BORPower additive?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

I tested it for myself.
Can YOU (and most others) say the same?

I discerned and deducted a whole lot.
Hence my deviation from the (research) norm of 'fine as possible' powder, to dissolving the BA in (god forbid) water! to get the 'finest particles' of (god forbid) acid! (Boric)
(No the oil did not go milky as is the case with a gasket leak etc)

I also went to great pains to explain how the BA reacts with the normal oxide layer that's on all metal surfaces in an engine, instead forming a hard, chemically inert layer. that none of the similar additives, like Molybdenum Disulfide etc, do.
I even added photos where anyone can see for themselves the smoother surface.
But Nooo! Chemistry isn't Chemistry!? Is it 'above you'?
And the photos are... what? PhotoShopped lies by the DOE?


I also reported my findings, in which engines worked way better and lasted for years.
"Illogical"..??? Or the logical next step..???

You stopped just short of calling me a liar!
Hence my animosity etc. What did you expect/hope for!?
That's what happened and I will NOT back down from my observations/results.
Observations = Personal test results, of which you have NONE of your own! NONE..!
Yet here you are shouting, with no soap box to stand on. Is that logical to you..!?

"...commercially-mass-produced automobile engine under 'non-extreme-tribological condition' operation..."
Oh; now the 'in engine research', where you 'tossed out the results' due to their being at "non-extreme-tribological condition' operation" are in fact what is required..?
Do make up your mind!
All this 'changing the goalposts' to suit your argument is getting tiresome and smacks of 'Art of War' BS...
I could go back and re-quote all the times you contradicted yourself similarly, but that's plain for anyone to read themselves..!

(My testing was at both non extreme (normal city and highway eco driving) conditions
and at extreme WOT high rpm driving/racing)

What's "hiding in plain view" is this:
IF
You want to sell lots of engines/cars:
THEN
How would something that makes them last 'for ever' help you..?

I linked the info where ZDDP was equally rejected and called "Mouse Milk" by the motor industry for over 20 years... until (new at the time) overhead cams started seizing up.
Then all of a sudden something that made engines last longer than the sellers' cared for them to last, was suddenly 'The Holy Grail' of oil additives.
Do you have an explanation for that?


As usual any points you can't argue will be 'Art of War' ignored and instead; some new argument will be sucked out of your thumb, making any debate a farce.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That you 'tested' will be the subject of a future conversation, only after the audience is exposed to the details of what 'testing' actually entails, some of which were illustrated in freebeard's video on ARCO graphite.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That you 'tested' will be the subject of a future conversation, only after the audience is exposed to the details of what 'testing' actually entails, some of which were illustrated in freebeard's video on ARCO graphite.

No
I tested it.
It works.
You have not.

"I don't have to test it..."
No you don't.

"...because I know it doesn't work."
No. You dont.

Because YOU haven't tested it.
I have.

You drink water when you're thirsty because you know it works, from experience.
I add BA the engines because I know it works, from experience.

The research institutes who tested in engines got 6 to 10% better fuel economy in the light load situations you last insisted on.
(And that was on a tight new engine IIRC)
Their peers reviewed the research and agree, so the papers were published.
Done.

All you're doing now is making it so anyone who does try it wont post.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

No
I tested it.
It works.
You have not.

"I don't have to test it..."
No you don't.

"...because I know it doesn't work."
No. You dont.

Because YOU haven't tested it.
I have.

You drink water when you're thirsty because you know it works, from experience.
I add BA the engines because I know it works, from experience.

The research institutes who tested in engines got 6 to 10% better fuel economy in the light load situations you last insisted on.
(And that was on a tight new engine IIRC)
Their peers reviewed the research and agree, so the papers were published.
Done.

All you're doing now is making it so anyone who does try it wont post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have to wait on me. Please go ahead and make ( re-make ) your case.
I've explained my path, and I'm not going to put the cart in front of the horse on account of your sense of urgency.
I'll catch up when I'm satisfied that all that are interested are armed with enough fundamental data to navigate what lies ahead.
It's a sophisticated topic, requiring a multidisciplinary background approach in order to parse out what's been reported.
It'll take the 'semester.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' In order to break the rules, first you must master them'
Dali Lama, Pablo Picasso, Peter Rawlinson

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have to wait on me. Please go ahead and make ( re-make ) your case.
I've explained my path, and I'm not going to put the cart in front of the horse on account of your sense of urgency.
I'll catch up when I'm satisfied that all that are interested are armed with enough fundamental data to navigate what lies ahead.
It's a sophisticated topic, requiring a multidisciplinary background approach in order to parse out what's been reported.
It'll take the 'semester.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' In order to break the rules, first you must master them'
Dali Lama, Pablo Picasso, Peter Rawlinson

Oh your "Water in the oil makes it less viscous test"

• 'Drinking water makes you less thirsty' is as obvious.
• And no-one has to add the water if they don't want to:
  The combustion process will do that for them over time. (HC+O2=H2O+carbon this n that)
  It just takes a lot longer.

