BORPower additive?

[Logic]

In field tests, a boric acid based fuel additive has led to reduced fuel consumption. The reduction was substantial, an average of 6 and 10% in passenger cars and diesel generators respectively.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...43164817302545

But "don't try this"
Not in an old bearing.
Not in an old small engine.
Not in a car's engine you're about to rebuild anyway.
Not in a lab.

After all: why should anyone at Ecomodder be interested in a 6% fuel economy increase?

[freebeard]

Since everyone ignored #176, I took it upon myself to ask DDG:

duckduckgo.com/?q=B40+Boron+allotrope+as+lubricant&ia=web

The first link 404'd but then there is this:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com: Article
Lubrication potential of boron compounds: An overview
R. B. Choudhary, P. P. Pande
First published: 07 March 2006 Citations: 34

Since I don't care as much as all y'all, I didn't get any further than the Abstract

Boron compounds are emerging as promising materials for a wide range of applications in automotive and industrial lubrication systems. Several studies conducted on boron compounds have revealed that they exhibit desirable properties for preparing stable and compatible lubricant components for a new generation of lubricating oil formulations. Boron-containing lubricants have major tribological advantages, such as antiwear efficiency, good film strength, high-temperature resistance, and self-lubricating properties. The increasing number of patents concerning boron-containing lubricants illustrates commercial interest in this area. Boron lubricants can be used in many forms, such as oxides, esters, and boric acid. Therefore, it can be expected that a new generation of lubricant formulations includes boron compounds. This paper presents an overview of various solid and liquid lubricants containing boron as an important ingredient, and is intended to aid the development of new lubricants.

But wait! First link under images:
www.slideshare.net/slideshow: Manufacture and characterization of Boron Oxide solid lubricant
Jan 20, 2017 -- Jose Gaviria

This document discusses the manufacture and characterization of boron oxide solid lubricant coatings using radio frequency magnetron sputtering. It describes various boron-based coating types and manufacturing methods. The document outlines problems encountered in reproducibly manufacturing boron coatings, such as residual stresses. Solutions applied included multi-layer manufacturing and the addition of a carbon interlayer. The document summarizes the characterization of manufactured films and their physical properties. It concludes that multi-layer application can reduce residual stresses and established manufacturing methods allow for ease of production and molecular structure modification.

For the visually stimulated:


www.slideserve.com:
The Functional Attributes and Utilization of Borates in Lubrication Nanotechnology

Now this has my attention. Can you see why I'm fascinated by this figure? It's not the rare Snub Truncated Octahedron because it has seven-sided openings:


https://external-content.duckduckgo....df3&ipo=images

I can find all that and I don't even know what a pin test is.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

Another forum where people discuss adding BA to mostly motorbike engines.
One or 2 mentions of improved fuel consumption.
Some talk of long term effects.
https://www.xbhp.com/talkies/general...work-out/page1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More anecdotal comments, no test methodologies, no test data, no data reduction, no statistical analysis, no repeatability.
No actionable information.
No mention of the existence of 'real' SAE, or, ASTM tests available for motorcycles.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

Some more forum comments by people that HAVE tried MotorSilk, licensed from Argonne National Labs:

Hello everyone. I have used Motor Silk in two different vehicles, including a 95 Mercury Villager, with 110,000 miles on it.
This was one of the 95's with the oil hole missing in the connecting rods which lubricates the lower cylinder walls, resulting in piston slap, noticeable, but not terrible. The slap diminished after the vehicle reached operating temperature.
Added Motor Silk, and within 300 miles the slap was gone period, and the fuel mileage increased 2mpg.

91 Jeep Cherokee, 178,000 miles with a noticeable rod knock. Added Motor Silk, which REDUCED the knock. The knock is still audible, however NOT nearly to the extent it was prior to the addition of Motor Silk, and again the mpg increased by 1mpg.
Plain and simple the stuff works.
In fact, i just purchased a used vehicle from Folsom Lake Toyota, and purchased the extended warranty from the dealer. I am shopping around for a better price on the warranty, same coverage and have found one company willing to extend the power train warranty from 36/36 to 10/100,000 IF I have the Motor Silk installed in the engine and transmission, by a ASE mechanic and shop at NO additional charge.

I just came across your posting about Motor Silk. I have known about Motor Silk since about 2000 and have used it in my vehicles.

