David Lindahl: The Webster-heise Valve ~ Congressional
Research Service Resport 82-176 ENR

  
![](0logo.gif)  
**[rexresearch.com](../index.htm)**

---

**David LINDAHL**

**The Webster-Heise Valve**

**A Significant Improvement in the Internal Combustion
Engine and its Fuels?**

**Congressional Research Service Report
820176 ENR**

**by David M. Lindahl**
  
(Analyst in Energy Policy,
Environmental and Natural Resources Policy Division)

---



---

**Contents**

**[I.
Preface](#pref)**   
**[II.
Executive Summary](#exec)**   
**[III.
Introduction](#intro)**   
**[IV.
Physical Description](#physdes)**   
**[V. History](#hist)**
  
**[VI. Status
and Outlook](#stat)**   
**[VII.
Potential Benefits](#benef)**   
**[VIII. Is
There a Federal Role?](#fed)**   
**[Appendix
I. Technical Analysis](app1.htm)**   
**[Appendix
II.
Summary of Tests](app2test.htm)**   
**References**

---

**I. Preface ~**

This report is an analysis of the concept, technology, and
hardware of a new valve to increase engine efficiency that has
been developed by the Webster-Heise Corporation. The methodology
used in this report consists of a discussion of the attempts to
improve internal combustion, a physical description of the
Webster-Heise Valve (WHV) and its operation, a history of the
development of the valve, the current status of the device, the
outlook for its possible acceptance, and its potential impact on
various issues of national concern. The appendix consists of a
more detailed analysis of the nature of the existing problems in
current production systems, the theoretical reasons for these
problems, and their theoretical solutions as related to the WHV.
In addition, a summary of tests is provided so that the reader
will have relevant data on which to base his own conclusions.
The technical analysis (Appendix I) is a system approach (from
carburetor to tailpipe) explaining the effects of the valve upon
different aspects of combustion (before, during and after). To
the extent that a phenomenon (such as differential vaporization)
is repeated in analyzing these effects, any such repetition
should be considered to be supplemental rather than additive.

 This report should not be considered to be a
recommendation for or against the WHV or the related technology.
There is not et enough evidence to support such a judgment
either way. The data that is available, however, suggests that a
closer investigation of it by the auto industry and by the
Federal Government would not be inappropriate, and lower octane
requirements can be even partially realized, the introduction of
the WHV could be a very significant development.

**II. Executive Summary ~**

From the inception of the gasoline-powered spark-ignition
engine, there have been numerous attempts to improve the
condition of the charge reaching the cylinders. The carburetor
allows the proper amount of gasoline and air into the engine
but, because much of the fuel is in the form of liquid droplets
(which will not burn in that form), combustion cannot occur at
maximum efficiency. This causes undesirable effects such as
"engine knock", imperfect fuel distribution to the cylinders,
cycle-by-cycle variations, dieseling, engine deposits, less than
optimum conversion of heat to work, increased engine wear,
increased fuel consumption, loss of power, some driveability
problems, and increased pollutant emissions.

The auto industry has attempted to solve the problems of
inadequate vaporization by increasing the temperature of the
intake manifold to heat the incoming air and fuel. This
increases the rate of vaporization, but the high temperature in
the manifold greatly reduces the density of the air that is
admitted to the cylinders. This provides less air for combustion
and expansion in the cylinders, resulting in reduced power. To
deal with the problem of knock, tetraethyl lead or other
additives are used to slow down the rate of consumption. They
allow the engine to operate but introduce additional losses of
thermal efficiency. The slower burn also gives nitrogen oxides
(NOx), a principal contributor to smog and acid rain, a greater
opportunity to form. Tetraethyl lead has been associated with
health effects, particularly on children, and is currently being
phased out of gasoline as a result. Both of these pollutants are
currently the subjects of debate in the Congress.

The WHV was developed to deal specifically with the combustion
problems caused by incomplete vaporization. It is not a
carburetor by is a valve that fits below the carburetor and
extends into the intake manifold. According to the Webster-Heise
Corporation, it causes more of the gasoline in the air/fuel
mixture to vaporize at any given manifold temperature and
provides complete vaporization at intake manifold temperatures
as low as 125 degrees F. This claimed achievement is made
possible, according to the company, by a transverse shearing of
droplets in the gasoline spray by highly turbulent air followed
by passage through an area of lower pressure. These effects are
produced by a matrix of thousands of small nozzles formed by two
stainless steel concentric screens of different mesh size
through which both gasoline droplets and air pass before
reaching the intake manifold.

The turbulence and friction created by the passage of the air
through the screens transfer enough energy to the gasoline to
cause it to vaporize when it enters the low pressure area of the
intake manifold, according to Webster-Heise (W-H). It is further
claimed that, because of early gasoline droplet vaporization,
the vaporized gasoline has time to mix uniformly with air prior
to entering the intake valve of each cylinder. This
pre-vaporized and then thoroughly pre-mixed fuel charge permits
equal distribution t, and within, each cylinder, thereby
satisfying the conditions required for efficient combustion. At
temperatures lower than 125 F, even though the gasoline may not
be fully vaporized, some efficiency gains are realized,
apparently due to the small droplet diameters resulting from the
finer atomization and to improved mixing.

The effects of the WHV on combustion are very important,
according to its designers. The vaporization of the gasoline
prevents its collection as liquid on the metal surfaces of the
cylinders and pistons. This also prevents dilution of the
crankcase oil and promotes more complete combustion because the
oxygen in the air has greater access to the hydrocarbon
molecules and can oxidize them more completely. Carbon deposits
are less likely to form as a result. Vaporization also reduces
the occurrence of fuel-rich pockets in the extremities of the
cylinders where detonation would otherwise take place. Catalysts
such as lead, which slow down to reaction rate, do not appear to
be needed because the conditions causing knock are not present
to the same degree. This allows the combustion to occur more
quickly, meaning that lower-octane fuels can be used without
knock, that more pressure can be exerted on the crank at the
optimum moment, that NOx has less time to form, and that less
heat can be transferred to the engine walls.

The WHV has been formally tested six times at EPA-recognized
laboratories on all of the EPA vehicle tests on a wide range of
octanes (97 to 75) and in the test laboratories of automobile
and octane additive manufacturers. The test results vary to some
extent with the type of test and the conditions under which they
were run, but data (see Summary of Tests) comparing the W-H
modified car with a baseline car (including the same car without
the valve) show the following representative results:

1. Fuel economy increased from 6 to 20%;

2. Torque (power) at 1500 rpm increased 13 to 40%;

3. NOx emissions declined from 4 to 48%;

4. Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions declined from 17 to 54%;

5. Hydrocarbon (HC) emissions declined from 5 to 13%;

6. Engine octane requirements declined by 10 to 15 points.

Tests to date indicate that the WHV enables an engine to
operate on much lower octane than is possible in the unmodified
engine. Because the charge is less likely to knock because of
its conditioning by the valve, gasoline of lower octane (which
burns faster than high octane) can be used effectively. In the
W-H modification, gasoline with an octane rating of 75, blended
and certified by the Phillips Petroleum Company, outperformed in
all categories the 97-octane fuel used in the baseline car in
comparative tests.

More work needs to be done to determine whether or not the test
results obtained so far can be translated into commercial
products with wide utility. However, the potential of a
technological breakthrough of this magnitude provides a
significant incentive for continued effort. If the valve were in
use in all of the automobiles in the US and if the fleet
obtained the same results on average that the test showed, the
refining industry could save about 600,000 barrels per day (b/d)
in crude oil by avoiding the extra processing now necessary to
boost the octane of gasoline. It could also take much of the
pressure off petrochemicals such as aromatics, which have other
non-combustion uses. In addition to the 600,000 b/d that could
be saved by the refineries, the gasoline conservation that could
be realized by consumers through better fuel economy could be on
the order of 650,000 to 2,300,000 b/d (somewhat more than the US
imports of crude oil from Saudi Arabia). The market for
lower-octane gasolines would provide independent refiners with
an opportunity to avoid the expensive investment in reforming
equipment now needed to compete with the major oil companies in
the manufacture of premium unleaded gasoline. It would also
greatly reduce the pressure to increase allowable lead levels in
gasoline and could accelerate the phaseout of tetraethyl lead as
a gasoline additive (assuming appropriate timing). The positive
health effects of eliminating lead could be supplemented by
positive reductions in uncontrolled NOx, CO, and HC emissions
and thus in control costs. The lower cost (about 20
cents/gallon) of straight-run gasoline over premium unleaded
could also benefit consumers.

