January 29, 2010 Sara Conrad Research Compliances Services Manager Office of Research Responsibility Alexander Building West 312 N. 14th St., Suite 209 Lincoln, NE 68588-0408 Dear Ms. Conrad, We have received your Inquiry report and have the following comments regarding the allegations of misconduct we’ve submitted. 1. We were under the understanding that this was a Preliminary Inquiry and that we only had to supply enough evidence to warrant the Inquiry Committee to send this to a formal investigation. 2. We believe we have supplied enough evidence to send this allegation of misconduct to a formal investigation. 3. We believe that your internal Inquiry Committee would really like for this allegation of misconduct to just go away. Furthermore, we believe if this evidence was presented to a truly independent committee, they would’ve ruled that enough evidence was presented and move this inquiry to the next level of a formal investigation. 4. We are disappointed in how we were treated by the Inquiry Committee because it appeared that we were the ones on trial, not Dr. Hoy. 5. There are too many things stated in the Inquiry Committee’s January 12 th report to formally rebut, but Dave Morgan’s statement (pg. 11) regarding the use of the same tank (May 7th and July 9th tests) is another example of a very basic issue which they couldn’t report accurately. We have pictures that we’ve already submitted to the committee that clearly show the tank was swapped out for a new tank on the July 9th tests. We never had illusions of hope for EPA certification within the context of these tests. This never was a goal or topic of discussion with UNL’s IAPC/TTL Staff. Pg. 10 of the Inquiry Committee report refers to this possibility. We only asked the UNL Tractor Test Lab for fair measurements and observations of how our system that “Uses Ethanol in Diesel Engines” performs. We felt this would be a ‘good start’ by a high reputation engine performance laboratory. Today, we feel UNL’s reputation may soon be tarnished by Dr. Hoy’s actions of sabotage within this grant. That is why we submitted our concerns to Dr. Owens and Dr. Yoder and explained our position to the Inquiry Committee.
6. For whatever reason, Dr. Hoy consistently; from the beginning of testing of our technology showed a bias against our technology. May, July thru September email, he consistently stated in emails that ‘no further testing was needed’. It was our understanding that multiple tests were to be performed over the two year life of this grant. 7. UNL’s own employees (Loren Isom and Roger Weber), along with Milford, SCC’s two instructors (Kevin Uhler and Karl Eikhoff) can tabulate similar and expected engine emission results on three different engine classes (Oct. 12th, 2009 Council Bluffs, IA testing) during a DYNO test event and have a total reversal of observed reliability and performance results from Dr. Hoy. After all of this, we still received the Sept 21st MEMO stating once again that, ‘no further testing on our technology is needed’. From our observations, engines and associated equipment systems perform with very consistent and reliable results. We believe Dr. Hoy authored the segment within the Sept. 21st, 2009 Memo that stated, “However, substantially increased HC emissions are indicative of unburned fuel and inefficient use of ethanol which suggests the need for an improved process for ethanol fumigation. The system tested, in this study, lacks the stability and repeatability essential for further investigations.” 8. Shortly after the Oct 12th 2009 Council Bluffs, IA testing, Loren Isom and Robert Weber both contacted us for a meeting and arranged to come to our office at CleanFlex Power Systems LLC’s address at: 4827 Pioneers Blvd. on October 14th, 2009….two days after the DYNO testing! They both stated how impressed they were with the system and how they looked forward to working with our system in the near future. They stated the following: a. “Discussed protocol for future grant testing. b. Robert Weber wanted to look at a mass flow sensor for future tests. c. Loren Isom and Robert Weber appeared to be in ‘awe’ at how well our system worked seamlessly with no alterations on software and hardware. It was obvious to us that by they thought Kevin would need to be on hand to adjust system (continuously) throughout tests, which could not have been further from the truth. Kevin never touched a ECU on the preinstalled equipment on each Note: We attached the Minutes of this meeting along with this letter. Summary: When Ron Preston and Bob Dickey met with Dr. Owens and Dr. Yoder, Dr. Owens stated that a, ”‘Third Party’ should be brought in to do a re-test”. The Inquiry Committee hasn’t said anything about this possibility to date. We believe the Inquiry Committee is just trying to make this ‘go away’ and isn’t taking this as serious as we are. The basis of our opinion on this matter stems back from May 10th-May 12th emails from Roger Hoy when he said, ‘No further testing is needed’ for our system. Instead of a he said/she said saga continuing; we think a Formal Investigation is
Warranted! Improper lab procedures would be completely understood by an independent expert who is familiar with the technology tested here. This independent expert, given the chance to review what has been presented, could help prevent this discrediting of UNL’s reputation as a credible research institution. We are friends of the University. We have put many resources of time and revenue into this grant opportunity. It is obvious to us that our system that, “Uses Ethanol in Diesel Engines” is a good system that can not only save consumers on energy costs, but add value to Midwestern Agricultural Crops. Dr. Hoy’s actions of misconduct amount to nothing short of sabotage in our opinion. We are not accepting your internal review process as credible. We strongly request that you reconsider the evidence and proceed with a formal investigation to hopefully satisfy and provide for a fair resolution of this matter. An outside review board is obviously the fairest way to proceed! It appears that the Inquiry Committee and the Tractor Test Lab employees are only trying to protect one of their own instead of moving this forward. Also, we believe a ‘Simple Answer’ is to retest exact same engine, exact setup and exact same protocol, and let the results speak for themselves!
Please move this matter to a Formal Investigation. Note: We will supply the Video Tape of the JD Engine separately. The file is too large to email. Sincerely, CleanFlex Power Systems, LLC Mgt.