CAT 3508 motor and the following results achieved:

WITHOUT ALGAE-X

Engine State ECM l/hr KW Exhaust Gas Temp. °C
High Idle 80 28 247
1/4 Load 90 156 334
1/2 Load 127 305 404
3/4 Load 162 455 468
Full Load 176 593 506

WITH ALGAE-X

Engine State ECM l/hr KW Exhaust Gas Temp. °C
High Idle 80 31 245
1/4 Load 90 159 315
1/2 Load 120 305 373
3/4 Load 144 461 441
Full Load 174 593 483
Improvement 4.8L 2.4 20.4° C
% Averaged 4.25% 5.21%
1/2 – full load 5.8% 5.88%

Discussions and feedback from our other CAT clients such as Optimum Colliery indicate a fuel saving of 6.73% and this tends to be a more realistic figure as the equipment operates mainly in the half to three-quarter load zones.

An interesting new point to us was the substantial reduction in exhaust gas temperatures which quite frankly I was unaware of! On querying this aspect with Algae-X International, I was advised that this was indeed a benefit of Algae-X and the result was obtained by providing a more optimum burn of the fuel in the combustion chamber and not continuing to burn on the exhaust transfer.

Sadly Barlows were not prepared to confirm these results on a CAT letterhead (I cannot understand why as the tests were repeated by them three times with exactly the same results, and a meeting with them yielded no negatives or concerns). Apparently, company policy restricts them from doing this.

Installation of Algae-X will not negate the warranty on CAT equipment, except of course if it is found that Algae-X caused the failure — as you well know, an impossible scenario.

The gentlemen at Barlows who conducted the tests are:

Mr Pietie Aukamp, telephone number 011-9290000 or 082-9029377 and
Mr Hendrik Loods, telephone number 011-9290000 or 083-3274045.

They have, however, advised that they will be more than happy to confirm the above results telephonically, should a client require confirmation of such.

Hoping this information will assist.

Regards

RON MATTIG
DIRECTOR

California Transit Fleet Test Yields 11.1% Gain In MPG With Algae-X Fuel Conditioners Installed

ALGAE-X International recently participated in an evaluation, of its magnetic fuel conditioning units, with a major bus fleet in California, conducted by fleet operations personnel, extending over a period of 3 months. The evaluation was directed at studying the outcome of these units on fuel consumption in diesel-powered school buses.

The results were notable. The average miles per gallon, for the six vehicles, before installing the units were 5.753. After the installation of the ALGAE-X magnetic Fuel Conditioners, this increased to 6.391 MPG. The net gain was .638 MPG or 11.1%.

The data indicated that one of the vehicles had a negative result giving us decreasing fuel mileage. Eliminating this number from the aggregate data indicates the net improvement in fuel economy was 12.88%.

The Data Before After Average Gain
ALGAE-X Installation Results: 5.753 MPG 6.391 MPG .638 MPG or 11.8%
Eliminating data from low usage vehicle
ALGAE-X Installation Results: 5.675 MPG 6.406 MPG .731 MPG or 12.88%

The report states:
“The use of this device has increased fuel mileage and slightly reduced emissions (opacity) in the six buses tested.” “Based on this rudimentary test there may be some fuel savings using the magnet device. The indicated average of 11.1% improvement in fuel mileage would be a substantial savings if the results bear up under long term, precision testing. Our bus fleet uses approximately 2.2 million gallons of fuel at $1.00 per gallon. Our approximate yearly savings would be $240,000.00.”

“We recommend looking further into the ceramic magnet device through enhanced testing over a six month period.”

Environment Canada AFC Fuel Catalyst UrbanBus Evaluation

EXECUTIVE REPORT

In 1996 Chassis Dynamometer testing was conducted and concluded on three Detroit Diesel 6v92 diesel engine powered urban buses by Environment Canada, Mobile Sources Emissions Division in Ottawa Ontario, Canada. A series of New York City Composites (NYCC) and Central Business District (CBD) cycles were conducted on each bus at zero hours, 400 hours and 1000 hours of normal in service operation in the city of Ottawa, Canada. Two of the three identical buses were tested and operated on fuel treated with AFC, which was mixed by lab technicians as specified by the product manufacturer. The third bus served as a control and operated on non-treated fuel. The fuel that was treated with AFC came from the same batch as the fuel used by the control bus.