Despite the fact that the production costs of the valve would
probably be under $100 each and that it could be easily adapted
to most new car engines, the institutional barriers to the
acceptance of a new device can be formidable and preproduction
testing may reveal unforeseen problems. In addition, the
skepticism generated by the failure of others, plus the known
costs and reliabilities of the technologies and products now in
use, would have to be overshadowed by the performance and
promise of a new technology and product. At this time, the auto
companies, the most likely beneficiaries of the W-H technology,
seem to be, for the most part, unsure of the next step. They
have so far been skeptical. This may be due to the fact that it
was not invented in their own research laboratories, and
consequently they have no "in-house" experience with it. The
relative advantages from the use of such a device could change
if current trends toward fuel injection and dieselization
continue, because the auto industry has invested large amounts
of capital and effort in them. On the other hand, the US auto
industry has a desperate need to improve its existing products
without substantial price increases, a need which might
accelerate the rate of testing of the valve and possibly
facilitate its subsequent acceptance. The disincentives of the
cost and time required to evaluate the valve must be weighed by
a company against the incentives of potentially improved
performance and greater buyer acceptance of the cars on which it
is used.

More testing of the valve is clearly needed on a wide variety
off vehicles to establish a larger data base before its full
potential can be precisely determined. This would presumably be
the responsibility of private industry bit some have proposed
that the Federal Government might take an active role in
evaluating it. The Government has testing facilities and vehicle
fleets that are sometimes used for such purposes. Such testing,
however, can be expensive for the Government as well and the
desirability of doing it must be weighted against competing
demands on Government resources. Because the effects of the
valve touch upon several major issues of concern to the Congress
(lead levels in gasoline, oil conservation, air quality,
competitiveness of the auto industry, and others), this may be
an appropriate course of action for consideration independent of
the auto industry responses.

**III. Introduction ~**

The history of the spark-ignition gasoline-powered engine is
filled with attempts to improve it. Although there have been
many modifications made in engine design over the past century,
the fundamental process of delivering air and gasoline to the
engine has not changed much over the years. Gasoline is still
sprayed by the venturi jet of the carburetor through a needle
valve into the intake manifold as air passes through it. This
causes the gasoline to atomize into droplets which may be
further reduced in size through secondary atomization when they
strike the throttle plate (when it obstructs the flow at low
engine speeds). This atomization increases the surface area of
the droplets and increases the amount of vaporization that can
occur. Because of the extremely short time available for
vaporization to occur in the manifold, however, this is not
generally sufficient to fully vaporize all of the gasoline. The
presence of the liquid gasoline (rather than gasoline vapor) in
the cylinders contributes to a variety of mixing, distribution,
combustion, and lubrication problems. The carburetor, therefore,
does an excellent job of metering out precise amounts of
gasoline and air to maintain the proper air/fuel ratio but,
except for breaking the liquid gasoline into small droplets
which result in some vaporization, it does not completely
overcome the phase problem. In order to increase the rate of
vaporization, most automobile manufacturers use high temperature
(in the form of a hot spot on the bottom of the manifold or a
heated water jacket around the manifold) to force more of the
gasoline into a vaporized state. These elevated temperatures,
however, reduced the density of the air reaching the cylinders,
resulting in less power output from the engine. Baffles are
often used to promote mixing of the air and gasoline but these
tend to restrict the flow and provide surfaces on which the
gasoline can impinge and recondense.

Dozens of inventors, both individually and as employees of
large corporations, have attempted to solve this phase problem
but have been ultimately unsuccessful. These devices failed
because of several common characteristics:

1. They were not variable but were optimized for only one
steady-state condition (a fixed screen, for example). As a
result, any change from the optimum engine speed would mean
reduced performance which on the average was almost always worse
than that for the unmodified car.

2. They constituted restrictions because they reduced the space
open to the passage of air and fuel, especially at high engine
speeds, and consequently reduced the power the engine was able
to produce.

3. Their gains were offset by losses (usually power or
emissions) that made the devices impractical.

4. They attempted to modify carburetion in some way. Even
though the carburetor is a very efficient metering device, it
atomizes the gasoline but does not fully vaporize it.

5. They attempted to improve the vaporization rate of gasoline
in the area above the throttle plate. As soon as the improved
mixture, if any, impinged on the throttle plate it would
reformulate droplets and destroy the gain.

6. They did not work (for some combination of the above
reasons).

Some of these devices, such as the Pogue carburetor and its
variations (which was marketed but turned out to be
unsatisfactory because it was difficult to keep in proper
adjustment), have been the subject of extreme claims. Because of
the intense concern over fuel economy in the wake of serious
international oil emergencies, the interest of the public, the
auto industry, and the Federal Government has been raised and
eventually dashed by these well-intentioned inventors who proved
not to have the answer they sought. It should be noted that this
applies to large corporations, including the auto companies, as
well as to individuals. Some improvements in carburetion have
been realized, but the fundamental phase problem still remains.
Very little work, however, was done on charge conditioning below
the carburetor.

As a result of this succession of technological
disappointments, Americans have become highly skeptical of any
new device that promises to improve combustion. This makes it
more difficult than ever for a new idea to succeed. To do so, it
must overcome the inertia of justified doubt generated over the
last 50 years and especially over the last 10.

Sherwood F. Webster and Richard L. Heise claim to have
discovered a means of vaporizing gasoline rapidly at low
temperature. Their valve is a significantly different approach
from the many devices which have preceded it. They have
demonstrated in 6 formal tests and numerous informal ones that
this has the effect if improving fuel economy, improving torque,
reducing harmful exhaust emissions, improving driveability, and
reducing the octane requirements of the engine on which it is
used. Considerably more testing is needed, however.

Although some earlier devices employed a screen, it was a
single screen that was fixed horizontally in the path of the
air/fuel mixture. The WHV uses two screens, which have specific
shapes, sizes, and proximity to each other that are critical to
the process of early vaporization (see Physical Description).
The valve conditions and gasoline and air so that each cylinder
receives a charge that can burn more efficiently.

It is not unusual for major innovations to come from outside
the auto industry. As Gushee, et al., point out (Ref. 1):

"The tendency of innovations is to emerge from outside the
industry. Several recent studies have shown this happening at a
three to one ratio. The reason for this is that external
industries do not have the commitment to the existing technology
and do not have to worry about losing their existing market.

"Typically, an innovation is introduced on a small scale,
tested, and proved; gradually, it penetrates the market. The
period of experimentation varies widely depending on numerous
factors, and involving the complexity of the innovation, the
extent of the supporting system for the existing technology, and
the social values affected. Several years is almost certainly
the shortest period in which a major innovation can fill a
market opportunity.

"In the auto industry, technological change seems to take a
long time -- at least it seems like a long time while one is in
the period of change. Todays spark ignition engine produces
about 10 times the horsepower per pound of engine that Henry
Fords best efforts could produce in 1900, but all 7 decades
have been needed for this progress to occur. In the area of
technological substitution, these time lags are also apparent.
It took 20 years for power brakes to be installed on half the
new cars, 15 years for air conditioning on half the new cars, 10
years for power steering on half the new cars."

In a recent study on the competitive status of the US auto
industry, the National Research Council and the National Academy
of Engineering concluded the following (Ref. 2):

"The clear competitive advantage accruing to products with
advanced efficiency performance has created an incentive for the
development of improved hardware. If the real price of oil
continues to rise and we experience significant supply
interruptions, the future of product innovation may become more
radical...

"We are concerned with the general price of innovation as well
as its general character. The first is the diversity of
technology growing out of the innovative process; the issue is
essentially whether, for any given system, a new dominant design
is apparent. The second aspect is the extent to which innovation
departs from design concepts currently in use, whether
innovation is epochal or incremental..

"The evidence suggests that innovation in the 1970s generally
has proceeded first where the cost of change (in terms of its
impact on the existing process) has been least. This serves to
underscore the potential for change in future years. The
technologies involve not only new design concepts but also in
many cases totally new physical or mechanical and chemical
principles. And indications are that such developments are not
the flight of some engineers fancy; extensive development work
is under way in all areas and in some cases has been speeded up
remarkably in the last two years...

"In terms of product technology, a period of intense
technological competition may be just ahead."

The WHV might be considered "incremental" in terms of its
potential impact on the auto industry in that it probably would
not require substantial change in the existing equipment or
production techniques. Its impact outside of the industry,
however, could be considered "epochal" in terms of eliminating
the need for gasoline additives, reducing crude oil imports, and
improving air quality. In contrast, downsizing has been
incremental in terms of technology but epochal in that it
requires major changes in capital, labor components, management,
and organization.

**IV. Physical Description ~**

The WHV is a relatively simple device, but it has a highly
complex effect on the air and gasoline that pass through it and
on the combustion that results. Of the 26 claims that were made
in the two patent applications, all 26 were granted by the US
Patent Office. It is covered by two patents each in the US and
in 9 foreign countries (Japan, West Germany, UK, France, Italy,
Sweden, Canada, Mexico and Brazil)(Refs. 3, 4). A related patent
covering turbine and oil-burner applications has also been
issued (Ref. 5) and one covering non-combustion applications
such as spray drying, fluid-bed operation, and desalination is
pending (Ref. 6).

