Save Fuel, the Nation, the Environment, Money … Sure

Hardly did the Quadro Corporation go down in flames (with more excitement yet to come) than a new candidate for heavy scrutiny came to my attention. Quadro made hand-held toys with no working parts that were sold for just under a thousand dollars to police departments, school boards, customs agents and treasure-hunters with poor or zero perceptual powers. The gadget was simply a fluffed-up version of the coat-hanger dowsing rod—and worked equally well. Now I see that police departments, school boards, trucking firms and city agencies—similarly with poor or zero perceptual powers—are eager to snap up yet another useless pseudo-scientific bit of claptrap known as the “Inset Fuel Stabilizer.” This remarkable discovery, developed over 25 years and marketed by Bob Pearson of Oakland, NJ, will eliminate air pollution due to vehicle emissions, increase fuel efficiency (by 10 to 20 percent) and horsepower, prolong engine life, and ensure that a vehicle outfitted with the thing will comply with the Clean Air Act and all state emission standards. But before you dash out and buy—for $1600—this simple, 7-inch-long, stainless-steel cylinder that is inserted into your fuel line, read on … Over 2,000 vehicles nationwide from major municipalities and other mass-consumers of fuel have been equipped with the Inset device. Fort Worth, Texas, (they also embraced the Quadro!) and the state of New Jersey are installing Stabilizers left and right. Each of these communities has devices on more than 800 vehicles. The results as reported by users are startling. Rosario DeLeon, assistant director of public property for Aurora, Illinois, where Insets are on more than a dozen vehicles, is ecstatic. Says he

It’s a pretty dramatic reduction. We installed one on a patrol scooter and the [hydrocarbon] emissions went down from something like 183 parts per million to 3 parts per million, just like that! 

Dave Beyer, an engineer with the city of Aurora, Illinois, was very enthusiastic about the Inset Fuel Stabilizer. So were all others I spoke with in city offices there. But along the way, an important fact emerged. Though the various emissions tests were done at a local state testing station—where ordinary folks brought their cars for mandatory annual tests—I was told that the Inset folks also conducted their own tests in Aurora, and prepared reports for the city. In one case, when a vehicle tested at the state facility showed more emissions while equipped with the device, it was suggested that “a good tune-up” would improve the performance, and, by golly, that did the trick! 

Scott Marshall, the Inset Technologies coordinator, has excuses for every apparent failure of the device. A test vehicle might be going through a “clean-out phase” that would show null or negative results. Failures are due to “natural skepticism.” Negative studies are “flawed” for various esoteric reasons. 

The sellers claim that the Stabilizer never needs servicing, never wears out, and uses no electromagnets, no additives, no catalysts, no filters, no moving or removable parts. It “align[s] the fuel molecules in such a way that they burn more completely.” The life of a car engine is extended “two or three times.” Periodic 3,000-mile tuneups and oil changes are not needed when the Stabilizer is in place. Cars equipped with it emit no pollution, no unburned fuel, no carbon monoxide, no hydrocarbons, and have no “engine residue.” 

Essex County, New Jersey, bought 100 Insets, and NJ Senator Robert Littell (the state budget chairman) has endorsed the device; he has one on his car, so how could he be wrong? 

Endless inquiries to the EPA offices in Illinois brought me nothing but denials of any knowledge about the Inset device.

The Inset comes along at a time when the atmosphere—literal and political—can accommodate it. Under the federal Clean Air Act, municipalities must include in their 1998 vehicle purchases a certain percentage of “alternative fuel” items. The Inset folks are looking for endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) so that they can supply them with Stabilizers to meet that need. Don’t laugh. They may get that approval. Remember that the Quadro dowsing rod was accepted nationwide, and came close to endorsement by major federal agencies … 

Endless inquiries to the EPA offices in Illinois brought me nothing but denials of any knowledge about the Inset device. Officials there distanced themselves from any involvement with a device that was reducing vehicle emissions to less than two percent of that shown in non-equipped vehicles in Aurora, and to eight percent in nearby Napierville. Strange. 

The NJIT tests, which were proper, scientific tests done by unbiased engineers and scientists, showed the Inset Stabilizer to be a total bust.

A very comprehensive test of the Stabilizer was carried out by the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) in 1993 from October 21 to December 13, in co-operation with the Stevens Institute of Technology. The conclusion was that:

a. in the stationary engine test, the van test, and the regular vehicle test, data obtained did not indicate any difference in any of the average measurements of hydrocarbons, CO, or CO₂ after the Stabilizer was installed. 
b. in the analytical chemical tests, the data obtained did not indicate any effect on fuel that passed through the Stabilizer, nor were any components broken down, no new compounds were formed, and nothing was added to the fuel.

The NJIT tests, which were proper, scientific tests done by unbiased engineers and scientists, showed the Inset Stabilizer to be a total bust. They were conducted at the personal request of Senator Littell, but the results apparently did not shake his faith in the device.

The Inset people themselves also conducted tests at the NJIT facility, but since they included no controls, these results were not reported. 

We would do well to examine certain interesting parallels between these two devices. Here are a dozen claims, complaints, excuses, and bits of nonsense that are common to both the Quadro rod and the Inset: 

1. There is an attractive, appealing end-result to be had by using the gadget. In the case of the Quadro, drugs and guns could be detected and removed from circulation, while the Inset offers an end to pollution. 
2. A special, “new” science is involved. The Quadro inventor said that “No scientist is going to be able to figure out how it works because only I am smart enough to figure it out.” Inset says that “The knowledge for this application, the understanding of the physical properties of the matter that’s involved, is not in the books of physics or chemistry.” The Inset involves “a unique technology.” 
3. The technology is secret. Quadro declined to patent their invention, for fear the Russians would steal it; Inset has declined to allow their device to be competently tested or dissected. 
4. Crazy terminology (molecular signatures, cocaine DNA, aligning molecules) that sounds good but means nothing, in context, is thrown about freely. 
5. The pseudo-science borrows on established scientific principles. Quotes are taken out of physics texts, at random, and inserted into long-winded explanations that reveal nothing. 
6. It is claimed, when proper tests fail, that inexperienced users are no good for such purposes. Both Quadro and Inset have claimed this. 
7. When simple, direct tests show negative results, it is said that “long-term use” is needed to do proper tests. 
8. There are endless special rules, invented on the run, that explain away blatant failures. 
9. There are forceful, never-take-no-for-an-answer, say anything-whether-true-or-not representatives speaking for the brilliant inventors. Quadro’s Malcolm Roe told a Sandia Labs researcher to “go to hell” when a test failed, and Inset’s Daniel Gaby reported that when a Stabilizer was removed from a NYC sanitation truck, the pollution “started up again”; exactly the opposite was true. 
10. All those who accept the claims are “open minded,” doubters are “negative” and “lack perception” of the new technology. 
11. The oil companies, medical establishment, drug cartels, Satanists, Humanists, auto industry, communists, gay community, etc., are conspiring to suppress this leap of progress. 
12. Testimonials often come from stockholders, officers of the company, or major franchisees. 

Come to think of it, these qualities also apply to the man who sells the Tice Clock to high-end stereophile shops. This device improves the quality of sound … But that’s another story.