One Fuel Additive Platform,
Multiple Operating Environments
CM fuel additives are evaluated against the useful work performed—from productive kilometres and voyages to service-hours and machine output.
Fuel Additives Across Applications
Measure Fuel Against Productive Distance
Road-fleet additive pilots should be evaluated against route, payload, distance, traffic, idle time, and duty cycle—not a universal saving percentage.
Record fuel, distance, payload, idle time, driver, traffic, route, and weather conditions before additive treatment.
Compare matched runs using litres per 100 km or fuel per tonne-kilometre, with exceptions documented.
Report cost per delivery or productive kilometre and subtract additive treatment cost from any gross change.
Use repeated cycles to separate potential additive effects from route, driver, load, traffic, and weather variation.
Publish the protocol, data quality, limitations, and review status with every result.
Measure Fuel Against Useful Power and Service
Generator additive pilots should use matched load, run time, fuel measurement, ambient conditions, and useful service output.
Establish comparable baseline and additive-treated periods at a defined load, with conditioning and dosage records retained.
Compare fuel input with run time and useful power or service delivered—not fuel volume alone.
Record load changes, shutdowns, refuelling, weather, maintenance events, and measurement limitations before review.
Measure Fuel Against Voyage and Engine Work
Marine additive evaluation should connect fuel use with engine-hours, route, sea conditions, load, voyage output, and actual operating cost.
Establish comparable fuel per engine-hour by operating mode, load, route, weather, and vessel condition.
Report fuel and net cost per voyage alongside productive output, downtime, and additive treatment cost.
Measure Fuel Against Field Work
Agricultural additive pilots should compare fuel with productive engine-hours, acres, task, soil conditions, load, and seasonal availability.
Record asset, implement, field task, fuel, engine-hours, soil conditions, operator, and productive output.
Use fuel and net cost per acre or productive engine-hour rather than an isolated percentage.
Track operating readiness and downtime without assigning a maintenance or useful-life benefit before measurement.
Separate gross fuel change from additive treatment cost and the value of verified productive output.
Measure Fuel Against Productive Machine Output
Heavy-equipment additive pilots should separate idle and productive burn, then normalize fuel against payload, tonnes, cubic metres, or completed machine work.
Define the asset, fuel, duty cycle, operator, work area, measurement method, and comparable operating periods.
Separate idle time from productive engine-hours and record changes in work mode or utilisation.
Normalize fuel against tonnes, cubic metres, cycles, haul distance, grade, or another useful-output measure.
Report idle and working fuel separately so operating changes are not mistaken for additive effects.
Measure events and availability directly; do not assume a maintenance, component-life, or downtime benefit.
Compare gross fuel change, additive cost, productive output, and exceptions to calculate a context-specific net result.
Measure Fuel Against Completed Service
Public and emergency additive pilots should be assessed against missions, service continuity, route, readiness, safety, and fuel per useful service.
Track readiness, completed service-hours, response activity, downtime, and operating exceptions.
Use fuel per mission, service-hour, kilometre, or other useful public-service output.
Measure Fuel Against Human Service Delivered
Remote and humanitarian additive pilots should connect fuel with generator hours, transport missions, clinic or camp service, safety, and beneficiary reach.
Compare fuel with verified hours of power, mobility, refrigeration, water, or another defined service.
Report net program cost and useful service delivered without implying an unmeasured household, health, or emissions outcome from the additive.
Evaluate Additive Compatibility, Handling and Site Evidence
Industrial additive applications require fuel-specific compatibility review, dosing control, traceability, safe handling, local requirements, and matched measurement.
Confirm the fuel, additive compatibility, specification, storage conditions, engine requirements, and regulatory context before evaluation.
Retain dose, batch, custody, storage, mixing, operator training, and exception records.
Treat each site result as context-specific until the protocol is repeated and independently reviewed.
Pilot metrics by operating context
One protocol, adapted to the work being measured.
Measurement starts with the work
Define fuel input, additive dosage, useful output, duty cycle, treatment cost, and exceptions before comparing results.
"Every fuel-additive result should answer three questions: what changed, under which operating conditions, and what the available evidence does not establish."
Controlled Pilots,
Designed End to End
CM’s delivery model brings fuel-additive selection, compatibility review, dosing, handling, quality assurance, baseline and control protocols, and technical support into one pilot workflow. Independent hosts should measure and review the result.
