Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this page-37 from Erdemir's 2013 report, Re. University of Arkansas, table-top steel block-on-ring rest?
If so, YES, it's a 'fully-formulated SAE 5W-30 motor oil, but it's yet to be tested under ASTM Sequence tests in a 'fired' engine, in a dynamometer test cell.
|
It's from the study you replied to:
https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2013/09/77152.pdf
Do you mean the PAO4 + BA hasn't passed the required tests
or the fully formulated oil hasn't?
Either way, lets practice some logical deduction here:
IF
the base oil + BA is better than the fully formulated oil
THEN
As long as there's enough BA left afterward; Does is matter if the BA buggers up the additive package?
IF
The quench distance from the cylinder walls is ~2.5mm and the walls themselves are closer in temperature to those in the crankcase
THEN
Is the any high temperature reactions between BA and the oil and/or cylinder walls to worry about?
IF
the the micropitting/corrosion tests show this kind of surface:
Does it matter if the previous anti corrosive additive becomes ineffective?
Lastly:
IF
its been tested to some extent in engines already without:
"Explosive instantaneous disassembly?, view ports in the block? Siezing parts so solid they will not disassemble" (Piotrsko being an hass-ole)
THEN
Will it do so if tested in an old smokey engine, pre rebuild?
I NB that you have no problem with grille block mods where people may well end with coolant temperatures above the norm..? it seems to me that if you consider yourself the 'policeman of Ecomodder' some caution signs would have been waved about with similar gusto!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
Or, page-38, with 'full passenger car package, plus 0.5% BA', @ mu= 0.10- 0.12 ( same or worse than a common industrial roller -bearing ) table-top test, with some blends 'agglomerating into larger chunks ?
|
Page 37 here states:
...The TOF-SIMS chemical analysis of the same film (see Fig. 20) revealed that it primarily
consisted of boron and some organic compounds (containing zinc, phosphorus, and sulfur). The elements other than boron may have come from the additive package of the carrier oil (in this case, a fully formulated engine oil).
The significance of this observation is that our nanolubricants are compatible with the current additive packages and capable of further enhancing their friction- and wear-reducing capacity.
The protective boundary film formed on the sliding surface was one of the main reasons for their excellent resistance to wear and scuffing...
Using a steel block-on-ring test machine, we assessed the scuffing performance of the base PAO containing different levels of conventional additives and boric acid (BA). Specifically, in addition to base oil, we evaluated the friction, wear, and scuffing behaviors of:- base oil + full passenger car package,
- base oil + antioxidant,
- base oil + full passenger car package without friction modifier, and
- base oil + full passenger car package without friction modifier and dispersant.
Table 2 summarizes all the results obtained from this series of tests.
As is clear, - the steel block-and-ring samples could scuff at loads as low as 230 N when a PAO oil was used.
- Addition of the antioxidant additive had no significant effect on the scuffing load.
- With the full passenger additive package (synthetic 5W30), the scuffing load increased to 1200-1250 N.
- These baseline tests clearly stressed the importance of oil additives in tribological performance.
Compared to base and fully formulated engine oils,
the BA-containing oil blends were in most cases very effective in reducing friction and increasing resistance to wear and scuffing in these test series as well.
In particular, - the scuffing limit for blends that contained 0.25 to 0.5 wt.% boric acid powders in base oil + antioxidant improved by a factor 2 (i.e., 230-300 N vs. 560 to 660 N).
- In the case of the full passenger car package without friction modifiers, BA-containing oils
surpassed the scuffing limit of the commercial fully formulated synthetic oils by 350 N.
- At 1 wt.% load, the scuffing limit decreased, thus confirming that the optimum range was 0.25 to 0.5 wt.%.
- The scuffing load of commercial synthetic oil in this case was about 1250 N, but the nanoparticle boric acid containing the new oil blend was as high as 1600 N.
Such impressive performance persisted even in the total absence of a friction modifier in the carrier oils.
Note that the level of friction coefficients provided by boric acid additives is comparable to that of fully formulated oils with friction modifiers; however, friction modifiers used in current oils are expensive and a source of SAPS in engines.
