BORPower additive?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

No time: Read just the bold text.
Then see the pretty pictures in the link.

Investigation of the Effects of Boron Additives on the Performance of Engine Oil

...Chemically, boric acid is a very mild, nontoxic acid. It is water soluble (about 6 wt% at room temperature). The layered crystal structures of boric acid, boron, oxygen, and hydrogen atoms are strongly bonded to one another to form extensive atomic layers.
Note that each boron atom is bonded to three oxygen atoms to form triangular BO3 groups. Hydrogen links the planar BO 3 groups to one another.
Bonding within the layers is mainly covalent, ionic, and hydrogen, but between the layers, it is [weak] van der Waals type.
The layers are 0.318 nm apart (Erdemir (6)).
Micro to nanoscale boric acid particles can be prepared using a variety of methods and mixed with oils and greases to achieve higher degrees of lubricity.
In fact, such mixtures have been prepared in the past and their very unique lubrication capacities have been demonstrated (Erdemir (6)).
Just like other solid lubricants (such as MoS 2 , graphite, hexagonal boron nitride), boric acid owes its lubricity to a lamellar or layered crystal structure.
In general, all of these lubricants are able to shear very easily along their crystalline shear planes and thus provide low friction.
The atoms lying on each layer are closely packed and strongly bonded to one another, whereas the layers themselves are wide apart, and the forces that hold them together are weak van der Waals type (Erdemir (6), (15)).
Without the boric acid particles, the friction coefficient of base oil is around ∼0.15. When base oil is blended with nanoscale boric acid particles, the friction coefficient is reduced to 0.04.
The effect of sliding velocity on lubricity of nano boric acid–containing oils is provided.
As is clear, the beneficial effect of nano-boric acid powders on friction becomes very clear
even at very low sliding velocities.
Because of their layered structure, they can shear easily to provide low friction (Erdemir (6)).
In D ¨uzc ¨uko ˘glu and Acaro ˘glu’s study (D ¨uzc ¨uko ˘glu and Acaro ˘glu (18)), vegetable oil–based canola oil and boric acid were combined and their wear performance was investigated. In the experiments, the wear performance of commercial mineral
oil, pure canola oil, and a combination of canola oil and boric acid were compared using a pin-on-disc test apparatus (at a constant speed of 1.5 m/s and under various weights of 60, 120, and 180 N).
It was found that the layered structure of crystalline boric acid particles enables them to slide over each other with relative ease and can reduce friction and wear...

Diesel Engine Test Results
...Experiments were also carried out for both optimum concentration ratios using a 170-kVA alternator John Deere diesel engine.
This is a heavy-duty diesel engine and has a four-stroke, water-cooled, direct injection fuel system.
It has flexible fuel connection hoses and a sump oil drain valve.
Moreover, a control supervision and protection panel was mounted on the generator set
base frame.
The control panel was equipped with the following instruments: three ammeters, run meter hours, a volt–frequency meter (by LED) and selector switch, engine oil pressure gauge,
engine coolant temperature gauge, etc.
Fig. 5 shows fuel consumption as a function of engine speed during lubrication by 4 wt% hBN and 4 wt% BA additives running idle (under a load condition of 7%).
The effect of boric acid and boron nitride additives on the amount of fuel consumption was compared with the base oil, as seen in Fig. 5.
Diesel engine tests were performed during 1 h of work for base oil and boron additives, and fuel consumption as a function of diesel engine speed was recorded.
The results indicated that the fuel consumption increased with increasing rotational speed
of the engine as expected.
In addition, the boron compound had a greater reducing effect on the fuel consumption at relatively higher speeds.
To compare with the base oil, additives had a decreasing effect on the fuel consumption.
In addition, 4 wt% BA had a greater reducing effect on the fuel consumption than that
4 wt% hBN.
As shown in Fig. 5, using the base oil in the diesel engine alone, the average fuel consumption at all test speeds was 17.315 L/h.
For the 4 wt% hBN and 4 wt% BA additives, those values were 16,864 and 16.696 L/h, respectively.
It can be seen that with the addition of 4 wt% hBN and 4 wt% BA, the fuel
consumption was reduced to 2.7 and 3.6%, respectively...

https://sci-hub.ru/10.1080/10402004.2014.909549

This will be about the sixth time I've tried to correct your argument:
1) 'Lubricity' has nothing to do with 'Automotive lubrication'. All automotive 'engine friction' is a function of hydrodynamic forces, dependent upon 'viscosity.'
2) When anyone ever sees the term 'friction coefficient' in use, the topic is 'boundary lubrication regime', not anything related to automotive lubrication.
Within 'coefficients of friction' there exist:
A) Static coefficient of friction
B) Dynamic coefficient of friction
They need to be specified!
3) 'Mineral oil', without additives cannot be used in an automobile.
4) For 'vegetable oils' ( Fixed Oils ), Castor oil is typically the only fixed oil you're likely to hear about in connection to an automobile, and likely, only with 'racing cars'/ motorcycles.
5) 'Pin-on-disc' wear test machines cannot simulate what automotive engine lubricants experience in service
A) Erdemir's testing was conducted at 13,800% lower 'speed' that what some automotive engines experience.
B) Erdemir's maximum test temperature in the PATENT explanation was
3500% lower than what automotive engines experience.
C) The Alumina, convex hemispherical ball, on steel disc 'pin-on-disc' is incapable of producing 'mixed-film lubrication regime', or, 'full hydrodynamic lubrication regime' encountered inside automotive engines.
D) Erdemir gave an upper temperature threshold of 170-C in his PATENT disclosure, far below 875-C of exhaust valve stems, 300-C of Intake valve stems, 250-C of piston pin/rods, 204-C of turbocharger oil, or 201-C of piston top rings.
6) If a John Deere diesel tractor engine has ever been used in automotive application let me know.
'Running at idle.'
'Working at 7% load at idle'
'One hour of engine testing' ( SAE J1082 requires 100-hours of engine testing ).
7) 'Engine friction' varies as the square of rpm, so one would expect fuel consumption to also increase.
8) 'Reduced shearing' is analogous to 'reduced viscosity,' and for 'SAFETY' reasons, there is a centistoke minimum threshold for an engine oil, below which, engine/transmission/differential destruction is certain., hence SAE's 100-hour durability test.
9) A 3.6% improvement in fuel consumption is indicative of an 18% reduction in viscosity.
10) SAE 7.5W-25, @ 4.0 cSt, @ 100-C, is considered the 'lowest' viscosity' oil that an engine can survive. It's unfortunate that no 'viscosity' was mentioned in the John Deere engine test.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by Logic