The data generated from the two test cycles was evaluated six different ways for each cycle. This was done for the purpose of generating as much data as possible across as broad a spectrum of operating conditions as possible. The method of analysis gave results that are as random and impartial as possible. How the results are interpreted depends on the circumstances that they are compared to. The NYCC cycle is typical of heavy city driving and the CBD cycle is typical of lighter suburban driving. By cross comparing the results from each cycle the range of performance of a vehicle under certain conditions can be predicted. A summary of the fuel economy improvements and emission reductions is presented below. An explanation of how the results were determined follows.

Table 1
Summary of results

DATA SUBJECT NYBC CBD AVERAGE
Fuel Economy 5% 7% 6%
CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) 5% 10% 8%
NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) 18% 21% 20%
PM (Particulate Mass) 6% 8% 7%
CO (Carbon Monoxide) NI 8% 8%
THC (Total Hydrocarbons) NI 2% 2%
Acetaldehyde NA NA 20%
Formaldehyde NA NA 5%
PAH (1-4) NA NA 99%
PAH (5-7) NA NA 50%
PAH (5-14) NA NA Decreased

*All results are statistically significant at a 95% confidence level.

During the course of the test maintenance was performed on test bus #8919 and the control bus. There is no way to know for sure whether the maintenance procedures had a negative or positive effect, or none at all, on the performance of tile buses, however, there are some strong indications of the trends. After the maintenance was perforn1ed on test bus #8919, the range of the data became significantly wider between the two tests buses. This indicates a negative impact (emission readings went up, fuel economy went down) on the overall performance of that bus. However, there were some variations in the individual trends of the areas evaluated. The range of data between the control bus and the other test bus (#8939) became narrower indicating a positive impact (emission readings were reduced while fuel economy improved) on the overall performance of that bus. Again, with some variations in the individual trends of the areas evaluated. The following graph illustrates the overall resulting trends.

The results of this evaluation indicate that fuel economy consistently improved with the continual use of AFC treated fuel. The average increases for the test vehicles themselves during the testing period were 7.0% for the CBD cycle and 4.6% for the NYBC. This is in spite of any negative influence that the maintenance conducted on test bus #3919 might have had in lowering the averages. With the control bus factored in, the results indicated increases of up to 6.1% for the CBD and up to 5.5% for the NYBC. This was in spite of any positive influence that the maintenance conducted on the control bus might have had in reducing the difference.

In short, even with the trends of the outside variables going against producing positive results, there was a positive, statistically significant improvement at the 95% confidence level. There is no better indication that the improvements are real and significant. If the effects of the adverse factors are ignored, the results indicate a statistically significant improvement as high as 14% for two of the eight different test evaluation scenarios.

Generally, any percentage reduction in fuel consumption causes an equal percentage reduction in emissions. For example, if 10% less fuel is being burned then 10% fewer total emissions are being produced. However, the ratios of the individual gasses that comprise the reduced total can change in relation to themselves. For example, the different tests will show consistent improvements in fuel economy and a corresponding reduction in total emissions. However, the ratios of the individual gasses comprising the totals may be different for all three tests.

This variation makes it more difficult to pinpoint improvements. However, consistent improvements that show up can be considered significant with a high degree of confidence. This type of variation is prominent when combustion surfaces are being modified and AFC is an extremely effective surface modifier. Because of this, the emissions data needs to be analyzed in a slightly different way than that of the fuel economy.

With respect to the CO2 exhaust emissions, the data indicated a statistically significant average reduction of 8% in this emission. This is consistent with the increase in fuel economy and corresponds with an improvement in combustion efficiency . This corresponds with field test measurements.

NOx is a highly variable emission due to the inability to control all of the variables that influence its production. Readings for NOx will vary from day to day for a given piece of equipment regardless of its condition. However, the equipment design, condition, fuel etc. will influence the magnitude of those fluctuations. For NOx, which is influenced more by engine environment conditions than by fuel consumption, the average emission levels increased for all the buses over time. This is not uncommon. However, the increases in the test buses were significantly less than the increases in the control bus. (This illustrates the importance of having a control) The effect that the maintenance had on these differences is unknown, but in this case the trends were very consistent between the test buses and the control bus indicating that there was very little or no effect. The statistically significant percentage differences in NOx production between the control bus and the test buses were 18% for the NYBC and 21% for the CBD. This illustrates the capability of AFC to minimize the degree of fluctuation in NOx emissions. These differences correspond closely to field test predictions.