The valve is mounted at the intake manifold opening below the
carburetor and throttle plate and extends down into the intake
manifold (Figures 1 and 2). Air and gasoline are received from
the carburetor and are directed through a slight funnel (the
central down-tube) to promote centralized charge mixing. As
needed, additional air can be drawn down the outer down-tube. At
high speed or load conditions, air only is allowed into the
outer down-tube (Figure 3). At the bottom of the central
down-tube, the gasoline/air mixture changes direction by 90
degrees and is directed toward the double-screen assembly that
surrounds the valve (Figure 4). The bottom of the valve is solid
and slightly concave to aid in the redirection of the mixture.
Because the flow from the central tube must cross the radial
jump space between the central tube and the screens, it
accelerates after changing direction and strikes the screens
with force. The screens consist of a cylindrical #50 stainless
steel mesh (coarse) immediately followed by a #120 stainless
steel mesh (fine). The mesh sizes are critical and so is their
proximity; they must be in contact to maintain the appropriate
level of turbulence and to form the matrix of thousands f
orifices that the gasoline and air must pass through. The air
forces the gasoline through the orifices to produce droplets of
extremely fine diameters. Because of the lower pressure in the
intake manifold, the high level of turbulence, and the higher
energy level of the air, vaporization of the gasoline is
believed to occur within a short distance after leaving the
outer screen. Because moving air is the driving force and
because turbulence is created by its passage through the valve,
the gasoline vapor and air are thoroughly mixed. The radial
structure of the screen assembly directs the gasoline/air
mixture evenly toward the cylinders to that all receive the same
quantity and quality of charge.

**Figure 1 ~ Vertical cross-section of the Webster-Heise Valve
(WHV) indicating the range of movement and the direction of
flow in the intake manifold.**

![](1fig1.jpg)

**Figure 2 ~ Cut-away view showing placement of the WHV in the
intake manifold below the carburetor.**

![](1fig2.jpg)

**Figure 3 ~ Vertical cross-section showing the central and
outer down-tubes (note direction of fuel flow).**

![](1fig3.jpg)

**Figure 4 ~ Cross-section (horizontal) indicating the
position of the central and outer down-tubes relative to the
double-screen assembly and the radial jump-space (note
direction of flow).**

![](1fig4.jpg)

The valve is automatically regulated by engine demand. A
one-inch vacuum is maintained by a vacuum regulator which senses
the pressure at a point above the valve (but below the
carburetor throttle plate) and at a point below the valve in the
intake manifold. As the accelerator is depressed and more
gasoline and air are required, the manifold vacuum is lowered.
The vacuum regulator senses this pressure change and relaxes
enough to permit the valve t descend further into the manifold
under the greater force of the increased flow of gasoline and
air. This exposes more of the double screen to accommodate and
to process the greater flow. Because of this variability, there
is no restriction to the flow except for a one-inch pressure
drop (maintained by a vacuum differential valve) which enhances
the vaporization effect and which constitutes a restriction only
at wide-open throttle. As the velocity of the flow diminishes
with lower engine demand, the vacuum regulator causes the
double-screen assembly to retract to maintain the one-inch
differential under all speed and load conditions.

The "double down-tube" is especially important to the
performance of the valve. All of the gasoline droplets and most
of the air from the carburetor are directed toward the center of
the top of the valve where they are collected in a shallow
funnel which accelerates them (through a Bernoulli Effect)
through the center tube. As it exits the bottom of the tube, the
gasoline/air mixture is forced outward in a radial pattern
toward the double-screen assembly that surrounds the flow.
Before the mixture reaches the screen, it must traverse a
"radial jump space" across the width of the larger, outer tube.
This causes the mixture not only to change direction by 90
degrees but also to accelerate toward the double screens. At the
same time, air and a very small amount of gasoline vapor descend
under atmospheric pressure through the outer down-tube. In
addition to providing the radial jump space that the primary
flow must cross, this secondary flow around the center tube adds
more turbulence when it intercepts the primary flow and greater
volume of air when needed under high-speed or high-load
conditions.

**V. History ~**

Development of the WHV began in 1978 when Sherwood F. Webster
and Richard L. Heise decided to combine their knowledge and
experience in an attempt to reduce the fuel consumption and
pollution levels of modern internal combustion engines (Ref. 7).
Webster had worked in this field since 1959, mainly with
variable venturi carburetors and cold manifolds, and Heise was
well known in the Phoenix area as a master mechanic. At the
outset, they decided that their approach would be to atomize all
of the fuel below the throttle plate rather than to attempt
separation of the gasoline into its light and heavy components.
They concluded that a cylindrical valve that could move up and
down in the intake manifold in response to engine demand would
be the best way to eliminate the problems that were know to
exist with fixed systems.

The problem confronting them at that point was the need to find
a simple yet satisfactory atomizing mechanism to reduce the
diameters of the gasoline droplets. Even though both inventors
were familiar with the failure of single horizontal screens in
the past, they decided to experiment with a variety of screens,
not knowing whether any would work in their application or not.
A test apparatus was constructed consisting of a simple venturi
extending above the container of water in which it was immersed
and an air compressor which directed a continuous flow of
fast-moving air over the venturi to simulate the flow of the
charge through an automotive carburetor. Various screen sizes
from #50 to #250 were tried with no success. The water would
merely run in large drops down the side of the screen onto which
the flow was directed. After two months of screen testing, it
was apparent to both Webster and Heise that a single screen
would not work, as earlier inventors had already shown. In the
process of changing from one screen size  (#50) to another
(#120), however, Heise accidentally held both screens together
and noticed to his astonishment and that a totally unexpected
phenomenon was occurring. The water was no longer falling in
large drops on the impact side of the double screen combination,
but the entire flow was passing through the screens in a
virtually invisible mist. Only when a watch crystal was placed
in the flow downstream from the screens did small droplets
reform and become invisible,

On the basis of that discovery, they added a double screen
assembly to the valve and assumed that they had achieved a major
breakthrough in automotive fuel conditioning. They assembled an
early prototype of the valve and eagerly installed it on a 1972
Chevrolet pickup truck. They were disappointed to discover that
not only was there no apparent gain, they actually lost fuel
economy. This setback was followed by a period of trial and
error during which numerous modifications were tried and
rejected as ineffective. After a succession of these failures,
they concluded that the problem was due to the fact that the
flow from the carburetor was not striking the screens with
sufficient force because of the low angle of approach. To
correct this situation, they developed the double-down tubes,
which provided space between the bottom of the central tube and
the double screens to force the flow to strike the screens
directly at right angles rather than at an acute one. After
further experimentation, they observed that the maximum effect
appeared to occur when the pressure differential between the
interior and the exterior of the valve was held to a constant
one inch. A vacuum valve was used to replace the spring which
originally controlled the action of the valve so that more
precision could be obtained. As a result of these incremental
improvements to the basic valve over a 6-month period, the fuel
economy of the truck was raised by about 0.5 mpg at a time from
12.5 mpg to 16.0 mpg with noticeably better performance,
according to Webster and Heise.

As the gains became more apparent so did the need for more
sophisticated testing. Webster and Heise formed a corporation to
attract the capital necessary to complete the development of the
valve. Approximately $450,000 was raised privately, including
$75,000 from Webster. This was used to cover the cost of
patents, tests, vehicles, and equipment (including a complete
dynamometer), professional services, legal fees, and travel
(Ref. 8). Both Webster and Heise have worked exclusively on the
development of the valve since 1978.

In early 1980, after the initial development work was
completed, the inventors asked the Ethyl Corporation to test the
device. Webster and Heise suspected, but had not yet confirmed,
that use of the valve reduced engine octane requirements. Their
presumption was that Ethyl would be interested in an alternative
to chemical octane because of the lead phasedown in gasoline
that was underway as a result of the Clean Air Act. Ethyl agreed
to test it at its research laboratory near Detroit (see Test 1,
Summary of Tests). During the test at Ethyl, an octane
requirement reduction of 10 points was established, an
improvement in distribution was verified, and no loss of power
was measured. (See Test 1, Summary of Tests)(Ref. 9). Ethyl
wanted to dismantle the engine and the valve to analyze it
further over a one-month period, which was acceptable to
Webster-Heise, but would not agree to cover Webster-Heises
expenses during the test period. As a result, Webster and Heise
decided to use their limited funds for testing at other
certified laboratories.

In August 1980, tests were conducted at the Environmental
Testing Corporation (ETC) near Denver, CO (an EPA-recognized
test facility). These tests, as shown in the summary of tests,
confirmed earlier, less complete tests that had shown gains in
fuel economy, reduced emissions, and lower octane requirements.
On the basis of these tests, invitations were sent to all of the
major automobile and oil companies to attend the formal
introduction and demonstration of the valve at ETC on October
15, 1980. Fifteen major corporations sent representatives who
witnesses the operation of the test car and a baseline car (see
Test 4, Summary of Tests). EPA tests were run on both cars, and
three different fuels were used (97-indolene, 85 pump-grade
unleaded, and 75-octane specially blended and certified by
Phillips Petroleum Co.). The gains demonstrated in these tests
were consistent with the earlier tests. At the demonstration,
John Marsh, Jr., the WH counsel (now Secretary of the Army),
offered to license the valve to any US corporation and to
provide a 5-year moratorium on its use in foreign cars imported
to the US.