Not real piston rings but whats interesting here is you can see the blowby in the circumferential movement in the oil between each ring.
Faster between the top and middle ring than between the middle and lower ring.

So I went and looked for research.

Consequence of Blowby Flow and Idling Time on Oil Consumption and Particulate Emissions in Gasoline Engine

1.2l 3cyl 4-stroke Blowby flow measurement for the engine at full load.

rpm l.min−1
1000 31
1500 52
2000 51
2500 52
3000 51
3500 49
4000 49
4500 49
5000 51
5500 49
6000 47
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/22/8772

The paper shows it's important to have the ring gaps 180 degrees from each other too.
How long and if they will stay that way I don't know.

Assuming a 0.5 micron thick layer on metal surfaces, you lose 2 microns (0.002 mm) of space between piston and sleeve,
And 0.007mm off the ring gap of the 75mm bore of the engine used above.
I don't think that would make much difference to blowby, but don't know enough on the subject to judge..?
Interesting non the less.

"...it is common knowledge that water
molar concentration is 14%..."
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ection_Systems

I take that to means that 14% of the above numbers is water vapour, so numbers for water vapour and water going through the crankcase are:

rpm l/min Steam l/min Water ml/min if condensed
1000 31 4.34 2.71
1500 52 7.28 4.50
2000 51 7.14 4.46
2500 52 7.28 4.50
3000 51 7.14 4.46
3500 49 6.86 4.28
4000 49 6.86 4.28
4500 49 6.86 4.28
5000 51 7.14 4.46
5500 49 6.86 4.28
6000 47 6.58 4.11
(I wish extra spaces weren't ignored so I could make a proper table?)

How much of that ends up dissolved and/or as an emulsion in the engine oil with small amounts of hygroscopic (water absorbing) Boric Oxide in it; I don't know, but there are some 'negligible' numbers to consider.

ie: Any Boric Oxide scraped of the barrier that forms on metal surfaces would quickly? become BA again.
That BA would then 're-patch the scratch'.

[aerohead]

After a close reading of the diesel engine research, I realized how asinine the entire exercise seemed to be:
1) A '170-kW' engine was used to generate '11.9-kW' of energy ( 14-X overkill )
2) The engine was operated, from 'idle' ( zero % mechanical efficiency ), to as high as 900-rpm ( the Lamborghini Temerario twin-turbo V-8 operates at up to 10,000-rpm ).
3) 'Idle' constitutes an engines worst brake thermal efficiency ( BTE ), in the John Deere example, as low as 6.49% ( compared to a Caterpillar-powered 18-wheeler tractor of 42% BTE )
4) Engine heat loss is 'maximum' at idle ( 93.268% for the John Deere's 'best-case ).
5) At 'idle', the lubrication never moved beyond 'boundary film' or 'mixed film' regions, never reaching the 'full hydrodynamic lubrication' region of a road vehicle.
6) The engine operated between 0.94 m/s, and maximum 2.82 m/s, 88.7% below the requirement of an automobile engine.
7) Brake specific fuel consumption was 'improved' from, 2.036-pounds/bhp-hr, to 1.961-pounds/bhp-hr ( compared to 0.314-pounds/bhp-hr with the Caterpillar diesel engine in the 'semi').
8) 'Base oil' was SAE 20W-50, at 688 cSt @ 40-C, and 21.2 cSt @ 98.9-C.
9) The 3.6% fuel consumption decrease, based upon the reduced shearing load of the BA-modified oil indicates that the BA-modified oil was equivalent to SAE 16.4W-41.
10) SHELL T4 ROTELLA HD DIESEL Motor oil, favored by most diesel engine owners is SAE 15W-40.
11) So congratulations PhDs!. You could have just used SHELL's motor oil and experienced even higher performance!
12) The PhDs spoke of 'contact loads' and 'coefficients of friction', neither of which are applicable to automotive engines.
13) The PhDs spoke of 'especially at low speeds, low temperatures, high loads', which extremely narrows the limits of the efficacy of BA-modified engine oil when considering automotive applications.
14) Since the engine test was of extremely-short duration, we don't have any evidence that the engine would survive a 100-hour, SAE J1082, Recommended Practice, dynamometer load test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose that, if you grew up, totally within an academic environment, going from high-school, straight into college, then, straight into grad school, then into a doctoral program, having never 'gone outside'; one could design an experiment that, while 'interesting' in a purely 'clinical setting', would leave something to be desired, if attempting to represent the 'real world.'
This is is exactly how I'm experiencing the John Deere, Diesel engine-powered electric generator experiment.
I put it in the same category as 'dimpled' cars and Chrysler's 'Turbo https://www.google.com/search?q=Chry...W0bx_Ooq4,st:0Encabulator'.