View the full PDF specification at innovacopycats.com/silktech-specs
In Canada, all air-conditioning and heat-pump systems must be listed in the NRCan database. In fact, it is illegal to import or sell a unit that is not listed. At the time of this publication, March 16, 2026, the Silktech EcoAuro 2.0 was not listed in the NRCan Searchable Product List.
Silktech EcoAuro 2.0 has a published rated capacity of 12,030 BTU in its brochure. Under federal law, any 12,030 BTU heat pump in this class must meet a 13.4 SEER2 or 9.3 CEER minimum to be legally sold, installed, or used in Canada. The Silktech EcoAuro 2.0 fails to publish a SEER2 or CEER value in its documentation because the unit cannot meet the required 13.4 SEER2 or CEER when tested in a certified lab.
Silktech uses the wrong rating metric in their published documentation, EER instead of SEER2 or CEER, COP2 instead of HSPF2. Silktech publishes only an EER for cooling and a COP for heating. Neither EER nor COP is a legal rating for this product category. For a heat pump, federal law requires SEER2 and HSPF2 ratings, or CEER. This alone renders the units illegal.
By using an EER instead of SEER2, Silktech is classifying EcoAuro 2.0 as PTHP, but EcoAuro does not meet the PTHP definition under Energy Efficiency Regulations. A lawful PTHP must have a wall sleeve, a separate unencased chassis, and a through-the-wall mounting. The Silktech EcoAuro 2.0 units lack these traits. Misclassifying the EcoAuro 2.0 as PTHP by using EER is a direct violation of NRCan rules and is illegal.
Silktech misrepresents even the fabricated numbers it publishes for Silktech EcoAuro 2.0 in both heating and cooling.
Using their own watt input: 12,030 ÷ 1,100 = EER 10.94. Yet, Silktech publishes 11.6 EER. Fraudulently lists the cooling capacity as 12,030 BTU with an EER of 11.6. When calculating the numbers, the EER of 10.94 is illegal. Can’t these cheaters do simple math??!!
Using their own watt input: 11,970 ÷ 3.412 (BTU to W) ÷ 1,010 = 3.47 COP. Yet, Silktech fraudulently publishes 3.66 COP. None of the numbers they publish is consistent with their own data.
The 12,030 BTU capacity they claim in printed brochures and technical documents, along with the 11.6 EER rating for the EcoAuro 2.0, is fake and fraudulent. When tested in a lab, this unit will not produce 12,030 BTU or an EER of 11.6. So, even ignoring the misclassification and wrong ratings, the actual numbers they claim are fake.
Somehow, this claimed 12,030 BTU of cooling gives an incredible 15.55 SEER2 when Silktech fraudulently publishes the data on the DOE CCMS Database website.
Here’s where it gets interesting. The manufacturer, Zymbo (China), lists numbers that differ significantly from those in Silktech’s brochure for the same unit.
Zymbo claims the same unit, called Dolphin 40, has the same 12,000 BTU and a different efficiency of 10.5 EER. What’s even more fascinating is that Zymbo’s own internal calculations are inconsistent.
Here’s what Zymbo publishes:
Using their own watt input: 12,000 ÷ 1,209 = EER 9.93. Yet, Zymbo publishes 10.5 EER. The cooling capacity is fraudulently listed as 12,000 BTU with an EER of 10.5. When calculating the numbers, the EER2 is really 9.93, which is illegal.
Zymbo is manipulating the numbers. The numbers they initially published were too good to be true, so they simply “dumbed down” the efficiency and presented lower efficiency values.
When Silktech published its own figures, it used the real (but still fake) numbers that Zymbo publishes when uploading data to the DOE website, then decided that a SEER2 to 15.5 looked good and appeared compliant.
For the EcoAuro 2.0, the claimed 12,030 BTU capacity and 11.6 EER rating are false. When tested in a lab, this unit will not produce 12,030 BTU and an EER of 11.6. So, even ignoring the misclassifications and incorrect ratings, the actual numbers they claim are fake and inconsistent with expected test results.
Silktech EcoAuro 2.0
EcoAuro 2.0 is illegal to distribute, specify, install, or use in the United States and Canada. Silktech’s published cooling and heating efficiency numbers are fabricated, mathematically impossible, and directly contradict what proper testing would show. EcoAuro 2.0 fails to meet DOE and NRCan minimum efficiency requirements under every applicable classification. Where these products appear in official databases, they do so with falsified data, which compounds rather than resolves their violations.