Following the demonstration, the Standard Oil Company of Ohio
(Sohio) expressed interest in the WHV. In arranging for further
testing, Sohio noted (Ref. 19):

"The data from these previous tests do indicate the potential
for reduction in octane, improved fuel economy, reduced
emission, and possibly improved driveability. Together these
results, if realized, could represent significant value.
Therefore, we are now exploring ways to further evaluate the
valve."

Sohio urged the Ford Motor Company to test the valve as part of
a joint project. Ford agreed to a 3-week test, to be followed if
successful by an 11-month testing program with the Webster-Heise
Corporation. Ford required that Sohio not participate in the
test and that no disclosure of data be made while the tests were
being conducted.

The tests were conducted at the Ford Laboratory in Dearborn in
late January 1981. The baseline tests were conducted prior to
the arrival of Webster and Heise. In the first test with the
valve (Figures 16 and 17), significant gains were shown in
torque and fuel economy (see Test 5, Summary of Tests). Ford was
concerned, however, that some of these gains might be due to the
fact that the baseline engine (without the valve) had been
contaminated with carbon during the baseline tests (Ref. 11).
The second test (Figure 18) was a very demanding wide-open
throttle test. The gains of the valve in this test were also
apparent but above 3000 rpm they dropped to the level of the
baseline production system with heat due to the limited sized of
the prototype valve. Webster offered to enlarge the valve to
accommodate these testing conditions but was told that no
modification was necessary (Ref. 12). Ford then exercised its
option under the testing agreement to terminate the tests. Ford
informed Webster that, "It is Fords opinion that the
Webster-Heise device is not the most appropriate means of
eliminating the necessity for carburetor heat" and that, "The
Webster-Heise devise is not of interest to Ford at this time"
(Ref. 13).

The spark-advance test conducted at the Ethyl Corporation is a
relatively severe engine test, although not as severe as the
torque test at Ford and ETC, and it simulates the rapid
acceleration sometimes encountered in normal driving. The valve
apparently worked well in these tests, providing more fuel
economy on low-octane gasoline than did the baseline engine. The
early prototype valve completed the spark-advance test and did
the same amount of work with approximately 4 inches more vacuum.
This does not mean, however, that there was a restriction due to
the presence of the valve (beyond the one-inch differential
built into it). It does mean that the same work could be done at
the same vacuum, although the effect diminishes as engine
increases. In the spark advance tests at Ethyl, despite the
octane and fuel economy gains, no loss of power was measured. In
the Ford wide-open throttle test, the valve size limitation of
the early prototype was encountered above 3000 rpm on 75 octane
(R+M/2) gasoline. In order to accommodate these extreme
conditions, a second-generation prototype was made 30% larger,
so that it could descend further into the intake manifold under
full throttle and expose more screen area to prevent any
unwanted pressure drop. The vacuum differential at full throttle
is about one inch due to the presence of the valve (not to be
confused with the vacuum created by the throttle plate at lower
rpm)(See Test 6, Summary of Tests). Despite the presence of
manifold heat in Test 6, both the torque and fuel economy gains
were substantial.

In order to fully evaluate the new, larger prototype, Webster
and Heise decided to test it on a new state-of-the-art
automobile with electronic carburetion (which maintains a
relatively constant air/fuel ratio) and the latest pollution
controls. A 1982 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme was purchased and a
complete baseline test prior to conversion was made at the
Environmental Testing Corporation. The jacketed design of the
Oldsmobile intake manifold, they discovered, was not amenable to
heat removal. They also found that the design of the exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR) equipment did not allow for adjustment (less
was needed to control NOx with the WHV) without altering other
calibration in the closed-loop system. Without the volumetric
efficiency gains from a cooler manifold and with the higher EGR,
they were concerned that their gains might be reduced,
particularly torque and NOx. The test (Test 6, Summary of
Tests), however, showed significant gains over baseline, even
with 75-octane fuel instead of 97-octane. NOx decreased 45%
despite a larger spark advance, and other emissions also
declined. Fuel economy increased from 31.4 mpg to 35.6 mpg, well
above the EPA highway standard. Torque was also significantly
increased. To confirm these results, the test was run again with
the same (and in some cases even better) results. The emissions
were even rechecked on another computer to verify readings.
Webster-Heise concluded from this test that in an optimized
engine (with a cooler manifold and less EGR) even greater gains
might be achieved (Ref. 14).

**VI. Status and Outlook ~**

The Webster-Heise Corporation makes several claims for its
valve and offers data from several tests (see Summary of Tests)
in support of its claims. It is claimed by Webster-Heise that
the valve does the following:

1. Reduces engine octane requirements by 10 or more points;

2. Reduces gasoline consumption by as much as 40%;

3. Reduces the formation of nitric oxides (NOx) by as much as
45%;

4. Reduces the formation of carbon monoxide (CO) by as much as
20%;

5. Reduces the formation of unburned hydrocarbons (HC) by as
much as10%;

6. Increases torque by as much as 20%;

7. Eliminates stalling and flooding, especially on cold starts;

8. Reduce the formation of deposits that cause engine wear and
contamination of lubricants;

9. Requires no maintenance.

Some automotive engineers, among others, are skeptical. Their
concerns include the following:

1. The pressure drop resulting from the presence of the screen
could result in a power drop;

2. The reduction in manifold heating could be a problem in
sub-zero operation and could cause an increase in HC emissions;

3. It might "gunk up" over time and be rendered inoperable.;

4. There are more appropriate methods in development to achieve
the same gains.

These points, both pro and con, are addressed individually in
more details in the sections on pre-combustion, combustion, and
post-combustion effects. Overall, there is not enough evidence,
based on the number of tests, to be considered conclusive.

General Motors and Chrysler have reportedly expressed interest
in the valve but have conducted no formal tests. R.M. Hokanson,
the Chrysler representative at the ETC test on October 15, 1980,
made a positive recommendation to his company (Ref. 15):

"I think this device has merit for our company and recommend
that we investigate the possibility of testing this device on
our products as soon as possible."

Despite recommendations such as these, no further testing has
been done by any of the auto or oil companies. Most of the major
oil companies have already made substantial investments in
facilities to make premium unleaded gasoline. This product is
more profitable (while it is in short supply) than the other
grades of gasoline and cannot be readily made by many
independent refiners. The market for high-octane unleaded
gasoline is growing faster than any other grade because the
octane requirement of cars increases as engine deposits
accumulate. If all cars could use the same low-octane gasoline,
it could make obsolete many of the existing facilities built at
great cost by the majors. It could also eliminate the need for
expensive octane additives and could improve the competitive
position of the independents with respect to the major oil
companies. Use of the valve, however, could also save the majors
large investments in additional reforming facilities that might
far outweigh these competitive aspects.

One problem that Webster-Heise could expect to encounter on the
long path to acceptance would be that of competing technologies.
All of the major automotive companies have invested large
amounts of effort and capital in devices that may not be
compatible with the WHV. Fuel injection has become increasingly
popular as a means of restoring some performance and diesels
have found favor as a means of improving fuel economy. Some
companies have committed considerable resources to these
approaches and may prefer to continue them rather than to adopt
a new device. Others may conclude that in the medium term (3 to
8 years) other approaches might be more competitive. In
addition, most auto companies have research projects of long
standing that they may feel a need to protect from a competing
device. It may be that the WHV will be found to improve the
in-house projects as well. It has been suggested, for example,
that the valve could be useful on a spark-assisted diesel. If
so, companies that have shown a strong interest in dieselization
may find this development to be complementary rather than
contradictory. In any event, the reaction of the auto companies
to this device could be expected to vary considerably depending
on their own individual interests and priorities.

Another barrier of considerable significance is the
not-invented-here syndrome. There is a strong preference in the
auto industry to use ideas invented in-house. Innovation from
outside the industry must compete with these projects in which
an investment has already been made. In house projects that
address the same problem will generally be given preference, if
for no better reason than that the companies are already
familiar with them and have databases for them. It is also
possible that having been shown that a type of improvement is
possible, they may seek some other means of achieving similar
gains without employing a particular technology purchased from
outside.

Because of the high cost of automotive testing, the valve has
been tested on a limited number of test vehicles under a limited
range of circumstances. As a result the database is not as large
as most would like. The more data that becomes available, the
stronger are the conclusions that can be drawn. Enough data has
been obtained to demonstrate the promise of the valve, but not
enough has been collected to erase all doubt among those who
might risk large sums and professional reputations in developing
and introducing the valve in mass-produced vehicles. It would
clearly benefit from further testing, especially in actual road
operation.

