BORPower additive?

[aerohead]

One research that would be of interest at EcoModder, reported a 3.6% mpg improvement, 76% short of the 15% improvement implied at 'TEAM-BHP-COM.'
Very little data is volunteered by the authors, and they're asking $ 61 US Dollars to read.

[aerohead]

1) I purchased 'mineral oil'.
2) I purchased ' boric acid .'
3) I've ordered a viscosimeter and am awaiting a call from the supplier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) 'Engine friction' has to do with something Dr. Erdemir failed to address in his PATENT abstract.
5) I'll attempt to establish a 'baseline' measurement for that 'only' criteria automotive engine 'friction' is predicated upon ( thanks for nothing Dr. Erdemir ).
6) I'll blend in the 50% by weight boric acid, for the 'modified' colloidal.
7) Then re-test for the new value.
8) Only then, can I 'begin' to think about his, or anyone else's claims.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

Please do post papers saying Boric Acid in oil does not work.

While you're at it you might explain to ME how it is that I saw extremely positive results from MY OWN research?
Are you calling me a liar?
If so: What do you suppose my motivations for lying may be?

I'm happy to state my name etc if you want to look for any affiliation between Boric acid lubricant additives currently on the market and myself.

Where is YOUR personal research on the matter??


If you are in the business of selling cars/engines; Why would you want to cut sales to... I don't know; one tenth? of what they were?

Lets say you were making $ 10 000 a month and something new was about to come out that would cut your income to $1000; would YOU welcome the new tech?
Or might your reaction be similar to what you are currently doing...?

The quoted research (of which there is a lot more) is NOT ALL from Argonne National labs.

1) My experience is that, you've provided no actual actionable data, perhaps because Dr. Erdemir doesn't either. Which sets a poor precedent for 'EcoModders.'
2) I'm formally trained in the scientific method.
3) What you do doesn't 'look' scientific. It doesn't 'walk' like scientific. And it doesn't 'quack' like scientific. No scientific 'rigor.' It would never pass peer-review.
4) What I do is 'STEM'. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
5) I've followed tribology since 1974.
6) My college textbook on internal combustion engine and air pollution ran to 740-pages.
7) The chapter on Lubrication was 44-pages.
8) I've added to my library in the intervening years.
9) All the 'low-hanging fruit' for tribology was harvested by 1979.
10) I'm two years older than Dr. Erdemir.
11) The majority of my library is by PhDs.
12) If you possess any perspicacity, you'll learn how 'unimportant' most of Dr. Erdemir's work is to us at EcoModder.com.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

I on the other hand
Put in in an engine that was at deaths door to actually test it and saw dramatic positive improvements.
Based on that I put it in a good number of other engines. All with extremely positive results.

Have you made any observations based on direct action/testing of the substance at issue?
Any at all?

Do YOU read everything I write?
With the intent to understand what I am trying to say..?

eg:
I posted about the layer of aluminum oxide that forms fast on aluminum as an EXAMPLE of how ceramic layers of other types do form on metal surfaces and act as a barrier.
You jumped on that with great glee, thinking I'd just committed a faux pas you could triumphantly ride over the finish line.

I assume your rep here is almost as important to you as your seeming want to always be right about everything.
So you might consider how that (just one example) looks to others who do in fact read, comprehend and assimilate whats written here and thus pick up on YOUR faux pas.
How likely is anyone actually READING that to take anything you say seriously in the future??
Have you considered the possibility that few if any do... but know better than to wast time and energy saying anything..?

As for myself;
I feel that reading the OPINIONS of someone seemingly INCAPABLE (for whatever reason) of reading and comprehending what I (and many others here) have written counterproductive.

1) I don't need to!
2) When you know as much as I know, you know that the claims cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.
3) It would be 'folly' to duplicate ( oxymoron ) your 'tests.' You never performed any that had any scientific rigor in the first place that I can tell.
4) Wait until you find out how 'actual real world automotive testing' is performed, then you'll understand where I'm coming from.
5) I'm poised to conduct the precursor science to Dr. Erdemir's test, which left out all the 'conditions, caveats, and context to his work.
6) Yes, I've read your comments. They're not germane to automotive lubrication systems.
7) And could cost members and guests ninety-three million Dollars in losses!
8) US President, Abraham Lincoln once said, ' To know and not tell, makes cowards of men.' I'm 'cursed' with certain knowledge that makes it my civic obligation to intercede when I observe certain things. It's that simple. I'll take anyone to task, including PhDs.
9) I'm just the 'messenger.' If one is compelled to pour 'water' into a $14,000 engine and ruin it, there's no stopping them. It won't be on me.
I'm out of time, I'll be back on Saturday.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) I purchased 'mineral oil'.
2) I purchased ' boric acid .'
3) I've ordered a viscosimeter and am awaiting a call from the supplier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) 'Engine friction' has to do with something Dr. Erdemir failed to address in his PATENT abstract.
5) I'll attempt to establish a 'baseline' measurement for that 'only' criteria automotive engine 'friction' is predicated upon ( thanks for nothing Dr. Erdemir ).
6) I'll blend in the 50% by weight boric acid, for the 'modified' colloidal.
7) Then re-test for the new value.
8) Only then, can I 'begin' to think about his, or anyone else's claims.