Despite the lack of any friction modifiers in this oil blend, the friction coefficient of this BA-containing oil blend was comparable to that of the fully formulated synthetic oils.
IMHO the 'worse than results' seen in the test with higher levels of BA may be due to the fact that BA powder is likely to contain some Boric OXIDE.
IF
The test oils did not contain enough water to change that into BA.
THEN
Particles similar to the hard layer formed on the metal surfaces will be in suspension and scuffing is likely.
The difference is that these highly hygroscopic (absorbs Water) particles of Boric Oxide WILL react with any water, forming BA.
In an average engine where 4ml (liquid) of water pass into and mostly through the crankcase; the situation is likely to resolve itself in short order.
Further:
If some water is added to the mix; there is NO ISSUE.
While water not taking care of by the surfactant in all oils will be in suspension as an emulsion, the water is over saturated with BA atoms due to boil-off.
That means that the water part of the solution will form the OH oxide layer alluded to here:
Upon which the free atoms of BA in solution will form the the layer shown at a much faster rate than if the BA was in powder form or even so fine as to be colloidal.
Subsequently; any remaining water is presented with the chemically inert Boron Oxide layer rather than bare steel and can NOT cause any further erosion.
This leaves it to boil and evaporate away out of the highly agitated oil, with the remainder becoming more oversaturated with BA.
That will result in the crystallization of the layered, ZDDP etc like, solid lubricant in suspension in the oil, but at the colloidal (floats) sizes so desired in all the positive research so far.
Agglomeration:
An agglomerate of highly effective solid lubricant in the highly agitated oil in a crankcase is likely to end up somewhere where it is physically broken down into the micro platelets that make it such a good solid lubricant.
Alternately:
Being soluble in water; any water that gets into the oil would slowly dissolve it, becoming useful as a means of it's removal and then deposition and circulation of a solid lubricant suitable to the moisture laden conditions in a crankcase.
As you yourself know; this condition does not exist in the lab tests where only the humidity in the air in the lab is available to the BO/BA.
An oversight IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
As of 2011, when they 'ended' their research, no one had tested it in an automotive engine ( on page-27 Dr. Erdemir writes that they had 'an interest
for automotive application', but they never got that far ( they were just conducting ' Initial screening studies').
|
That there is EXACTLY were we, as the Ecomodder community should, in the spirit of inquiry, come in IMHO!
NB that no matter how hard we look, NO reason is ever given for the cessation of research.
I speculate that the results were so good as to cost both the car/engine and the oil manufacturers profit!?
Right or not, it's time to find out for ourselves IMHO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
I'll address your other 'dead-end' questions when I complete my library materials.
|
Most of my dead end questions are due to a lack of logical deduction on your part:
Despite similar research, ZDDP was rejected until cams started friction welding themselves to cam followers at which point the more frequent sales of oils became a moot point if there were no engines to put them in!
Claiming that all the industry standard testing is of no value means that ZDDP would not even have been 'on the radar' of tribologists.
ie: It's illogical at best and idiotic at worst to suggest that the established, accepted, and published upon research is 'all crap' in the case of this one substance, but not in the case of ZDDP etc and makes further debate nonsensical, and unworthy of any time spent reading your arguments..!
(The unformatted 'text walls' and lack of linked references don't help either and say nothing for your ability to learn simple things...
Things like properly using the tools provided by the forum software..!)
I have no idea how you or any thinking, deductive mind could even suggest such absurdity..!?
Yet it cannot be left unanswered as ignorance then wins they day yet again,
progress takes a step backward and my intellect and reputation are left in doubt by those who scan this ...'debate' because there engine is old and they just want to know what to by at Walmart.
That angers me and anger on top of "will I make the house payment and what will we eat today" is not a good combination. You may be able to tell by this reply that my personal situation is alleviated for the moment. My apologies for any past or future
uncalled for rudeness etc.
Disrespecting my ability to think and logically deduce is, if you haven't yet realized it,
uncalled for.