The cost of obtaining the rights to manufacture the WHV for use
on new automobile engines may or may not inhibit its acceptance.
The Webster-Heise Corporation has expressed willingness to
accept "standard and customary" royalty followed in the domestic
auto industry. That would consist of 5% of the manufacturers
invoice cost for the first million valves, 4% for the second
million, 4% for the third million, and 2% for all subsequent
production (Ref. 16).

The response of the auto companies to date has been
noncommittal. Only one company, Ford, has formally decided not
to use the valve. Others may or may not; they have apparently
not decided. Whether or not it will be accepted at all by the
domestic auto industry is currently uncertain. If that proves to
be the case, then foreign auto companies (who have reportedly
expressed interest in the valve) may choose to pursue the
necessary additional testing and development.

**VII. Potential Benefits ~**

The tests which have been conducted so far indicate that the
WHV could have a significant beneficial impact on several major
issues. The potential benefits described in this section are
based on the assumptions that the demonstrated gains, which so
far are suggestive but not conclusive, will be further
substantiated in additional tests and that the use of the valve
would be widespread. If that proves to be the case, then a
substantial reduction in crude oil requirements may be possible
at the refinery level. In addition, greater fuel economy in
valve-equipped engines might lower the need for crude oil even
more. To the extent that the valve can reduce the emission of
pollutants and the need for toxic or carcinogenic additives to
gasoline, air quality could be improved. If the valve proves to
be a major advance in increasing the fuel economy and
performance of modern internal combustion engines, it could be a
major technological breakthrough that could attract new interest
to domestic automobiles and increase the competitiveness of the
US auto industry.

**A. Refinery Feedstock Conservation ~**

One of the problems facing refineries is the need to increase
octane and to make increasing amounts of unleaded gasoline,
especially premium unleaded, as the use of lead is phased out.
The manufacture of unleaded gasoline has proven to be a costly
process in terms of the extra crude oil consumed in making it
and of the reconfiguration necessary to increase its octane
above the 82 or 83 level that it has when it comes straight from
the fractionating tower. The extra processing used to make
unleaded fuels consumes about 9.2% more crude oil than does
straight-run gasoline, according to the Ethyl Corporation (Ref.
17). The HCs used to increase the octane levels have many other
uses in the petrochemical industry and their allocations have
been a source of concern during oil supply emergencies.

The high cost of making premium unleaded gasoline, for which
demand is increasing faster than for any other gasoline type,
has placed the independent refiners at a competitive
disadvantage to the major oil companied. Because the refining
industry has been depressed and profits have been limited or
nonexistent in recent years, most investors have been reluctant
to lend the capital needed to build the octane improvement
facilities necessary to compete with the majors for a
significant share of the premium unleaded market. The majors
have had considerably more financial flexibility in upgrading
their production facilities during this period. As a result only
the majors, to a large extent, are able to make the high-octane
unleaded gasoline that will perform satisfactorily in new cars
after engine deposits accumulate and their octane requirements
increase. In the US, there are 115 refineries (nearly 40% of the
total) that lack the catalytic reformers needed to make unleaded
gasoline, and all of these have capacities of 48,000 b/d or less
(Ref. 18). This is a major reason for the independent refiners
desire to have allowable lead levels in gasoline increased
despite strong environmental opposition to that proposal. Lead
is preferred by refiners because it is the least costly octane
enhancer currently available. The Lundberg Letter recently
observed that, "The emergence of premium unleaded allows regular
unleaded to drop in octane, and refinery profitability to be
enhanced" (Ref. 19).

If the entire fleet of automobiles in the US could use gasoline
10 octane points lower than that currently sold with no
offsetting losses in fuel economy, performance, or emissions, it
would greatly reduce the crude oil requirement of the refining
industry, eliminate the need for large capital investments in
facilities, improve the competitive position of small refiners,
and reduce the cost of making acceptable fuels for new cars.

In its analysis of the potential impact of the WHV on refining,
the PACE company, well known for its consulting and engineering
work for the refining industry, reached the following conclusion
(Ref. 20):

"When we evaluated the impact of a 10 octane (R+M/s) reduction
in our 1990 base case, over 600,000 b/d less crude oil were
required to meet the product slate. This reduction is due to
fuel savings in the refinery based on the assumption that the
fuel quality was reduced and less processing was needed. If
further efficiency can be gained through fuel/engine
optimization, savings would be greater."

PACE also noted that the production of lower-octane gasoline
could use components, such as naptha, which have clear octanes
of 40 to 65 and which are normally surplus for many refiners.

The objective, according to PACE, should be (Ref. 21):

"...To simultaneously minimize fuel consumed in the engine and
the refinery. Most of the refinery fuel saved in our analysis
occurs in about the first 5 octane number reduction, thus the
optimum engine to take advantage of octane in this range would
result in maximum miles per barrel of crude."

PACE also identified seven areas of refining that would be
helped by the production of low-octane gasoline that could be
used in engines equipped with the WHV (Ref. 22):

1. Reforming feed rates and severities would be reduced;

2. Processing severity would be decreased and per-barrel
utilization of crude oil would be increased;

3. The need for hydrocracking would be decreased;

4. The need for alternate blendstocks would be decreased;

5. The availability for aromatics would be increased;

6. The need for liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) would be
reduced; and

7. The need for octane additives would be eliminated.

**B. End-Use Fuel Conservation ~**

As indicated in the section on fuel economy, the improvements
in fuel economy with the WHV vary with the type of driving and
other factors. The range of improvement is about 10 to 20%, with
15% possibly representative of the average improvement that
could be expected in normal driving. Of the valve were in use in
all of the cars in the US and if the best-case improvement of
20% were realized, the daily savings in gasoline consumption
could be approximately 1.3 million b/d. At the worst case
improvement of 10%, the demand for gasoline could be reduced by
650,000 b/d. This, combined with the fuel conservation at the
refineries, could yield total savings of more than 1.25 million
b/d (37% of total crude oil imports in the second quarter of
1982 and 79% of the crude oil imports from OPEC during that
period)(Ref. 23).

Because several years would probably be required for all of the
vehicles in the fleet to be equipped with the valve, the
reduction in gasoline consumption would be gradual as the number
of cars using it increase. Nearly a decade would probably be
required for most of the fuel economy improvement to be
realized. This could be accelerated, however, if the market
acceptance of new valve-equipped cars were to exceed the normal
rate of replacement. The primary point of introduction would
most likely be in new cars, but retrofitting old ones is also a
possibility. If the engine deposits were removed, most older
cars cold probably use the valve. Cars 5 years old or newer
might require a change in EPA regulations preventing changes to
an engine once it is certified.

**C. Air Quality ~**

The emission improvements indicated with the valve could become
a major factor in the debate over air quality in general and
gasoline lead levels in particular. Lead and other additives
such as aromatics (benzene and others) are either toxic or
carcinogenic and pose a public health threat (Ref. 24). Reducing
automotive pollution is of major importance in achieving better
air quality because it is responsible for approximately 50%
collectively of all the HC, CO, and NOx that are emitted each
year (Ref. 25). A substantial reduction in these automotive
emissions could greatly improve air quality, particularly in
urban areas where concentrations of pollutants are especially
high.

The automobile industry has made substantial progress in
pollution control, but the results have been achieved at a high
cost to the consumer. Performance has been sacrificed in many
models in order to achieve lower emissions and higher fuel
economy in new cars. The control devices themselves (such as
dual-bed converters) can become clogged or contaminated and can
cease to function properly. When they malfunction, the pollution
levels can rise to extremely high levels and in some rare cases
can prevent restarting once the engine is stopped. Because the
controls can be troublesome and sometimes do not work well
enough to get through the EPA certification process, the
automakers must occasionally ask for emission wavers. In
addition, these controls are relatively complex and add up to
$600 to the cost of new cars (Ref. 26).

Much of the controversy is currently focused on lead because
the independent refiners have asked that the lead levels allowed
in gasoline be raised. This request, if granted, would permit
them to increase the octane ratings of their gasolines so that
they could compete at lower cost with the major oil companies.
The majors, however, contend that the exemptions gave the small
refiners (and blenders who are not mentioned at all in the
regulations) a competitive advantage and, as a result, the
special exemption should be removed entirely (Ref. 27). The
independent refiners, however, claim that they cannot afford the
average investment of $10 to $20 million each for the reformers
necessary to chemically raise the octanes of their unleaded
gasolines (Ref. 28).

Extensive testimony was received by Congress on the subject,
most of it strongly against weakening of the lead standards.
Very little support was offered for eliminating the standards
completely. A cost-benefit analysis prepared by the EPA did not
support an easing of the lead levels, estimating that
elimination of the standard would save the refining industry
$100 million per year but would cost between $140 million and
$1.4 billion per year to treat an additional 200,00 to 500,000
children for the lead poisoning that would be caused by the
higher lead levels (Ref. 29). An EPA official recently said in a
memorandum that lead air pollution monitors had repeatedly
underestimated the lead content of air because they were located
"at sites which were not designed to measure maximum lead
concentrations" (Ref. 30).