I used it in my sons 1966 Mustang after we had the engine rebuilt.
My son proceeded to attend Fullerton College automotive school. When it was necessary to discuss carberated cars, my son was asked to bring his Mustang in to the garage, leave it run and put it up on the hoist.
Every time he did the instructor would ask him "Wow, this engine sure sounds good. What have you done to this car?"
Well, he didn't know that I put Motor Silk into his engine so he said he didn't know.

I had it in a Ford Windstar and had some engine work done and when I went in and spoke with the mechanics they both asked me "You sure must take good care of your car because the inside of that engine looks like new."
It's no joke, this stuff really works. Read the info on their website and you choose for yourself. If you want to protect your investment and make sure your keep the wear down, use Motor Silk. I think it's great.
https://www.tundrasolutions.com/thre...or-silk.15601/

Those 2 comments are surround by many NEGATIVE comments.
You know what they all have in common?
All by people who HAVE NOT tried it.

Now why does that sound familiar!?

I noticed that some of the naysayers were career mechanical engineers, formally educated in the scientific method, with knowledge of automotive lubrication design, the relationship between parasitic friction and engine performance, and 'real' values for the component parts, and how impossible the testimonial 'results' must be, based on actual empirical evidence available within the public domain.
The engineers wouldn't have to be 'too smart' to fall for the 'claims', as even MotorSilk makes 'claims', no quantitative claims about mpg, only, 'PROVEN to ' cut emissions up to 10% '', something virtually impossible for an individual to measure.
MotorSilk invoked Dr. Erdemir's 20nm 'solid lubricant', Boric Oxide plating, overlaid by 100nm-400nm of crystal lattice Boric Oxide platelets, eliminating 'metal-to-metal' contact, which doesn't happen in an automotive engine. Something Logic hasn't learned over the past 28-months ( treating an engine like a piece of wood furniture, where the drawer glides are lubricated by rubbing with a bar of soap [ boundary lubrication ] ). Pitiful!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

In field tests, a boric acid based fuel additive has led to reduced fuel consumption. The reduction was substantial, an average of 6 and 10% in passenger cars and diesel generators respectively.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...43164817302545

But "don't try this"
Not in an old bearing.
Not in an old small engine.
Not in a car's engine you're about to rebuild anyway.
Not in a lab.

After all: why should anyone at Ecomodder be interested in a 6% fuel economy increase?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This belongs on a different thread. Please stay on topic.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More anecdotal comments, no test methodologies, no test data, no data reduction, no statistical analysis, no repeatability.
No actionable information.
No mention of the existence of 'real' SAE, or, ASTM tests available for motorcycles.

Not a one.
Yet it works.
As they attested.
As I attested. Are you calling me a liar?

When there is scientific research, as demanded above, that also doesn't count.
What does?
So what does count?

and again:
If scientific research and field tests and anecdotal evidence is not allowed:
How did ZDDP make its way into engine oil????

How did ANY of the additives found in engine oils get there if one is not allowed to use:

• Tribological research equipment.
• Field tests where there was a 6 to 10% improvement in fuel economy.
• Try it for yourself.

API Annual Meeting Marketing Division in 1948 [6];
‘‘Ten years ago additives were looked upon by lubricating-oil manufacturers as costly gadgets, and it was not unusual to hear them disparagingly referred to as ‘‘mouse milk.’’ However much has happened in the past 10 years..."
https://sci-hub.ru/https://link.spri...ticle/10.1023/

https://ecomodder.com/forum/B:TRIL.0000044495.26882.b5
Sounds familiar somehow, yet there ZDDP etc is in oil.

You do realize that:
If the engine and/or oil manufacturers were paying moles to squash any talk of Boric Acid as a lubricant; They would act just as you are, although probably not contradict themselves quite as much..!

To anyone actually reading this; it's you that looks suspect by:

• Skipping such questions.
• Quoting the DOE's Argonne National Labs research after trying to convince people said research is from suspect sources.
• etc.

[Logic]

Yeeees!

But how did they end up there?

Remember that accourding to you:
No testing in tribology labs is allowed.
No field testing is allowed.
No anecdotal reports are allowed.

Therefore:
None of these things could have ever made it into oil.
So what are they doing there???

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

...eliminating 'metal-to-metal' contact, which doesn't happen in an automotive engine. Something Logic hasn't learned over the past 28-months...

Do pistons change direction at TDC and BDC?
If yes:
How do they accomplish that without slowing into mixed and stopping into boundary lubrication.

What about cam followers and valves that move on every 4th stroke of a piston?

Why is there always some metal on magnetic sump plugs, visible as a sheen if looked at in the sun.
Why did engine manufacturers put a magnet in the sump plug in the 1st place!?