The particulate mass measurements on the test buses showed a statistically significant average decrease of 7% for this emission for three of four test sequences. The control bus showed the same trends but with a larger percentage decrease. The maintenance performed on test bus #8919 seems to have had a very negative impact on the amount of PM released, while the maintenance performed on the control bus resulted in a very positive impact on this emission. If the negative impact of the maintenance on the reduction of PM is taken into account the results indicate a significant reduction of 14% for the CBD cycle. This is more typical of what happens in the field.

CO was reduced by a statistically significant 8% for the CBD cycle while showing no improvement (NI) for the NYBC. There is no explanation for this difference other than that CO emissions are very low for diesel applications in the first place. The maintenance that was performed on the test bus did not seem to affect CO production. The same is true of the maintenance conducted on the control bus. The 8% reduction that was significant for the test busses is half the 16% that is typically seen in field tests.

THC’s were reduced by a statistically significant average of 2% on the CBD, while showing no average improvement (NI) for the NYBC. However, there are strong indications that the maintenance conducted on test bus #8919 had a very negative impact on the production of this emission. Test bus #8939 showed significant reductions of 8% for the NYBC and 9% for the CBD. The maintenance conducted on the control bus seemed to have a positive effect on the readings for this emission. A 10% reduction is typical for this emission in field tests.

The carbonyls were measured independent of the testing cycles (NA) and consist primarily of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. Formaldehyde, which comprises 50 to 90% of the total carbonyls, showed a statistically significant reduction of 5% over the control bus. Acetaldehyde showed a 20% reduction over the control bus and a 41% reduction for the test buses themselves. There was no way to determine how the maintenance conducted on the buses affected these emissions.

The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) were also measured independent of the testing cycles (NA). 15% of the total PAH is released in gaseous form with the remaining 85% adhering to the particulate mass. During baseline testing 14 compounds were identified. At the 1000 hour point of the test tour, (4) of the PAH compounds were at the non-detectable level being reduced by greater than 99%. Of the remaining ten, three (3) were reduced by greater than 50%. The last seven (7) identified PAH compounds were all reduced significantly by varying degrees. This was consistent for both test buses with little or no variation in the trends. The reduction of PAH has a secondary effect of reducing the toxicity and reactivity of any particulate mass that is released.

In conclusion, based on the methodology and vehicles used for this test program, AFC treated fuel was shown to effectively improve fuel economy while reducing most of the exhaust stream compounds by significant amounts.

ENVIRONMENT CANADA AFC FUEL CATALYSTS URBAN BUS EVALUATION FINAL ANALYSIS
DATA INTERPRETATION

The results support the following conclusions:

• For diesel vehicles operating in a light/fast city type environment, one could expect an improvement in fuel economy of about 6%. This also means a direct reduction of all emissions by the same percentage.
• For diesel vehicles operating in a heavy/slow city type environment, one could expect an improvement in fuel economy of about 4%. This also means a direct reduction of all emissions by the same percentage .
• For diesel vehicles operating in a light/fast suburban type environment, one could expect an improvement in fuel economy of about 14%. This also means a direct reduction of all emissions by the same percentage.
• For diesel vehicles operating in a heavy/slow suburban type environment, one could expect an improvement in fuel economy of about 10%. This also means a direct reduction of all emissions by the same percentage.
• For diesel vehicles operating in a light/fast city/suburban mix type environment, one could expect an improvement in fuel economy of about 10%. This also means a direct reduction of all emissions by the same percentage.
• For diesel vehicles operating in a heavy/slow city/suburban mix type environment, one could expect an improvement in fuel economy of about 7%. This also means a direct reduction of all emissions by the same percentage.
• For diesel vehicles operating in a heavy/slow city type environment, where smoke and particulate emissions are the worst, one could expect a reduction in PM of around 20% above and beyond any reductions due to reduced fuel consumption. Total Hydrocarbons and CO2 reductions would be around 8% each, above and beyond any reductions due to reduced fuel consumption.

An overall average improvement in fuel economy would be expected to fall in the range of 8% and an over all reduction of emissions would be expected to fall in the range of 12%. However, these numbers are not representative of any particular type of driving environment.