But go ahead and do your thing. I'm sure you'll earn your keep by scaring off a lot of people.

So everyone knows:
A low on compression, difficult to start, old lawnmower is probably cheaper and certainly more abundant than whatever (equipment etc) aerhead has planned.

"Fundamental data" like the huge list oil certification acronyms you like to list.
Your lists have all been in your Art of War: "You mere mortals will NEVER understand this! Be too intimidated to even ask!" style so far.
But readers are supposed to find them, and you ...'helpful' are they..?

Do actually be helpful and explain them:

• What they test for.
• How they test.
• and why each certification is important to the consumer.

Then you also want a % of oil companies that actually have each certification.
As I said one of those Oil Certification Clubs costs 150 000 USD a year, so has very few members, as that cost would have to be passed on to the consumer
I'll post a link as soon as you post your 1st. Or are we to take the word of someone incapable of figuring out how to do so..!?


Don't mistake my being offended by your basically calling me a liar with a sense of urgency My Friend..

I don't care if no-one here tests it.
I know what I know as I did test it for myself. (after reading the published research)
And a good many other people have too.
Every-one else; Their (6 to 10% better fuel economy and engine life etc) loss.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have to wait on me. Please go ahead and make ( re-make ) your case.
I've explained my path, and I'm not going to put the cart in front of the horse on account of your sense of urgency.
I'll catch up when I'm satisfied that all that are interested are armed with enough fundamental data to navigate what lies ahead.
It's a sophisticated topic, requiring a multidisciplinary background approach in order to parse out what's been reported.
It'll take the 'semester.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' In order to break the rules, first you must master them'
Dali Lama, Pablo Picasso, Peter Rawlinson

Oh ye; 10 out of 10 for ignoring pertinent questions that don't suite you, like:

"...The research institutes who tested in engines got 6 to 10% better fuel economy in the light load situations you last insisted on..." here.

I assume the hope is everyone will simply forget all about this?


That's just one example of you skipping over inconvenient (for you) pertinent points/questions..
Would you like me to go back and list all of them?
Watch this question get the 'Flat Ignore' too everyone!

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

No
I tested it.
It works.
You have not.

"I don't have to test it..."
No you don't.

"...because I know it doesn't work."
No. You dont.

Because YOU haven't tested it.
I have.

You drink water when you're thirsty because you know it works, from experience.
I add BA the engines because I know it works, from experience.

The research institutes who tested in engines got 6 to 10% better fuel economy in the light load situations you last insisted on.
(And that was on a tight new engine IIRC)
Their peers reviewed the research and agree, so the papers were published.
Done.

All you're doing now is making it so anyone who does try it wont post.

I recommend that you go back over what you've posted, re-read what Dr. Ali Erdemir actually 'said' about 'boron, what I've posted, and then think about the perception of factual inadequacies others might experience while comparing your 'experience' with reality, then see if you might want to look for 'holes' in your arguments that you might have missed, which make it very difficult for us to navigate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to 'light load', I never insisted on that.
Here in the United States, fuel economy of all vehicles certified for sale, are computed from the results of five ( 5 ) different EPA test protocols, not any 'single' test.
No single EcoModder road test that any of us can perform can satisfy the scientific vigor of four (4) internationally recognized automotive test protocols, each of which produces a different 'mpg' for an identical car ( EPA, NEDC, WLTP, CLTC ).

[freebeard]

No single EcoModder road test that any of us can perform can satisfy the scientific vigor of four (4) internationally recognized automotive test protocols, each of which produces a different 'mpg' for an identical car ( EPA, NEDC, WLTP, CLTC ).

Not rigor but vigor? What is the value of four rigorous results that disagree?

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I recommend that you go back over what you've posted, re-read what Dr. Ali Erdemir actually 'said' about 'boron, what I've posted, and then think about the perception of factual inadequacies others might experience while comparing your 'experience' with reality, then see if you might want to look for 'holes' in your arguments that you might have missed, which make it very difficult for us to navigate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to 'light load', I never insisted on that.
Here in the United States, fuel economy of all vehicles certified for sale, are computed from the results of five ( 5 ) different EPA test protocols, not any 'single' test.
No single EcoModder road test that any of us can perform can satisfy the scientific vigor of four (4) internationally recognized automotive test protocols, each of which produces a different 'mpg' for an identical car ( EPA, NEDC, WLTP, CLTC ).

You can recommend whatever you please.
Fact is; I tested in engines: It works. (For years so far) You haven't.
That there is how we can fully test it. (But you want to argue that logic..!? )
That's how:

• I
• and others
• and research labs tested it.

Thus it is as fully tested as it's going to get. (so far)

Now what was your excuse as to why someone shouldn't put it in an old smokey lawnmower they are about to toss out anyway.
Was it fire and brimstone from above?
Or was it fire and brimstone from above you, if you ever admitted to the logic of doing so..?
I don't recall.