NO-ONE capable of a technical thought, besides you, considers engines to only be subject to Hydrodynamic lubrication.
I can quote numerous research proving as much. With Links!

Originally Posted by aerohead

Pitiful!

As to hydrodynamic lubrication:
Why is there a tread on your tires??
Could it be a way of reducing hydroplaning?
If so;
could it be because smooth surfaces hydroplane better than rough ones?

[aerohead]

* The tribologists would have had access to Getman & Daniels' 'Outlinesof Theoretical Chemistry', 1st-Edition, 1913, which would avail them to technical information about molecular outer shell 'polar', 'non-polar' localized charges, which would aid them in identifying 'covalent bonding' chemistries, desired most inside engines.
* 'Table-top' lab experiments would ferret out non-viable candidates, narrowing the field for those which would ultimately be put to the most expensive tests, inside dynamometer test cells, using predecessors of the SAE J1082, SAE J607, SAE J1349, SAE J1995, SAE J2723, and ASTM D8114 Sequence VIE, 196-hour procedures, before accepted as acceptable motor oil additives, alongside: graphite, molybdenum, iron-oxygen-carbon-hydrogen, organic phosphates, organic sulfur, chlorine, boron-nitrogen, and Polyalphaolefin ( PAO ) 2.5 ( SYNFLUID ), Group-IV additives.
* Bear in mind that, in automotive engine tribology, any emphasis on 'Extreme Pressure' ( EP ) motor oil additives, is focused on 'valvetrain,' cam-lobe and valve-lifter protection.
* Transmissions have their own story.
* Differentials have their own story.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

Not a one.
Yet it works.
As they attested.
As I attested. Are you calling me a liar?

When there is scientific research, as demanded above, that also doesn't count.
What does?
So what does count?

and again:
If scientific research and field tests and anecdotal evidence is not allowed:
How did ZDDP make its way into engine oil????

How did ANY of the additives found in engine oils get there if one is not allowed to use:

• Tribological research equipment.
• Field tests where there was a 6 to 10% improvement in fuel economy.
• Try it for yourself.

API Annual Meeting Marketing Division in 1948 [6];
‘‘Ten years ago additives were looked upon by lubricating-oil manufacturers as costly gadgets, and it was not unusual to hear them disparagingly referred to as ‘‘mouse milk.’’ However much has happened in the past 10 years..."
https://sci-hub.ru/https://link.spri...ticle/10.1023/

B:TRIL.0000044495.26882.b5
Sounds familiar somehow, yet there ZDDP etc is in oil.

You do realize that:
If the engine and/or oil manufacturers were paying moles to squash any talk of Boric Acid as a lubricant; They would act just as you are, although probably not contradict themselves quite as much..!

To anyone actually reading this; it's you that looks suspect by:

• Skipping such questions.
• Quoting the DOE's Argonne National Labs research after trying to convince people said research is from suspect sources.
• etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* In 1938, Italy and Germany were the only nations that had highway infrastructure good enough to operate automobiles at speeds ( loads ) that would necessitate the 'need' for motor oil 'additives'.
* My roommate at Edwards Air Force Base in 1972 had a 1931 Chevrolet sedan we got running and drove for a year and a half before he traded it for another 'toy.'
Even at the 55-mph speed limit, we had to be mindful how we drove it, being 'pre-Autobahn'.
* World War-II started in 1939, and other than 'inventing' chromium piston rings for Allied tanks operating in the desert of North Africa, it would be 1945 before technologists could really focus on much else but the war effort.
* Your tasked with proving your 6%-10% mpg improvement from boric acid ( or are we still on ZDDP?
* The others and yourself have provided no 'evidence' that could sway anyone who knows about engines. Like I've told you about three times now; your fuel economy, on any given day, will change by 20%, without doing 'ANYTHING' to the car. And you appear to be stupifyingly incurious on the matter.
* What boric oxide is, is not 'ceramic.'
* MotorSilk is getting $ 359/gallon for a treatment while they make no quantifiable mpg, claim about 'Erdemir's 'invention.'
* If you read MotorSilk's performance data for comprehension and did mathematics, you'd avoid MotorSilk like forest fires.
* I didn't fall off the cabbage truck, and I wasn't born yesterday. I wouldn't touch boric acid with a ten-foot pole after reading about it. It's a solution to a problem nobody has.
* Argonne never published results from ASTM D8114 Sequence VIE testing, something MotorSilk did! And it's what they published about it that was the deal-breaker. I won't spoil your borgasm.