We back the statement that the EcoAuro 2.0 cannot legally be sold, installed, or used in the United States with a One Million Dollar Guarantee.
| Metric | Legal Minimum Required | Silktech's Status | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SEER2 | ≥ 13.4 | Numbers fabricated — listed on DOE CCMS with fake data | Fails |
| HSPF2 | ≥ 6.7 | Numbers fabricated — listed on DOE CCMS with fake data | Fails |
| CEER / SEER2 | NRCan minimum | Not listed on the NRCan database | Fails |
These ratings cannot be made up. They must be established through testing in a genuine laboratory under the correct DOE and NRCan test procedures. The fact that fabricated data has been submitted to official government databases does not constitute compliance — it constitutes fraud.
| Database | EcoAuro 2.0 |
|---|---|
| DOE Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) | Listed with falsified data |
| MAEDBS | Not listed |
| NRCan Searchable Product List | Not listed |
Submitting falsified efficiency data to a government database is not a path to compliance. It is a separate and aggravated violation — constituting the filing of false information with a federal regulator.
| Violation | US Law Violated | Canadian Law Violated |
|---|---|---|
| Silktech fabricated laboratory test data rather than conducting legitimate testing under the required industry methods, AHRI 210/240 and ASHRAE 37 | 10 CFR Part 429 | Energy Efficiency Act; Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 |
| Published cooling efficiency numbers for both products are fabricated and mathematically impossible, and could not result from any legitimate test | 10 CFR Part 430 | Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 |
| Published heating efficiency numbers for both products are fabricated and mathematically impossible, and could not result from any legitimate test | 10 CFR Part 430 | Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 |
| Published efficiency numbers contradict basic mathematics — the stated heating and cooling values are physically impossible | 10 CFR Part 430 | Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 |
| Silktech uses illegal EER rating metrics instead of the legally required SEER2 (US) or CEER (Canada), mandatory since January 1, 2023 | 10 CFR Part 430 | Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 |
| Silktech derived published performance ratings from non-compliant test conditions and failed to use the correct AHRI 210/240 and ASHRAE 37 test methods, rendering every efficiency rating ever published legally invalid | 10 CFR Part 429/430 | Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 |
| Silktech submitted falsified efficiency data to the DOE CCMS, constituting the filing of false information with federal regulators | 18 U.S.C. § 1001 — federal criminal offense | Energy Efficiency Act |
| Violation | US Law Violated | Canadian Law Violated |
|---|---|---|
| EcoAuro 2.0 does not meet minimum efficiency standards, exposing every distributor and dealer carrying the products to joint legal liability | 10 CFR Part 430 | MEPS under Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 |
| EcoAuro 2.0 fails mandatory SEER2 minimum cooling efficiency thresholds because published numbers are falsified | SEER2 under 10 CFR Part 430 | CEER under Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 |
| EcoAuro 2.0 fails mandatory HSPF2 minimum heating efficiency thresholds because published numbers are falsified | HSPF2 under 10 CFR Part 430 | Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 |
| EcoAuro 2.0 is listed in DOE CCMS with falsified data — database presence with fake data does not constitute compliance and is an aggravated violation | DOE CCMS under 10 C.F.R. § 429.120 | — |
| EcoAuro 2.0 is not listed in NRCan's searchable product database, meaning it was neither legally cleared for import nor for interprovincial sale in Canada | — | NRCan Searchable Product Database; Energy Efficiency Act |
| EcoAuro 2.0 was never certified by an accredited certification body, and neither carries the mandatory compliance mark | DOE Certification under 10 CFR Part 429 | Standards Council of Canada Energy Efficiency Verification Mark |
| Silktech violated product classification rules for EcoAuro 2.0, affecting which efficiency standards and test procedures apply | DOE Product Classification Rules under 10 CFR Part 430 | NRCan Product Classification Rules under Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 |
| Violation | US Law Violated | Canadian Law Violated |
|---|---|---|
| Silktech's efficiency and capacity ratings directly conflict with what government-certified testing would produce, and falsified data was submitted to official government databases | 10 CFR Part 429.12; 18 U.S.C. § 1001 — federal criminal offence | Energy Efficiency Act — fines up to $10,000 per violation |
| Nameplates, product literature, and marketing materials display efficiency ratings using illegal EER metrics unsupported by any legitimate test data, violating both US and Canadian labeling requirements | FTC Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR Part 305; DOE Labeling Requirements under 10 CFR Part 430 | NRCan Product Classification and EnerGuide Labeling Requirements under Energy Efficiency Regulations, 2016 |
| Silktech misrepresented the certification and compliance status of both products to customers, dealers, regulators, and certification bodies | 18 U.S.C. § 1001 — federal criminal offense | Energy Efficiency Act offense |
| Violation | US Law Violated | Canadian Law Violated |
|---|---|---|
| False efficiency claims, illegal rating metrics, and misleading energy performance advertising — including the submission of falsified data to government databases — constitute deceptive trade practices exposing Silktech to regulatory action and civil lawsuits from competitors, including claims for damages | FTC Act Section 5, 15 U.S.C. § 45; Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) | Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34 |
| Maximum penalties for serious violations or refusal to take corrective action | FTC civil penalties up to $53,088 per violation | Energy Efficiency Act fines $10,000–$200,000 |