BORPower additive?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

On the friction and wear performance of boric acid lubricant combinations in extended duration operations
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Pittsburgh

[

B]4.4. Transmission fluid with boric acid[/B]
Based on the poor results of the boric acid experiments, the solid lubricant material was physically dissolved without the use of dispersant (5% weight) with the transmission fluid to establish its potential use as an additive in liquid lubricants.
As shown in Figs. 5 and 6, this lubricant combination was found to provide the excellent friction and wear properties as the friction actually decreased over a significant portion of the testing period.
Specifically, as depicted in Fig. 6, the transmission fluid and boric acid had an initial coefficient of friction of 0.08.
This coefficient value gradually decreased to a value of 0.062 at the completion of the sliding experiments, which was 40% less than that obtained in the transmission fluid only experiments.
The comparatively higher initial coefficient of friction values for the transmission fluid and boric acid combination were most likely due to the fact that the boric acid crystals were not evenly distributed within the transmission fluid at the start of experiments.
As shown in Fig. 6, however, it appears that the boric acid became evenly disbursed within the fluid after approximately 100 m of sliding.

Once evenly distributed, the lubricant combination was able to provide a continuous hydrodynamic lift and a low shear resistance within the contact interface to function as an excellent lubricant.
Unlike the independent transmission fluid and boric acid cases, the complimentary properties of the lubricant combination allowed it to withstand significant degradation over time.
https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.scien...43164805004266

Considering the dispersion of the boric acid crystals, the surface tension properties of the transmission fluid help constrain the boric acid powder so that it did not move outside of the contact region.
Likewise, the addition of the solid boric acid particulates into the fluid increased its viscosity, which decreased its displacement outside of the contact interface, reducing its degradation over time.
Hence, placing the boric acid within the transmission fluid allows the system to gain the beneficial properties of both lubricants over the entire testing period.

Along with having the lowest frictional values, the combined boric acid and transmission fluid case also had the best wear resistance of the initial lubricants tested.
In both the profile of the wear track of the disk (Table 1) and the measured wear volume
of pin (Fig. 5 and Table 2), the lubricant combination demonstrated excellent wear behavior.
Considering the profile of the disk wear track, the average (0.162
m) and RMS (0.222
m) surface roughness profile values were the lowest recorded in the
experiments.
This demonstrates that the wear track generated in the presence of the combined lubricant was the most uniform among all the samples tested.
As illustrated in Fig. 9, the low roughness values indicate as the disk asperities were plastically deformed and rounded rather than being sheared-off to form valleys. Considering the wear on the pin, both Fig. 5 and Table 2 indicate that excellent wear resistance was achieved by the combined lubricant.
In fact, the measured wear rate at the completion of the experiments was three times less than that of the transmission fluid alone.

https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.scien...43164805004266
Lots of pictures and graphs to be seen here.


My findings after adding BA to gearboxes:
It worked extremely well.
A, difficult to describe, smoothness due to less vibration and less resistance to gear changing could be felt.

HOWEVER:
Gearboxes rely on syncromeshes (friction clutches) between each gear to get them spinning at the same rate before the gear is engaged, so that they don't grate when the gear is engaged.

These syncromeshes became way less effective due to the dramatic reduction in friction they rely on.
This meant that I had to hold the gear lever against that initial resistance one feels just before the the gear slips into place for much longer.

I put too much in the 1st gearbox I treated, making it close to unusable.
Draining and replacing the gear oil had no, to very little effect.
We opened the gearbox and used valve grinding paste on the syncros.
Then a thorough clean with cloths and a wash out with diesel and much hand turning of the gearbox in each gear.
This fixed it while retaining the said 'smoothness'.

Subsequent gearboxes were treated with way less BA.
IIRC around 2 teaspoons full of powder dissolved in very little water so that around one teaspoon of powder remained undissolved.

Differentials:
Differentials react very well to adding around the same dose as mentioned above IIRC, with a complete cancellation of diff whine in one case.
It took way longer to kick in. A day or 3 IIRC, vs 10 km in engines.

Limited slip differentials, that again rely on friction to limit slip, became waaay less limited...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ' BORPower additive ' thread is predicated upon the discussion of boric acid in motor oil.

[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

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

I found this on the US Dept of Energy's website.
NB the URL to the link: https://www.energy.gov

I have posted the 1st couple of pages below.

Here's the link to the complete presentation;
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/fi..._17_fenske.pdf

Parasitic Energy Losses
















Here is another link showing a test engine used in these experiments etc;
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/fi...t08_fenske.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) This value would constitute a 1978 year model automobile, at 80-mph ( 128-km/h ), operating at 33.7% Brake Thermal Efficiency ( BTE ), or perhaps the EPA FTP-75 'CITY' test cycle, and perhaps, at 'WARM-START' ( unreported by the authors, leaving the reader to try an figure out what it was that researchers actually did ).
That they report a 23% bhp muddies the waters even further.
2) At 80-mph, 'parasitic friction' for the 1978 car is 5% of total energy, with an allowance for 66.66% 'hydrodynamic' losses, and 33.33% 'boundary region ' losses. 1/3rd of 5% = 1.666% of total energy attributed to 'component contact' sliding friction ( Goodwin & Haviland, General Motors Research Laboratories, SAE Paper 780596 ).
3) At 'CITY cycle, and 30-mph, 'sliding friction' is 1%.
4) Same with ASTM Sequence VIA test cycle.
5) Oak Ridge National Laboratory considers both tests bogus, with respect to lack of cold ambient temperature viscosity effects.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

I assume you are not rabidly opposed to ZDDP in motor oil?