NOx is best known as the principal cause of smog, but it is
also an important factor in acid rain. The importance of NOx in
the debate over acid rain was summarized in a report for the
Canadian Embassy (Ref. 31):

"NOx currently is responsible for approximately one-fourth to
one-third of the acid rain -- but this proportion is expected to
increase over the next two decades. In parts of the West, NOx is
already the major contributor to acid rain. If current trends
continue, by 1990 NOx-caused rain could equal or exceed the acid
rain caused today by SO2.

"NOx pollution also is associated with the production of ozone.
High levels of ozone cause crop damage, forest damage and a
number of respiratory problems. Ozone, like acid rain, is a
product of atmospheric chemistry acting on pollutants. It, too,
is principally a trans-boundary pollutant; most of the damage is
done outside the state or province where the NOx originates.

"NOx from metropolitan centers along the Pacific Coast is being
deposited hundreds of miles to the east in the Sierras and
Rockies in the form of nitric acid-contaminated rain or snow.
Studies published in Science magazine show that precipitation
with 4.6 pH (at least 5 times normal acidity) is occurring
frequently in parts of Colorado. Mountain lakes in Colorado and
California are becoming acidic, with local residents concerned
about potentially adverse consequences for the tourism and
recreation industries."

Most of the emission standards promulgated under the Clean Air
Act of 1970 are under pressure for revision. Under the Act, the
1971 NOx levels were supposed to be reduced by 1976, but
subsequent administrative and legislative actions have delayed
the deadlines for NOx, CO (a poisonous gas), and HC (which can
be carcinogenic). The current NOx standard of 1 gram per mile
would probably provide for a steady reduction in NOx over the
next decade but, if the auto industry request for a relaxation
of the standard to 2 grams per mile were granted, there would
probably be no decrease but a slight increase instead (Ref. 32).
The industry, on the other hand, claims that these reductions
would allow them to save billions of dollars in "unnecessary
controls" which cold be used to increase the competitiveness of
their products and which might not have a substantial effect on
the environment and human health. The standard for HC is 0.41
gram per mile, and for CO is 3.4 grams per mile.

Data from initial tests of the WHV suggest that its widespread
use could make possible a solution to this
economic/environmental impasse. Because of the substantial
reduction of NOx and CO (and HC to a lesser extent), the
stricter standards could be met with existing equipment. It is
very possible that some pollution controls could even be removed
outright or replaced with less expensive ones. The dual-bed
converter and closed-loop feedback systems, for example,
probably could be removed in favor of simpler pre-1981 systems
(Ref. 33). A smaller, less expensive converter might be
possible, and some controls such as knock sensors probably could
be eliminated. Even though some catalytic conversion and exhaust
recirculation would still be required, it may be possible to
reduce the cost of necessary emission controls by about $300 per
car (Ref. 34). This could more than offset the cost of the WHV,
which almost certainly would cost less than $100 each.

**D. Competitiveness of the US Auto Industry ~**

The US auto industry is in trouble. Since the turn of the
century, it has had a vital place in the economy; its success
and its productive genius have long been a source of national
pride. For a number of reasons, including increased concerns
over fuel economy and air quality and the pressure from low-cost
high-quality imports, the domestic industry has serious problems
to overcome.

The importance of the industry to the economy is well known.
Employment in 1978 was 14 million people, about one-fifth of all
the jobs in the nation (Ref. 35). Indirectly, many more people
in other industries rely on sales to the auto industry and on
purchases by its workers. It is not surprising, therefore, that
the current depression in that industry has been a great setback
for the economy in general. In 1980, auto production was the
lowest it had been in 20 years, while auto imports (mainly from
Japan and Germany) were at record highs. In that year, the
industry lost $4.2 billion, the largest loss in its history, and
severe losses have been experienced in 1981 and 1982.

Compounding the problem for the auto industry is its need to
meet this competition by investing in new models at a time when
it can least afford to do so. The severe monetary losses have
not only cut into income but also into company reserves. Faced
with dwindling reserves, limited cash flow, and record-high
interest rates in a highly competitive market, the industry is
clearly in a dilemma. The industry has repeatedly recognized the
need for innovation in its struggle for economic viability in
the face of strong competition from foreign manufacturers. As
the National Research Council and the National Academy of
Engineering point out in their report on the competitive status
of the US auto industry (Ref. 36):

"The transformation of the auto industry from a mature,
technologically quiet industry into a hotbed of innovation and
change creates opportunities for US firms to attain competitive
advantages through development of radically new products. The
same, however, can be said of the Japanese and the Europeans.
Whether US-based production regains lost market share by
creating and exploiting new markets depends on its ability to
"out innovate" its competitors."

The least costly path to recovery would be for the auto
industry to make the most efficient use of existing equipment
and tooling while buying time to develop more advanced lines.
The WHV, if proven successful and if accepted by the industry,
could easily be adapted to most new cars at little or no
additional cost because unnecessary equipment probably could
then be removed. The only engine that it cold not be used on are
those that do not have intake manifolds for the fuel such as
port fuel-injection and some diesel engines. It might also be
necessary to replace some intake manifolds that have baffles
with simpler, straighter manifolds to increase the opportunity
for thorough mixing of the gasoline vapor and air. Because it is
self-regulated by engine demand, the same size valve could be
used on a makers entire line of engines, thereby minimizing
production costs. Test data indicates that the valve could be
expected to increase  fuel economy and torque, to lower
emissions and octane requirements, and to improve driveability,
while possible saving the maker (and ultimately the consumer)
about $200 per car. Lower engine maintenance costs and operating
expenses, if realized across the fleet, could also be expected
to increase buyer interest in new cars equipped with the valve.

When the valve was formally introduced to the automobile and
oil industries on October 15, 1980, the Webster-Heise
Corporation made an interesting proposal. It offered to grant US
automakers a head start by preventing for 5 years the use of the
valve on foreign cars imported to the US. If accepted, this
could be expected to have the effect of shifting buyer interest
away from the imports and toward the domestic models. The
increased performance and lower operating cost of the modified
domestic cars would probably increase their appeal in the
marketplace. If that proved to be the case, then it is possible
that the WHV could enhance the competitiveness of the US auto
industry.

**VII. Is There A Federal Role?**

In a market economy, improvements in automotive technology are
normally the province of private enterprise. Such innovation is
a matter of entrepreneurial decision and risk; it ultimately
succeeds or fails in the crucible of the competitive
marketplace. This process, to which virtually all products and
services are subject, is constant and pervasive. The Federal
role, in theory and to a somewhat lesser extent in practice, is
largely to be a rational consumer in this market and to regulate
the marketplace in such a way that competition operates to the
benefit of society. Occasionally, however, the Federal
Government intervenes to accomplish certain consensus national
goals. There are, therefore, cases both for and against Federal
encouragement of the WHV.

Federal options in this matter include (a) no Federal action,
(b) Federal laboratory testing of the valve in the wide range of
vehicles and circumstances necessary for commercial utilization
and publication of the results, and (c) Federal field testing of
the valve by installation in a working fleet of Government
vehicles over an extended period with published results.

The case for Federal action along the lines of (b) or (c) might
be summarized as follows:

1. There is reason to believe that the market is working
imperfectly in this case with the result that full testing and
introduction of the valve is being prevented or delayed and
consumers are being denied its benefits.

2. Significant progress in meeting certain important national
goals is being frustrated by corporate timidity or an
unfortunate confluence of market forces with respect to the
Webster-Heise technology. The national interests being
frustrated are:

a. Fuel self-sufficiency;

b. Reduction of severe balance-of-trade deficits;

c. Competitiveness of the US auto industry;

d. Environmental health and well-being;

e. Reduction of inflation.

3. The potential social benefits if this technology far
outweigh the market rewards to be reasonably expected by auto
manufacturers or commercial users of the WHV. For this reason,
it is justifiable in theory and in practice that society
(through the Federal Government) share in the cost of
development and testing.

4. The cost of Federal laboratory or field testing is small
relative to the potential benefits. Tests might be conducted on
the Postal Service fleet, where a large body of information
could be obtained on a wide variety of vehicles. Other Federally
sponsored tests might be conducted by the NASA, EPA, DOT, and
DOE, all of which have conducted similar tests in the past.

The case against Federal intervention with respect to the WHV
might include the following:

1. The market is not working imperfectly in this case. The
Webster-Heise technology has been in the marketplace for only
two years; substantial testing has occurred and the results are
known to a limited extent in the industry; much about the valve
remains unknown and corporate decision-making is in progress.

2. All of the claimed societal benefits rest on the assumption
that the technology works as claimed and that it would be
practically and economically applicable to mass production and
use. Similar societal benefits were or could have been argued
over the past 50 years for scores of device which failed or had
negative offsets in practical application.

