Date: November 2, 1994

Location: Oakland

Title: The Fuel Stabilizer: Can It Clean the Air?

Author: Diana G. Lasseter

Subject: A battle is brewing between NJIT and Inset Industries over a pollution-control device

Robert Pearson is a self-proclaimed eclectic–a man who has fire in his belly. From his seat at the head of the boardroom table in the Oakland offices of Inset Industries, he explains the particulars of the fuel stabilizer, the product his company Inset sells. What begins as a quiet discussion soon escalates into a passionate pitch. “I always wanted to find an application, product or process that would make a difference in people”s lives. That”s me,” Pearson storms, pointing a finger at his chest. “I have found it. There is no product in the whole world better than the fuel stabilizer.”

A bit extreme? Perhaps. Pearson, though, gives the impression that he lives to prove such statements are the truth. The Inset fuel stabilizer is a 7 in. by 2 in. stainless steel cylinder, which is installed on the fuel line of any fossil-fuel engine, including a car, to reduce the toxic emissions. New Jersey is one of many states that has to achieve a major decrease in toxic emissions to comply with the tougher ozone and carbon monoxide emission standards set out by the 1990 Clean Air Act. A proposed bill implementing a new auto emissions testing system for the state is ready to roll in Trenton, but has yet to be sponsored. The system, which would cost the state some $700 million to operate during the next seven years, would flunk about 30% of the vehicles it tests.

Is the fuel stabilizer the panacea for New Jersey and the nation”s air pollution woes? Many say yes. But the New Jersey Institute of Technology is not so sure. In September NJIT released findings from an 11-month study on the Inset device, which concluded that the product was not as effective as Inset claims. Inset is now starting a lawsuit against NJIT.

Alternative fuel technologies are nothing new. Urban states like New Jersey have been investigating the use of alternative fuel vehicles running on compressed natural gas and methanol for several years. The Inset fuel stabilizer claims to affect pollution at the fuel level by aligning the molecules in the fuel prior to combustion–or when the engine starts. When molecules are aligned, according to Pearson, the result is 100% combustion, which in turn causes low or no carbon monoxide or hydrocarbon emissions. This also keeps the engine cleaner, prolonging its life and improving the car”s performance. Each unit sells for $1,500.

While the folks at Inset are more than willing to explain how the fuel stabilizer works, they are much more tight-lipped about what makes it work that way. In fact only three people are privy to the fuel stabilizer formula, and even the site of Inset”s manufacturing facility, located “somewhere in the Midwest,” is a closely guarded secret. Rather than get a patent for the product, the company has opted to keep the fuel stabilizer formula a trade secret.

The shroud of mystery surrounding the fuel stabilizer has an even longer history. Pearson, who was a business professor at Bergen Community College from 1972 to 1991, was somehow introduced to the fuel stabilizer, although he refuses to discuss the particulars. He will only say that he was involved in “all kinds of business and energy-related projects,” adding that the device is the culmination of 20 years of technological research in combustion and catalytic engineering. He says he recognized the potential for the fuel stabilizer and started Inset Industries on Jan. 18, 1990. First to join Pearson in his venture was John Nacco, Inset”s executive vice president of corporate operations. Ron Glassman, head of external affairs, was soon to follow along with Thomas Bielecki, the company”s vice president of finance.

The four-man team set out to promote the new technology by getting municipalities, corporations and individuals to use the fuel stabilizer in a variety of applications. A major coup during Inset”s early stages came in April 1991, when Chubb Insurance signed on as an underwriter for the fuel stabilizer, giving each unit $1 million product liability coverage. The city of Fort Worth was Inset”s first client. It did a six-month assessment of the product and then purchased 200 fuel stabilizers in January 1992. The city intends eventually to install 1,800 units in its vehicles.

Word-of-mouth became Inset”s most powerful marketing tool. In 1993 400 fuel stabilizers were installed on fossil-fuel engines in the U.S. and abroad. That number has since doubled, and Inset now services 80 clients. According to Bielecki, sales are increasing 20% annually, a figure he is certain will soon begin to “escalate considerably.” The company plans to promote the fuel stabilizer to all engine users around the world, including ships, trains, industrial boilers, trucks and aircrafts.

Just as traditionalists often scoff at alternative teaching styles or newfangled medical approaches, alternative fuel technologies are also dismissed by skeptics. In the past three years, however, an army of supporters has fallen in step behind the Inset fuel stabilizer. Says Pearson: “We”ve got an answer to the nation”s pollution problem, and we”ve proved it over and over again.” Among New Jersey”s believers, all of whom have tried the product on one or more engines, are Public Service Electric & Gas, Essex County, Waste Management Association in Scotch Plains and state senator Robert Littell, who installed the product on his own car.

Richard Kenyon, president of Power Conditioning Systems in Parsippany, which manufactures energy conservation products, has had a fuel stabilizer on his car since April 26. “If you try and take it away from me,” he warns, “You”ll be dead.” Kenyon claims the engine on his 1972 Cadillac, which has 257,000 miles on it, is now running cleaner than the 1994 pollution standards require. “There”s always been an ingrained resistance to new technology,” he says. “But this product works.”

NJIT does not agree. In 1993, at the request of Sen. Littell and then-governor Jim Florio, NJIT, in cooperation with the Stevens Institute, conducted a study of the fuel stabilizer. NJIT concluded in a 48-page report, that its “data do not provide evidence of any observable trend.” Richard S. Magee, executive director of NJIT”s Center for Environmental Engineering and Science, which handled the study, would not comment on the study because of pending litigation. The university maintains, though, that it “stands by the integrity of the report.”

The state Department of Environmental Protection supports NJIT”s findings. “We see many of these emissions retrofitting devices,” explains John Elston, Chief of Air Quality for the DEP. “You have to be careful whether they are what they claim. It”s often hard to find out exactly how effective a product like the fuel stabilizer really is.” A major factor fueling the controversy over the fuel stabilizer is the notion that it can reduce emissions to practically zero; a claim that has skeptics shaking their heads.

A mere mention of NJIT to a room of Inset officials quickly raises blood pressures. Nacco claims the academics omitted important data and did not release any findings at all to the company until a few months before the study was completed. Says he: “They showed what they wanted people to see.” Says Pearson: “NJIT never solves a problem. All they want to do is get funding for the sake of getting money; it”s milking the cow.” Bielecki adds that the technology used in the fuel stabilizer is a totally new concept, one that is not based on set standards in chemistry and electromagnetics. “Theories say that raising oxygen and improving combustion shouldn”t be correct,” says Bielecki. “We say it is. Scientists can”t explain it.”

It won”t be long until both sides will be doing their share of explaining–in court. The controversy has left few people standing on neutral ground. Respect for the state”s top technical institution cannot be ignored, yet the fuel stabilizer is stockpiling supporters. The battle has a long way to go. u