IF:

"1) 'coefficient of friction '
3) 'pin-on-disc' testing"
etc
"have absolutely nothing to do with automotive lubrication"

THEN:

Why does one get 10 pages of (mostly research) results from a search for:
decrease in "coefficient of friction" of ZDDP Supplement (zinc dialkyldithiophosphate)?

https://www.google.com/search?q=decr...&bih=906&dpr=1

Why are there 7 pages of (mostly research) results for:
"pin on disk" tests for ZDDP Supplement (zinc dialkyldithiophosphate)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22p...&bih=906&dpr=1

Could it be that BEFORE testing things in running engines, tribologists at research institutes first test with the the de facto test equipment found in all such labs?

There are 15 pages of (mostly research) results for:
"pin on disk" test essential initial testing equipment
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22p...&bih=906&dpr=1

IF as you say no one should be testing this in their engines:
WHERE and how would YOU test it with no chance of breaking your daily transport?

I did suggest speaking to your mechanic to find someone who was about to bring in their car to have their old, worn, smokey but otherwise OK engine rebuilt as a means of testing in a real engine with nothing to lose.
I don't recall your your reaction to that?
Most likely ignored? Or rejected for some "certain it wont work" reason?
What was it again?

I have linked tons of peer reviewed, published research pointing to the fact that it is worth trying.
Have you posted one?? Why not?
(IIRC this question got ignored like you have trouble comprehending it!?)

IN OTHER WORDS:
As far as verifiable sources of info on the; 'why try it' vs 'why not' goes:
The score is what?
20+ to 0

Here is what the peer review, before publishing process entails people:
Peer review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.
https://www.biomedcentral.com/getpub...review-process

Peer review is a process used by researchers to evaluate the quality and validity of academic research papers before they are published in a journal. In this process, an author submits their work, which is then evaluated by a panel of experts in the same field, known as peers or referees. These reviewers evaluate the paper based on its scientific quality, novelty, and relevance to the field.
https://www.aje.com/arc/types-of-peer-review/

If anyone looks like they don't know whatTF they are talking about here; it's YOU!
BRING THE RESEARCH!
People are likely wondering if you are capable of such!
You do seem to be having trouble fully reading and comprehending posts like this?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pin-on-disc test examples that I've looked at are incapable of generating the ' engine speed, pressure, and temperature conditions motor oils experience while in service within an automotive engine. I believe that all tribologists would agree that their utility is strictly limited to 'boundary region' lubrication, which according to my sources, wouldn't exist inside a properly-functioning engine, except under failure.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see that 'pick-and-shovel work' might b conducted as a gross means to winnow down candidates for additives, but nothing more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And watch your language! 'Whiskey Tango Foxtrot' is non-approved here, or anywhere else.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

I found this on the US Dept of Energy's website.
NB the URL to the link: https://www.energy.gov

I have posted the 1st couple of pages below.

Here's the link to the complete presentation;
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/fi..._17_fenske.pdf

Parasitic Energy Losses
















Here is another link showing a test engine used in these experiments etc;
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/fi...t08_fenske.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've already explained to you why your brand of 'testing' is a 'FAIL', as far as the scientific method is concerned.
You may be looking for a 1.5% mpg increase embedded within your test, which will already show a 20% difference in mpg, in the absence of making any changes to the car at all!
Even if you followed all SAE-approved standard practices and procedures, the environmental test condition variability during your test session, from start to finish, could make it difficult to produce repeatable results, a hallmark of scientific testing.
EXAMPLE: 'Cape Doctor' SE /NE winds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
' It's not what you don't know, it's what you think you know, that just ain't so.' Mark Twain

[freebeard]

I'm starting to skim over these full reposts of previous posts, but I did do a text search for 'borophene' and came up zilch, nada, zero.

So my question becomes, if there exists borophene it follows there will also be borospherene. Whoopsy-doodle there it is:

Borospherene
Borospherene is an electron-deficient cluster molecule containing 40 boron atoms. It bears similarities to other homoatomic cluster strucrures such as buckminsterfullerene, stannaspherene, and plumbaspherene, but with a different symmetry. Wikipedia

It's like a whole 'nuther rabbit hole

Chemistry Europe
Borospherene in the Nanohoop: Complexation and Aromaticity of Neutral ...
Jun 24, 2024 Borospherene presents exceptional stability due to its 48σ and 12π delocalized electrons, 46 and unique properties such as having both acidic and basic sites enabling gas sensing and shortage, charge-transport and non-linear optical properties, entailing promising applications 48

edit: Now I'm on to Endohedral Fullerenea:

Endohedral fullerene
Endohedral fullerenes, also called endofullerenes, are fullerenes that have additional atoms, ions, or clusters enclosed within their inner spheres. The first lanthanum C₆₀ complex called La@C₆₀ was synthesized in 1985. The @ in the name reflects the notion of a small molecule trapped inside a shell. Wikipedia

See what I mean?