COMBUSTION CHEMISTRY

AFC works on the chemical level of the combustion process and therefore works in exactly the same way, regardless of the type of liquid or solid fuel in which it is used. AFC interacts with the carbon-carbon and carbon-hydrogen bonds of fuel particles. It makes no difference whether the particle is a short carbon chain (gasoline), a medium length carbon chain (kerosene), or a long carbon chain (diesel). The AFC combustion catalysts interact with one carbon bond at a time. When the temperature of the combustion environment reaches a minimum of about 200°C, the AFC catalysts are activated and the chemical reaction begins to occur. The catalysts can’t tell what kind of fuel they are in, or what type of engine they are in, or what type of combustion environment they are in. All they see are carbon-carbon and carbon-hydrogen bonds in an environment of 200°C or more. For a visual illustration of this process, please refer to the color bulletin titled “The Combustion Process”. This process is the same for all hydrocarbon fuels regardless of whether it is being burned in an internal combustion engine including turbines or open flame type applications. AFC will improve the combustion efficiency, remove hard carbon deposits, and reduce fuel consumption and overall emissions in all types of applications and equipment. The trends will be the same regardless. The only thing that the type of equipment or type of fuel used will affect is the magnitude of the trends.

For example, AFC will improve fuel economy in a diesel application on the order of 7% while in a gasoline application the improvement will be on the order of 12%. Generally, the lighter the fuel the greater the improvement in fuel economy that will show up. Also, a dirtier engine will show greater improvement after it is cleaned up than a not so dirty engine. Another example is with particulate and smoke production. AFC will reduce combined smoke and particulate in diesel applications on the order of 40% while reducing them in gasoline applications on the order of about 15%. Generally, the heavier the fuel, the greater the reduction in smoke and particulate emissions. In yet another example CO reduction in gasoline is high, while CO reduction in diesel is lower partly due to the fact that CO emissions in diesel applications are naturally low in the first place. In all cases the trends are the same with only the degree of magnitude differing.

Once the chemistry of AFC is understood, it is not hard to predict with good accuracy the trends that one will see due to its use. The difficult part is predicting the magnitude of those trends. In most cases a ball park estimate can be given, but it is not until all the variables affecting the combustion environment are understood or controlled that a number can be declared. However, the trends will be the same regardless of the fuel type or the application.

ENVIRONMENT CANADA AFC FUEL CATALYSTS URBAN BUS EVALUATION FINAL ANALYSIS
FINAL REPORT EXTRAPOLATION

The following summary lists the reductions in fuel consumption that one would expect to see when operating equipment in the operating environments listed below. The expectations represent the average of a range and are extrapolated from the results of Environment Canada’s evaluation of the AFC combustion catalysts. Keep in mind that any reduction in fuel consumption equates to an equal reduction of total emissions by the same percentage.

THE MINING INDUSTRY

The typical operating conditions of an engine used in a mining environment resemble the heavy/slow city/suburban mix type operating conditions of the lab test. In this case expect to see an improvement in fuel economy of about 7%. In some cases the operating conditions resemble the heavy/slow suburban type operating conditions of the lab test. If so, expect to see an improvement in fuel economy of about 10%.

THE MARINE INDUSTRY

The typical operating conditions of an engine used in a marine environment resemble the heavy/slow suburban type operating conditions of the lab test. In this case expect to see an improvement in fuel economy of about 10%. In some cases the operating conditions resemble the light/fast suburban type operating conditions of the lab test. If so, expect to see an improvement in fuel economy of about 14%.

OVER THE ROAD TRUCKING

The typical operating conditions of an engine used in an over the road trucking environment resemble the heavy/slow suburban type operating conditions of the lab test. In this case expect to see an improvement in fuel economy of about 10%. Under heavy haul operating conditions, the performance resembles the heavy/slow city/suburban mix type operating conditions of the lab test. In this case expect to see an improvement in fuel economy of about 7%. In some cases the operating conditions resemble the light/fast suburban type operating conditions of the lab test. If so, expect to see an improvement in fuel economy of about 14%.

RAILROADS

The typical operating conditions of an engine used in a rail type environment resemble the heavy/slow suburban type operating conditions of the lab test. In this case expect to see an improvement in fuel economy of about 10%. Yard or switch engines operate in an environment that resembles the heavy/slow city/suburban mix type operating conditions of the lab test. In this case expect to see an improvement in fuel economy of about 7%.

MUNICIPALITIES

The typical operating conditions of an engine used in a municipalities environment (i.e. garbage collection, school buses, etc.) resemble the heavy/slow city type operating conditions of the lab test. In this case expect to see an improvement in fuel economy of about 4%. In some cases the operating conditions resemble the heavy/slow city/suburban type operating conditions of the lab test. If so, expect to see an improvement in fuel economy of about 7%.