Now your beloved flat bottoms and boat tails:
If properly designed and built, and tested at constant speed on the freeway:
Can one feel that the accelerator pedal isn't depressed as much as usual?
That the vehicle seems to 'roll on' for further?
That it's using less fuel, when you fill up?
Or do you need the amount of scientific research I have quoted here ( and you've rejected) to prove their (highway only) benefit?
Similarly; Boric Acid works so well that you can feel it in the same way as anyone can feel the difference a properly done turbocharger install has on power.

(Also, as 98% of driving is urban stop-n-go, why aren't you insisting on such testing for aero mods too? You do want this community to save fuel don't you..?)

As I recall you were all: " Who is this Dr Erdemir Snake oil salesman!?"
And you were calling the research done by the DOE's Argonne National Labs etc a whole lot of BS poppycock etc by 'Fly by Nighters'.
Now you've hopped the fence and despite it having being tested in lab engines to great effect, actually want more of all that kind of testing..!?
Do make up your mind!

Oh and again:
10 out of 10 on skipping over the challenge of stating how and why each of the certifications you insist on are done.

• Perhaps YOU don't know and just want others to think you do..?
• Or perhaps the testing entails the equipment and procedures you have already rejected here..?

Anyone want to guess at which points/questions will be ignored yet again here.
I'm guessing all of them. You?

Any excuse as to why one shouldn't try BA in the above, pre toss or rebuild situation, looks like the work of a paid troll, it smells like paid troll..! And not just to me...
Skipping inconvenient questions doesn't help either.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what is it..?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Not rigor but vigor? What is the value of four rigorous results that disagree?

It's helpful for members to know the 'context' of the 'quanta' published for their specific vehicle, and how those values would only be 'valid' under the same conditions under which they were originally derived.
Those owning an 'identical' vehicle but in a different global locale, and tested under a different set of cycles would know not to have any expectation of seeing the same numbers.
Say, Logic actually revealed the 'Toyota' he initially tested with 'boron', then we'd be able to obtain the technical specifications for the car and reverse-engineer the original OEM energy balance 'performance' to compare to the 'friction-modified' version, to see if the observed numbers had 'probability' within the physical constraints established in 'Argonne's' reporting, the 'benchmark' of 'accuracy.'
That's what the 'peer-reviewers' would have had to do to 'verify' any claims or attributions made by Dr. Erdemir et al..
Logic brought up a very valid point with respect to how a car's 'energy' is distributed, once it leaves the 'tank.'
The 4-different test protocols attempt the specificity to describe those energy distributions.
If you mainly drive in bumper-to-bumper traffic, at a 'crawl', your 'distribution' isn't going to resemble one for someone legally commuting, uninterrupted, between Austin, and San Antonio at 85-mph on the toll-road.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

You can recommend whatever you please.
Fact is; I tested in engines: It works. (For years so far) You haven't.
That there is how we can fully test it. (But you want to argue that logic..!? )
That's how:

• I
• and others
• and research labs tested it.

Thus it is as fully tested as it's going to get. (so far)

Now what was your excuse as to why someone shouldn't put it in an old smokey lawnmower they are about to toss out anyway.
Was it fire and brimstone from above?
Or was it fire and brimstone from above you, if you ever admitted to the logic of doing so..?
I don't recall.

Now your beloved flat bottoms and boat tails:
If properly designed and built, and tested at constant speed on the freeway:
Can one feel that the accelerator pedal isn't depressed as much as usual?
That the vehicle seems to 'roll on' for further?
That it's using less fuel, when you fill up?
Or do you need the amount of scientific research I have quoted here ( and you've rejected) to prove their (highway only) benefit?
Similarly; Boric Acid works so well that you can feel it in the same way as anyone can feel the difference a properly done turbocharger install has on power.

(Also, as 98% of driving is urban stop-n-go, why aren't you insisting on such testing for aero mods too? You do want this community to save fuel don't you..?)

As I recall you were all: " Who is this Dr Erdemir Snake oil salesman!?"
And you were calling the research done by the DOE's Argonne National Labs etc a whole lot of BS poppycock etc by 'Fly by Nighters'.
Now you've hopped the fence and despite it having being tested in lab engines to great effect, actually want more of all that kind of testing..!?
Do make up your mind!

Oh and again:
10 out of 10 on skipping over the challenge of stating how and why each of the certifications you insist on are done.

• Perhaps YOU don't know and just want others to think you do..?
• Or perhaps the testing entails the equipment and procedures you have already rejected here..?

Anyone want to guess at which points/questions will be ignored yet again here.
I'm guessing all of them. You?

Any excuse as to why one shouldn't try BA in the above, pre toss or rebuild situation, looks like the work of a paid troll, it smells like paid troll..! And not just to me...
Skipping inconvenient questions doesn't help either.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, what is it..?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was giving you a way to cushion your fall, however, you seem determined in choosing a crash landing. Your call.
'Knowing in advance' is what the mechanical engineer gets for their $ 100,000 undergraduate degree, and whatever else they spend on graduate, doctoral candidate, and post-doc education.