Ok... let me get this straight;
You want to make a 50-50 mix of oil and Boric Oxide dissolved in boiling water to form Boric Acid and measure its viscosity?

I assume your chosen number of 50% is taken from the initial patent here:
"... In general, the preferred range for oils is about 0.5 to 50% by weight and for greases is about 1-50% by weight with the most preferred range being 1-15% for oils and 1-20% for greases...'
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5431830A/en

Everyone knows that patents are 'painted with a broad brush' to cover any and all eventualities.
Yet you have chosen a mixture ratio that is NOT in the "most preferred range".
Is that correct???

If so:

Don't bother:
The viscosity will be very similar to a 50-50 mix of oil and water.
At a guess, based on plain old common sense and experience; way too low for properly lubricating an engine.

Which, it is obvious, you have already surmised. As has anyone, with a bit of common sense, reading this.

ie: IF I understand your intent correctly:
The whole experiment is premeditated to fail.
That is perfectly obvious to everyone aerohead.

ie:
An experiment concocted to basically test the viscosity of a 50-50 mix of the equivalent of water and oil is not a dastardly clever plan. (to fool everyone reading this)
It's a patently stupid idea to everyone!
How will that make you look!?

The goal of adding Boric Acid to an engine oil is to expose the bearing surfaces, pistons and sleeves, cams, etc to the Boric Acid for long enough for the desired layer/s to form.
At this point it is desirable for any/most excess water to have boiled/evaporated away, leaving said coating.

"...my initial test of a heaped tablespoon of Boric Acid, stirred into a coffee mug of boiling water...

...I poured it into the pre warmed engine and took off immediately.
I took it very easy as I knew the emulsion was doing nothing for oil thickness..."
https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...tml#post695252

ie: A cup full of over saturated Boric Acid in an Engine FULL to the top line on the dipstick of oil.
Nowhere have I recommended a 50-50 mix of oil and water.
You know that right? You did read all that you replied to with the intent to understand rather than simply reply right..!??
Because I, like everyone who has read all this, knows that.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are beginning to wonder..!

[Logic]

edit; Double post deleted.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by freebeard

duckduckgo.com/?q=MotorSilk&ia=web

Was this mentioned upthread?

I think That's the 1st I mentioned it freebeard.
I didn't want to:

The product is designed to be acceptable to the broader public:
It looks pretty, like oil, so more likely to be universally accepted by people who have done zero to 2 minutes of research on the subject.

At a guess it was made with a very little, very fine Boric Oxide/acid and a surfactant to keep it in suspension and invisible.
It seems to rely on the water that ends up in the sump, given how long it takes to kick in.

That's all well and good if your goal is to increase your bank balance by selling lots of product to a vast pool of ignoramuses.
But if you want to properly treat the metal surfaces of an engine and quickly, you want both the solute (Boric Oxide) and solvent (HOT Water) in a 'clinically effective dosage' in the engine.
As is obvious; the water will thin the oil, so you want way more oil (full) than water/solvent and you want to take it easy until the solvent has mostly boiled off.

ie: "Puck the Fretty product and 'pretty' price! I want this to work fast and fully and at reasonable cost." was my thinking.

Plus:
If you use a lot of solvent you don't have to go to the trouble of milling the crap out of the powder for days.
The 'particles' of the wanted Boric Acid don't get much smaller than what they are in solution...
I did use a mortar and pestle and/or a coffee grinder on the (frozen=brittle? = more easily ground) powder however.

That also avoids all the Boric Oxide, which you don't really want, from floating about (or not)
waiting for water to 'appear' to become the solution you do want.
(You want the acid to form the hard, inert oxide-ish barrier on the metal surface, (similar to what happens to aluminum in air), not float about)

I over saturated my cup full of Hot water and powder.
ie: Some powder undissolved.
This extra was to dissolve in the water already in, or soon to be in the oil.
I figured the filter would catch it, from whence it would dissolve as water came along...

NB
that for very worn/old engines where oil pressure is already on the lower limit due to over large bearing clearances due to wear, you'd want to add the mixture bit by bit so as to avoid thinning the oil too much and going below the minimum reqd oil pressure before the solvent has boiled off.