NOTE: Field tests indicate gasoline operated equipment generally achieves greater improvements in fuel economy than diesel powered equipment. Where applicable, gasoline powered equipment running under the conditions listed above will generally see a greater percentage reduction in fuel consumption than diesel powered equipment. The difference generally falls in the range of 50% to 80% greater for gasoline over diesel.

Ben-Gurion University Test AXI-500

Ben-Gurion University Test ALGAE-X 500

The tests that we have conducted to study the rate of reduction of air polluters emitted from diesel engines fitted with Magnetic Fuel Stabilizers of the ALGAE-X 500 type are described hereunder together with their results. We have conducted two series of tests:

Series of Tests with Chassis Dynamometer

1. The test’s objective: Testing the rate of reduction of air polluters emitted from a Volvo truck used in garbage disposal, made available for the test by the Transport Department of the Tel-Aviv Municipality.
2. The subject stabilizer was installed on the 5th of November, 2006 between the fuel tank and the primary fuel filter adjacent thereto.
3. The truck was loaded with the assistance of a chassis dynamometer at a “DAN” workshop and the emission rates were measured in three different working regimes. The tests were conducted under the supervision of the signatory.
4. The composition of the exhaust gases was measured at each working regime, once before the stabilizer was fitted (on November 5th, 2006) and again after having fitted it (on December 3rd, 2006). The vehicle traveled between said dates with the fuel stabilizer (the number of kms. shows in the table).
5. During the period of time between both measurements the truck worked as usual and the truck engine did not undergo any treatment (any kind of cleaning, injectors replacement, injection or valves adjustments, filters replacement, oil replacement, etc.).
6. The three different working regimes in which the tests were conducted are detailed in Table Nr. 1.
7. NOx, HC, CO were measured at each regime as well as parameters characterizing the solid particles, namely, the particles’ distribution by size and their total mass.
8. The exhaust gases’ composition was measured by means of a SUN produce DGA 1000 Gas Analyzer.
9. The parameters characterizing the solid particles were measured by means of a SENSORS produce PM-300 Particulate Analyzer.
10. The results reflect single measurements and are not representative of a statistic sampling collection.

Series of Tests with an Engine Dynamometer

1. The test’s objective: Testing the rate of reduction of air polluters emitted from a Ford Transit’s engine loaded in this test with a turbulence currents dynamometer.
2. The subject stabilizer was installed on December 27th, 2006, between the fuel tank and the primary fuel filter adjacent thereto. All the tests were conducted on the same day.
3. The engine was loaded with assistance of a turbulence currents dynamometer and the emission rates were measured in three different working regimes.
4. The exhaust gases’ composition was measured at each regime in two different protocols: according to the first protocol, at each working regime, the engine was continuously fed by moving the gate valve once thru the engine’s normal fuel piping and once thru the magnetic stabilizer. The results are displayed in Table Nr. 2. According to the second protocol, the engine was tested without the stabilizer at three operating regimes one after the other and then it was tested in the same manner and at the same regimes with the stabilizer. The results are displayed in Table Nr. 3.
5. The tests were conducted under the supervision of the signatory.
6. NOx, HC, CO were measured at each working regime as well as the smoke’s turbidity and the fuel consumption.
7. The exhaust gases’ composition was measured by means of a SUN produce DGA 1000 Gas Analyzer.
8. The smoke’s turbidity was tested by means of a SUN produce DG 8000 Smoke Meter.
9. The fuel consumption was measured by weighing fuel at measured times.
10. The results reflect single measurements and are not representative of a statistic sampling collection.

Results of the Series of Tests with a Chassis Dynamometer

1. The stabilizer helped in reducing CO emission by an average rate of 50.4%/ It should be pointed out that, as a rule, the rate of CO emission from diesel engines is very low compared with the emission rate of this component from petrol engines.
2. The HC rate of emission from diesel engines is also low compared with the emission rate of this component from petrol engines. The measured rates were between 2 and 16ppm, therefore they have no practical significance. However, it should be pointed out that except for the medium load test (apparently a measuring error), the average reduction rate is 36.5%.
3. The stabilizer helped in reducing NOx emission by a rate of 12.8%.
4. The stabilizer helped in lowering the level of the particles’ emission by a rate of 3.5%.