3. Market acceptance of the Webster-Heise technology also rests
upon its not being preempted by other technologies designed to
achieve similar automotive goals; toward these ends a
considerable research effort is currently underway both here and
abroad. This is a matter for testing and decision-making in the
marketplace without preferential government intervention.

4. Whether or not the market fully reflects the potential
social benefits of this technology, if it works as claimed and
is competitively superior to the other approaches, there is more
than ample incentive for entrepreneurial venture investment. If
the leading automotive and engine makers and users show
reticence to being testing there may also be cause for reticence
on the part of the Federal Government to subsidize testing when
there are other technologies competing for market acceptance.

**References ~**

1. David Gushee, et al. (Congressional Research Service):
"History and Future of Spark Ignition Engines"; Committee Print
prepared for the Senate Committee on Public Works, Serial 93-10,
USGPO (Sept 1973),p. 3-21

2. National Research Council and the National Academy of
Engineering: "The Competitive Status of the US Auto Industry: A
Study of the Influences of Technology in Determining
International Industrial Competitive Advantage"; National Acad.
Press, 1982, pp 132-157.

3. Sherwood Webster and Richard Heise: "Intake Manifold
Variable Atomizing Valve", US Patent # 4,187,820 (Feb 12, 1980)

4. Sherwood Webster and Richard Heise: "Variable Capacity Fuel
Delivery System for Engines", US Patent # 4,285, 320

5. Sherwood Webster and Richard Heise: "Fuel Delivery System
for Combustion Devices", US Patent # 4,385,414

6. Sherwood Webster and Richard Heise: "Thermodynamic
Conditioning of Air or any other Gas to Increase the Operating
Efficiency of Diverse Energy Consuming Systems", US Patent #
4,493,750.

7. Sherwood Webster and Richard Heise: Personal Communication
to David Lindahl, Aug 9, 1982

8. Ibid., August 10, 1982.

9. William Adams (Chief Engineer, Ethyl Research Lab.),
Personal communication with David Lindahl, July 13, 1982.

10. Richard Smith (Mgr., Corporate Development, Standard Oil Co
of Ohio), Personal communication to E. Taber, Oct 31, 1980.

11. Robert Sanborn (Assoc. Counsel, Ford Motor Co), personal
communication to S. Webster, June 12, 1981.

12. S. Webster, personal communication to Donald Peterson, Feb
6, 1981.

13. Sanborn, p. 2-3.

14. S. Webster, personal communication to D. Lindahl, Aug 10,
1982.

15. R. Hokanson (Chrysler Corp.) "Demonstration of Intake
Manifold Variable Atomizing Valve", Oct 20, 1980, p. 2

16. S. Webster, personal communication to D. Lindahl, Aug 31,
1982.

17. George Unzelman (Ethyl Corp.); "Return to Leaded Seen
Saving 3 billion Bbl of US Crude"; Oil and Gas J., Oct 15, 1979,
p. 106

18. Oil and Gas J.; "US Lead Entitlements Urged", May 31, 1982,
p. 177.

19. Lunberg Letter; "As the Market Clears Artificial Price
Spread Collapses", Vol. IX, # 32 (June 11, 1982), p. 6.

20. John Matson (PACE Co. Consultants and Enggrs.), Personal
communication to S. Webster, April 10, 1981, p. 1

21. Matson, p. 2

22. PACE Co.; 4th Ann. PACE Energy and Petrochemical Seminar,
Houston TX, Nov 1980, p. D-8.

23. Petroleum Intelligence Weekly, "Plunge in US Imports
Radically Alters Crude Supply Mix", Vol. XXI, #35, Aug 30, 1982,
p. 1-2.

24. McGinty, L.: "A Clean Case Against Lead in Petrol", New
Scientist, May 27, 1982, p. 570

25. F. Bracco (Princeton Univ.), "Combustion and Chemical
Kinetics in Internal Combustion Engines", Astronautics and
Aeronautics, Vol. 62 (1977), p. 162

26. Joseph Biniek, D. Lindahl: "Environmental Issues Associated
with the Auto Industry", Congressional Research Service, Nov 2,
1981, p. 13.

27. Sandra Sugawara, "EPA Trying to Ease Out of a Leaden Box",
Washington Post, May 21, 1982, p. A19.

28. Felicity Barringer, "Debate Over Lead in Gasoline Revs Up
Again"; Washington Post (Oct 15, 1981), p. A-11.

29. Joel Schwartz (EPA), "Health Effects of Gasoline Lead
Emissions", Cove Memorandum to accompany HUD official comments
on the lead phasedown proposal (May 11, 1982), p. 7, 12.

30. Robert Kennedy (Chief of State and Local Controls Program
Section, EPA). Internal Memorandum (Jan 27, 1982), p. 1.

31. Wellford, et al. (prepared for the Canadian Embassy), "Fact
Sheet on Acid Rain". (1982), pp. 3-7.

32. Ibid., p. 3-7

33. Biniek and Lindahl, p. 18.

34. Sherwood Webster, personal communication with D. Lindahl
(Aug 10, 1982).

35. Biniek and Lindahl, p. 3.

36. National Research Council and National Academy of
Engineering, p. 154-156.

37. William Matthes and Ralph McGill, GM Res. Lab., "Effects of
Degrees of Fuel Atomization on Single-Cylinder Engine
Performance", Soc. Automotive Engineers Paper 760117, presented
at the Automotive Engg. Congress and Exposition (Detroit, MI,
Feb 23-27, 1976)

38. Paul Senders, "Handbook of Aerosol Technology", Van
Nostrand NY, 1979, p. 264.

39. G. A. Harrow, "The Effect of Mixture Preparation on Fuel
Economy" in Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine: Fuel, Lubricant
and Other Effects, ed. By D. Blackmore and A. Thomas (Shell Res.
Ltd), J. Wiley and Sons, NY 1977, p. 94.

40. D. Boam (National Engg. Lab., Glasgow), "A Computer Model
of Fuel Evaporation in the Intake System of a Carbureted Petrol
Engine", IMECE Conf. Publication 1979-9, Inst. Mech. Engg.,
London, 1979, p. 32.

41. D. Foringer (Gulf Res. and Dev. CO.), "Gasoline Factors
Affecting Fuel Economy", Paper 650427 presented at the API
Midyear meeting, May 1965, p. 243.

42. Foringer, p. 243

43. Ibid., p. 243.

44. Ibid., p. 243.

45. C. Bennett: "Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer",
McGraw-Hill, NY, 1974, p. 244.

46. GM Corp.: "Theory and Diagnosis of Chevrolet Carburetors",
Training Manual No. ST-339-71 (1971), p. 2

47. R. Collins (Physics Dept., Univ. Houston): "Flow of Liquids
Through Porous Materials", Reinhold, 1961, p. 247-248.

48. Robert Perry and Cecil Chilton: "Chemical Engineers
Handbook", 5th Edition; McGraw-Hill 1978, pp. 5-37.

49. K. Masters: "Spray Drying"; John Wiley and Sons, NY 1976,
p. 184.

50. Perry and Chilton, pp. 18-61.

51. Ibid., pp. 18-64.

52. K. Masters, p. 299.

53. Ibid., p. 308

54. Ibid., p. 296

55. Sanders, p. 105

56. Perry and Chilton, pp. 18-61.

57. Masters, p. 16.

58. Donals Fitts (Univ. Pennsylvania Chem. Dept.):
"Nonequilibrium Thermodynamics: A Phenomenological Theory of
Irreversible Processes in Fluid Systems"; McGraw-Hill, 1962, p.
1.

59. Bennett, p. 1

60. Perry and Chilton, p. 14-15.

61. H. Pruppacher and R. Rasmussen (Univ. Calif. Dep.t of
Atmospheric Sci.): "A Wind Tunnel Investigation of the Rate of
Evaporation of Large Water Droplets Falling at Terminal Velocity
in Air"; J. Atmos. Sci. 36: 1258 (July 1979).

62. H. Tennekes and J. Lumley: "A First Course in Turbulence";
MIT Press, 1972, p. 3.

63.  Ibid., p. 7

64. Ibid., p. 7

65. Ibid., p. 2

66. Tennekes and Lumley, pp. 2-4.

67. Ibid., p. 4.

68. Alan Pope and Kenneth Goin (Sandia Corp.): "High Speed Wind
Tunnel Testing", J. Wiley and Sons, 1979, p. 101.

69. Perry and Chilton, pp. 5-49

70. Ibid., pp. 18-61.

71. Ibid., pp. 18-61

72. Masters, p. 212

73. Perry and Chilton, pp. 18-49

74. Perry and Chilton, pp. 18-60

75. Sanders, p. 146.

76. Felix Pierce (Virginia Polytechnic Inst Dept of Mech.
Engg.): "Microscopic Thermodynamics: The Kinetic Theory and
Statistical Thermodynamics of Dilute Gas Systems".

77. Harvey Palmer (Distillation Res. Lab., Rochester Ins.t of
Technology): "The Hydrodynamic Stability of Rapidly Evaporating
Liquids at Reduced Pressure"; J. Fluid Mechanics 75 (3): 487
(1976).