Alternately the engine oil might be replaced with a thicker grade of engine oil before adding the BA, then an oil change after the layers have fully formed, removing 2 microns of 'clearance' wear from the bearings, pistons, etc.
I never tried that however.

In Short:
Motorsilk just looks pretty and costs much, once you've done the research.
I hope that all makes logical sense to you and the 'Popcorners'

[Logic]

aerohead:
As stated numerous times; if you want access to paywalled papers Sci-Hub will do that for you.

Copy-paste the paper heading in here:
https://sci-hub.ru/
(There are other URLs worldwide due to the 'Pay me for research I got hold of for free' types trying their best to shut Sci-Hub down.

VirusTotal is a free way to check the safety of URLs, using around 60 anti-virus apps.)

Well; I hope you read that (Was it short enough? ) and find it helpful.

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

You might also NB Intel's Compiler for a good example of 'Industrial sabotage' at work under everyone's very noses:
The compiler checks for 'Genuine Intel' and uses a much slower code path from the 386 days on non Intel CPUs.
ie: Hardware extensions like SSE and AVX etc are ignored and unused in all software compiled with Intel's compiler, running on non Intel CPUs.
https://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=49


I use 'Intel Compiler Patcher':
https://www.majorgeeks.com/files/det...r_patcher.html
to rectify this on my AMD Windblows system.
I patched files, including one from AMD's latest driver package! as recently as a month ago.

(You might consider a campaign to 'save' people from this 'dangerous' patcher when you're done 'savioring' (your rep..?) here! )

[freebeard]

I think That's the 1st I mentioned it freebeard.
I didn't want to:

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

1) My experience is that, you've provided no actual actionable data, perhaps because Dr. Erdemir doesn't either. Which sets a poor precedent for 'EcoModders.'
2) I'm formally trained in the scientific method.
3) What you do doesn't 'look' scientific. It doesn't 'walk' like scientific. And it doesn't 'quack' like scientific. No scientific 'rigor.' It would never pass peer-review.
4) What I do is 'STEM'. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
5) I've followed tribology since 1974.
6) My college textbook on internal combustion engine and air pollution ran to 740-pages.
7) The chapter on Lubrication was 44-pages.
8) I've added to my library in the intervening years.
9) All the 'low-hanging fruit' for tribology was harvested by 1979.
10) I'm two years older than Dr. Erdemir.
11) The majority of my library is by PhDs.
12) If you possess any perspicacity, you'll learn how 'unimportant' most of Dr. Erdemir's work is to us at EcoModder.com.

Thats nice!

I
on the other hand
just added an over-saturated solution of Boric Oxide/Acid and hot water to a tired engine's oil
to see what would happen right? No research to speak of right?
And IT WORKED!
It worked extremely, shockingly well! In over 2 dozen engines so far.
Just as Dr. Ali Erdemir 'suspected' it 'might'.

Dr. Ali Erdemir awarded the prestigious 2024 Tribology Gold Medal

date: 11.11.2024

The Institution of Mechanical Engineers is delighted to announce Dr. Ali Erdemir as the recipient of the prestigious 2024 Tribology Gold Medal.

Dr. Erdemir, a globally recognised expert in tribology, has dedicated over 35 years to advancing the design and development of novel materials, coatings, and lubricants aimed at improving the energy efficiency, durability, and environmental impact of mechanical systems.

Dr. Erdemir began his journey in tribology with an undergraduate degree in Metallurgy from Istanbul Technical University, Turkey. He later pursued graduate studies at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he earned his Master's and PhD in Materials Science and Engineering in 1982 and 1986, respectively. His illustrious career took root at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, where he conducted groundbreaking research from 1987 to 2019.

Throughout his career, Dr. Erdemir has made significant contributions to tribology. Among his most notable achievements are the discovery of near-frictionless carbon films, boron-based solid lubricants, and superlubricious graphene films. His research has pushed the boundaries of energy conservation and environmental sustainability in mechanical systems, from traditional machinery to electric vehicles.

In recognition of his contributions, Dr. Erdemir has received numerous prestigious awards, including election to the National Academy of Engineering (USA) and the National Academy of Inventors. He is also a fellow of several international organizations, such as the European Academy of Sciences, the World Academy of Ceramics, and the Science Academy of Turkey. Dr. Erdemir has also been honored with six R&D 100 Awards, the Mayo D. Hersey Award from ASME, and the International Award from the STLE, among many others.

Beyond his research, Dr. Erdemir has been a dedicated leader in the tribology community, serving as President of the International Tribology Council (2017-2022) and STLE (2016-2017). He has authored over 250 journal articles and holds 36 U.S. patents, a testament to his prolific and influential career.

https://www.itctribology.net/en/news...gy-gold-medal/