Results of the Series of Tests with an Engine Dynamometer

1. The stabilizer helped in reducing CO emission by an average rate of 11.1% according to the first protocol and by an average rate of 25.5% according to the second one. As a rule, the rate of CO emission from diesel engines is very low compared with the emission rate of this component from petrol engines.
2. The stabilizer helped in reducing HC emission by an average rate of 5.1% according to the first protocol and by an average rate of 16.2% according to the second one. As a rule, the rate of HC emission from diesel engines is very low compared with the emission rate of this component from petrol engines.
3. The stabilizer helped in reducing NOx emission by an average rate of 13.9% according to the first protocol and by an average rate of 3.3% according to the second one.
4. The stabilizer helped in lowering the smoke emission level by a rate of 15.1% according to the first protocol and by an average rate of 23.4% according to the second one.
5. The stabilizer helped in reducing the fuel consumption by an average rate of 5.5% (9% according to the first protocol and by a rate of 2.0% according to the second one).

Conclusion: From the results obtained from the series of tests described above it can be concluded that the ALGAE-X 500 fuel stabilizer has a contribution in lowering air pollution emitted from diesel engines, including lowering the level of the NOx emitted and the smoke emission rate. From the above results the contribution in the other tested components may also be noted.

Very respectfully,

Professor Eran SHER
Head of the Engines Laboratory

Table Nr. 1: Summary of Chassis Dynamometer Results – Truck (Volvo) data and rates of polluters measured at the engine’s different operating regimes.

RPM
kW

Neutral
650
0

v=36 – 39
800
25-26

v=47 – 49
1350
46-45

Vehicle Nr. 17-904-15

Before installation
Nov. 5, 2006

vol. %

CO

0.039

0.023

0.023

vol. ppm

HC

16

2

5

vol. ppm

NOx

123

449

389

After installation

vol. %

CO

0.036

0.006

0.007

vol. ppm

HC

11

6

3

vol. ppm

NOx

110

434

293

Table Nr. 2: Summary of engine dynamometer results according to the first protocol, i.e., at each working regime the (Ford Transit) engine was fed continuously by moving a gate valve once thru the engine’s normal fuel piping and once thru the magnetic stabilizer. W/O – without the instrument.

Point by Point
Idle W/O Idle 1200 W/O 1200 1800 W/O 1800
Torque [N*m] 0 0 95.5 93 122.5 121
CO [%] 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.02
HC [ppm] 18 15 22 37 2 0
NOx [ppm] 140 140 500 150 610 610
Smoke [%] 5.8 5 46 26 23 20
O2 [%] 18 18.3 10.2 9.5 8.5 8.7
CO2 [%] 1.75 1.69 7.21 7.21 8.39 8.36
Fuel [g/min] 6 6 52 50 94 92

Table Nr. 3: Summary of engine dynamometer results according to the second protocol, i.e., the (Ford Transit) engine was tested without stabilizer at three operating regimes one after the other and then it was tested at the same regimes with the stabilizer.

Map after Map
Idle W/O Idle 1200 W/O 1200 1800 W/O 1800
Torque [N*m] 0 0 100 99 127 127
CO [%] 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.04
HC [ppm] 11 11 14 11 16 17
NOx [ppm] 120 110 460 410 620 480
Smoke [%] 3 3.5 18 10 23 19
O2 [%] 18.7 10.3 10.3 10.3 7.7 7.6
CO2 [%] 1.58 1.55 7.27 7.24 9.08 9.12
Fuel [g/min] 8 6 50 50 96 94

Table Nr. 4: Results of the particles’ measurements obtained from the chassis dynamometer tests.

Truck 1 No. of Particles per liter of diluted air
Bins 0.3-0.39u 0.4-0.49u 0.5-0.64u 0.65-0.79u 1.0-1.5u 1.6-1.99u >2u m3/lit mg/m3
T1-idle 189,406 52,369 35,855 14,493 9,350 5,143 1,870 2.86E-14 57.23
T2-idle 149,622 61,083 32,993 12,078 8954 5,362 1,720 2.64E-14 52.75
T3-36 km/h 672,027 101,080 57,233 16,830 11,843 5,610 2,493 5.37E-14 107.41
T4-39 km/h 587,600 114,816 62,786 17,645 10,276 5,380 2,560 5.37E-14 107.39
T5-47 km/h 901,900 139,650 49,582 13,600 7,367 6,233 567 4.29E-14 85.84
T6-49 km/h 830,458 123,117 51,419 12,584 7,843 6,483 483 4.08E-14 81.57

Attachment: Declaration

Rishon, December 3, 2006

DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, hereby confirm by my handwritten signature that the tested truck license number 17 904 15, was refueled during the subject period (from October 05 thru December 03) with regular fuel only.

I hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge no treatment what so ever was given to the truck’s engine during the above mentioned period of time (no cleaning what so ever, injection or valves adjustment, filters replacement, oil replacement and so forth), except for the above addition.

Name and duty of the signatory:

Aharon Raby, Transportation Manager
Tel Aviv – Jaffa Municipality

Barloworld Cat Particle Count

Barloworld Equipment CAT fuel conditioner test on AXI LGX unit

Barloworld Equipment represents Caterpillar earthmoving equipment and engines. Dealership territories include 11 countries worldwide. They provide customers in mining, construction, marine, electrical power generation and other industries with integrated solutions that include new, used and rental equipment options, linked to equipment management plans designed to improve productivity and reduce operating costs.

Synopsis of Fuel Cleanliness & Particle Counts With and Without Algae-X

Index

  1. Objective
  2. Tests
    2.1)  With Fuel Conditioner connected in line
    -Test Results
    2.2)  Without Fuel Conditioner connected in line
    -Test Results
  3. Summary
  4. Conclusions and Recommendations

1) Objective

The objective of these tests was to determine the effectiveness of a new Algae-X Fuel Conditioner and the impact on an engine when equipped with this conditioner unit.

2) Tests

Description

An ALGAE-X conditioner was fitted in the fuel line of an engine during a dynamometer test. (See schematic)

Procedure

Contaminated fuel ran through the fuel condenser to the engine on the dynamometer.

  1. Engine performance (kW), fuel burn rate and exhaust gas temperature was measured.
  2. Fuel cleanliness levels were measured.

Readings were recorded at five intervals.

Test Results

1) Engine Performance (kW)

Power kW High Idle 1/2 Load Actual Full Load Actual
Sample 1 49 262 516
Sample 2 52 260 513
Sample 3 50 259 511
Sample 4 49 262 514
Sample 5 50 264 516
Average 50 261.4 514

Fuel Consumption at Full Load (L/h)
Sample 1 133
Sample 2 139
Sample 3 138
Sample 4 135
Sample 5 137
Average 136.4
Exhaust Gas Temperature at Full Load
Sample 1 442
Sample 2 440
Sample 3 440
Sample 4 440
Sample 5 441
Average 440.6

2) Fuel Cleanliness

Without Algae-X 2 µm 5 µm 15 µm 25 µm 50 µm 100 µm
Sample 1 144990 11193 596 56 0 0
Sample 2 87277 5996 258 0 0 0
Sample 3 83261 2913 78 33 11 1

2.2) Without Fuel Conditioner

Description

No ALGAE-X conditioner was fitted. (See schematic)

Procedure

Contaminated fuel ran directly to the engine on the dynamometer.

1) Engine performance like power, fuel burn rate and exhaust gas temperatures was measured.
2) Fuel cleanliness levels were measured.

The average reading was taken at five intervals.

Test Results

1) Engine Performance

Power kW High Idle 1/2 Load Actual Full Load Actual
Sample 1 49 262 513
Sample 2 52 260 513
Sample 3 50 259 510
Sample 4 49 262 512
Sample 5 50 264 516
Average 50 261.4 512.8

Fuel Consumption at Full Load (L/h)
Sample 1 139
Sample 2 140
Sample 3 142
Sample 4 142
Sample 5 140
Average 140.6
Exhaust Gas Temperature at Full Load
Sample 1 440
Sample 2 440
Sample 3 440
Sample 4 439
Sample 5 439
Average 439.6

2) Fuel Cleanliness

With Algae-X 2 µm 5 µm 15 µm 25 µm 50 µm 100 µm
Sample 1 72045 2463 56 22 0 0
Sample 2 55991 2058 22 0 0 0
Sample 3 19406 4342 450 101 11 1

3) Summary

AXI International Certificates
© Copyright - AXI International | Website Designed By The Organic Media Group, A Fort Myers Website Design Company
Speak With A Fuel Expert

Questions? We're here. Send us a message!

Questions, issues or concerns? I'd love to help you!

Click ENTER to chat