78. Ibid., pp. 487-489

79. H. Palmer (Univ. Rochester): "Enhanced Interfacial Heat
Transfer by Differential Recoil Instabilities"; International J
of Heat and Mass Transfer (Jan., 1981), p. 117.

80. [Missing ]

81. Ibid., p. 118.

82. H. Palmer (Univ. Rochester): "Spontaneous Comvection in
Organic Liquids Evaporating at Reduced Pressures"; Petroleum
Res. Fund Grant # 9146-AC7 (Oct 30, 1980), p. 1

83. Mohammed Anis and Paul Buthod (Univ. Tulsa, Dept. of Chem.
Engg.): "How Flashing Fluids Change Phase in Pipelines", Oil and
Gas J (June 24, 1974), p. 150.

84. Ibid., p. 151

85. Ibid., p. 151

86. Anis and Buthod, p. 151

87. Harrow, p. 89

88. Ibid., p. 93

89. J. Goulburn (Queens Univ) and D. Hughes (New Univ. of
Ulster): "Mixing of Vaporized Petrol and Air in Automobile Inlet
Systems", in Fuel Economy and Emission of Lean Burns, Inst. of
Mech. Engineering Conference Publications, 1978-9.

90. Ibid., p. 100

91. Ibid., p. 115

92. F. Marsee and R. Olfree (Ethyl Corp): "Distribution Factors
That Influence Emissions and Operation of Lean Burn Engines,
Fuel Economy and Emissions of Lean Burn Engines, Automobile Div
of the Inst of Mech Enggrs., Inst. Mech Eng. H,Q, June 12-14,
1979, p. 129

93. Goulburn and Hughes, p. 97

94. Toboldt and Johnson: Automotive Encyclopedia;
Goodheart-Wilcox, 1977, p. 265

95. Ibid., p. 265

96. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 266

97. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 265

98. Ibid., p. 266

99. Ibid., p. 266

100. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 266

101. Ibid., p. 266

102. Ibid., p. 266

103. Ibid., p. 268

104. David Hwang (Ford Motor Co): "Fundamental Parameters of
Vehicle Economy and Acceleration"; Automotive Fuel Economy, Soc.
Of Automotive Enggrs., 1976, p. 266

105. Marsee and Olree, p. 129

106. Marsee and Olree, p. 132

107. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 95

108. R. Sekar (Cummins Engine CO): "A Primer of Charge Air
Cooling", Soc of Automotive Enggrs., Automotive Engg., May 1982,
p. 31.

109. Ibid., p. 31

110.Combustion Technology manual. Industrial Heating Eqpt.
Assoc., 1980, p. 9

111. Ibid., p. 226

112. I. Robinson: "The Effect of Gasoline Additives on Fuel
Economy", ed by D. Blackmore and A. Thomas (Shell Res. Ltd), J.
Wiley and Sons, 1977, p. 84

113. Ibid., p. 13

114. "Combustion Technology Manual", p. 4

115. M. Rashidi (Univ. of Technology, Tehran): "The Nature of
Cycle-by-Cycle Variations in the S.I. Engine from High-Speed
Photographs", Combustion and Flame 42: 121 (1981).

116. G. Harrow and P. Clarke (Shell Res. Ltd.): "Mixture
Strength Control of Engine Power" in "Fuel Economy and Emissions
of Lean Burn Engines", Inst. Of Mech. Enggrs., Conference
Publication 1979-9 (June 12-14, 1979), p. 12.

117. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 230.

118. Ibid., p. 230

119. Ibid., p. 2331

120. M. Khovakh: "Motor Vehicle Engines", MIR Publishers,
Moscow, 1971, p. 142.

121. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 231

122. Ibid., p. 231

123. Robinson, p. 79

124. Khovah, p. 144

125. Ibid., p. 145

126. Khovakh, p. 123

127. Ibid., p. 143.

128. Ibid., p. 147

129. B. Seth (Princeton Univ.), S. Aggarval (Carnegie-Mellon
Inst.) and W. Sirigano (Carnegie-Mellon Inst.): "Flame
Propagation Through an Air-Fuel Spray Mixture with Droplet
Vaporization", Combustion and Flame 39: 149 (1980)

130. Ibid., p. 165

131. Ibid., p. 164

132. Khovakh, p. 131

133. Ibid., p. 131

134. Ibid., p. 131

135. Ibid., p. 132

136. James Mattavi (GM Res. Lab.): "Fast-Burn Chamber Design
Improves Efficiency, Lowers Emissions", Automotive Engg (Nov
1980), p. 90

137. Encyclopedia Britannica, vol 12, p. 389 (1972)

138. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 94

139. R. Burtner (Sun Group) and W. Morris (E.I. DuPont de
Nemours Inc.): "The Effects of Refinery Gasoline Components on
Road Octane Quality", Paper 780949, Soc. Of Automotive Enggs.,
1979, pp. 3523-4

140. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 229

141. Rashidi, p. 111

142. H. Kuroda, et al.: "The Fast Burn with Heavy EGR"; Paper
78006, Soc. Of Automotive Engrs. 1979, pp. 5-7

143. Rashidi, p. 112

144. Ibid., p. 120

145. ibid., p. 121

146. Kuroda, et al., p. 7   
147. Robert Loftness: "Energy Handbook", Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., 1978, p. 409

148. Harrow, p. 103

149. Y. El Banhavy and J. Whitelow (Dept. Mech. Engg., Imperial
College of Sci. and Tech.): "Experimental Study of the
Interaction Between a Fuel Spray and Surrounding Combustion
Air"; Combustion and Flame 42: 274 (1981)

150. M. Harada, et al.: "Fast-Burn Engine Developed";
Automotive Engg., Feb 1981, p. 43.

151. J. Novak and P. Blumberg (Ford Motor Co.): "Parametric
Simulation of Significant Design and Operating Alternatives
Affecting the Fuel Economy and Emissions of Spark-Ignited
Engines"; Report 780943, Soc. Of Automotive Engineers

152. Marks, p. 9-108

153. Novak and Blumberg, p. 3488

154. Ibid, p. 3491

155. Ibid., p. 3493

156. Ibid., p. 3497

157. US House of Representatives Committee on Govt Operations.
Automotive Fuel Economy: EPAs Performance. USGPO (May 13,
1980), p. 11

158. Ibid., p. 11

159. Khovakh, p. 139

160. Harrow, p. 101

161. Fed. Highway Admin. Dept. Transportation: "Purposes of
Vehicle Trips and Travel"; USGPO (Dec. 1980), p. 10

162. Khovakh, p. 56

163. F. Braco (Princeton Univ.): "Combustion and Chemiscal
Kinetics Problems in IC Engines"; Astronautics and Aeronautics
62: 172 (1977)

164. Andrew Adamczyk and George Lavoie (Ford Motor Co.):
"Laminar Head-on Flame Quenching -- A Theoretical Study"; Report
780969. Soc. Automotive Engineers, 1979, p. 3661

165. Ibid., p. 3665

166. R. Blint and J. Bechtel (GM Res. Lab.): "One-Wall
Quenching: An Unlikely Exhaust HC Source"; Automotive
Engineering (April 1982), p. 61

167. Charles Westbrook (Lawrence Livermore Lab.), et al.: "A
Numerical Study of Laminar Flame Wall Quenching"; Combustion and
Flame 40: 93 (1981)

168. Craig Marks and George Niepoth (GM Corp.): "Car Design for
Economy and Emissions"; SAE Report 750954 in Automotive Fuel
Economy, Soc. Automotive Engineers, 1976, p. 159

169. El Bahnawy and Whitelaw, p. 271-272

170. Ibid., p. 270-271

171. Novak and Blumberg, p. 3496

172. Automotive Encyclopedia, p. 330

173. T. Wakisaka, et al.: "Measurements of Air Swirl and Its
Turbulence Characteristics in the Cylinder of an IC Combustion
Engine"; in Fuel Economy and Emission of Lean Burn Engines,
Inst. Of Mech. Engineers Conf. Publications 1979-9 (June 12-14),
p. 51

174. R. Thring (Ricardo Consulting Engineers Ltd): "The Effects
of Varying Combustion Rate in Spark Ignited engines"; SAE Paper
790387 in Automotive Fuel Economy, part 2, Soc. Automotive
Engineers, 1979, p. 229

175. Ibid., p. 233

176. Ibid., p. 233

177.Mattavi, p. 86

178. A. Mellor (Combustion Lab., School of Mech, Engg., Purdue
Univ.); "Spray Combustion from an Air-Assist Nozzle"; Combustion
Science and Tech. 9: 165-168 (1974)

179. Harrow, p. 98

180. Ibid., p. 98

181. Toboldt and Johnson, p. 235

182. Ibid., p. 232

---



**[Appendix One: Technical Analysis](app1.htm)**

**[Appendix Two: Summary of Tests](app2test.htm)**

---