[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!?

[Logic]

Another forum thread where one guy tried it and everyone else ripped him a new A-hole:

Alright, guys. Remember this thread?
I decided to go ahead and give it a try. I bought a 32oz bottle about a year ago and after running seafoam for a couple hundred miles on the old oil, I changed the oil and added the Motor Silk. I made sure the OBC fuel consumption was calibrated, and I started tracking the fuel economy using the OBC. For the first ~400 miles, I was seeing the same numbers I had seen before the treatment (34.1 mpg cruising at 55mph and 31.8mpg at 70mph). After 400 miles, I began to see an improvement. By the time I had reached 700 miles on the treatment, I was seeing 37.mpg at 55mph and 34.1mpg at 70mph!

My method for testing the fuel consumption was to set the cruise control at the desired speed, and reset the OBC's fuel consumption so I could not mess it up by varying my speed. I would cruise for a long enough distance so the number would stay consistent (10 miles is usually enough), then I would turn around and repeat. That would eliminate elevation change and the wind from skewing my results.

My car had about 192k miles on it when I did the treatment. I now have 222k miles and I am still seeing the improvement.
https://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/s...otor-Silk-quot

[aerohead]

Points to ponder:
1) NASA funded the R&D of boric acid, conducted by Dr. Erdemir, at Arch Development Corporation, under a grant from Argonne National Laboratory, from which Advanced Lubrication Technology, Inc., Agoura Hills, California pays a royalty to create Motor Silk.
2) Presently, I know of no motor oil manufacturer who uses the 'Boron-CLS-BOND TECHNOLOGY, a 1991 invention.
3) 'Silk' is to 'displace 'sludge' formed in 'un-warmed' engines, whose standard fill motor oil will already have a 'Detergent / Dispersant' additive package to deal with.
4) 'Silk' is to displace ' varnish', which a OEM standard fill motor oil will have the same 'Detergent / Dispersant' additive package to deal with.
5) 'Silk' is to displace 'carbon'/ 'coking' seen in Turbocharger oil 'cooking.'
6) 'Silk's' 'solid' boric-oxide 'plating' ( of unknown surface roughness ) is to protect from 'surface-to-surface' contact, in an engine that's already 'plated' by a monolayer of motor oil which eliminates surface-to-surface contact, even when 'hot', and when rotative speeds are absent.
7) If 'Silk' performed as in Oak Ridge National Laboratory's notion of 'mixed-film lubrication', at 30-mph, the friction reducing challenge would apply to 1% of the system energy, improving it to 0.7% at 'best case scenario, allowing for a maximum MPG improvement of 0.14%.
8) At 80-mph, if 'Silk' was providing it's best-case, 90% parasitic friction reduction, it would have a capability of a 0.298% mpg increase.
9) A 5% parasitic friction reduction is required for a 1% mpg increase.
10) 'Silk', to replace Zinc, Organic phosphates, acid phosphates, organic sulfur, chlorine compounds, Molybdenum disulfide, and 'Boron', as friction modifier, Extreme-Pressure (EP ) additives, becomes problematic considering that catalytic converter performance is degraded by the presence of 'Boron.'
11) 'Testimonials' submitted as 'evidence' as to the efficacy of Motor Silk's engine performance, lack the scientific rigor of SAE, ASTM testing methodologies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING:
* 'chemically balanced motor oil products receive no benefit from aftermarket additives.' General Motors Research Laboratories
* 'The additive may greatly strengthen the ability of the oil for some duties while greatly weakening other abilities.' Professor Edward F. Obert
* ' additives must be chemically compatible with each other as well as with the base oil,... have little negative impact on the performance of the catalytic converter'. Winkelmann et al., REM Chemicals, Inc.
* 'non-textured 'smooth' = less performance than a smooth-textured.' Ditto.
* Arbitrary 'smoothing' of a surface can destroy a micro-textured isotropic surface that facilitates lubrication.' Winkelmann et al..
* 'micro-pitting is tied to fatigue and may not reveal itself until much later in a vehicle's duty cycle, at the expense of major mechanical overhauls.' Ditto.
* ' Outdoor environmental test condition variability make it difficult to produce repeatable results.' Ditto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's 2024. 'Boric acid in motor oil' dates to 1991 engine technology.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Points to ponder:
1) NASA funded the R&D of boric acid, conducted by Dr. Erdemir, at Arch Development Corporation, under a grant from Argonne National Laboratory, from which Advanced Lubrication Technology, Inc., Agoura Hills, California pays a royalty to create Motor Silk.
2) Presently, I know of no motor oil manufacturer who uses the 'Boron-CLS-BOND TECHNOLOGY, a 1991 invention.
3) 'Silk' is to 'displace 'sludge' formed in 'un-warmed' engines, whose standard fill motor oil will already have a 'Detergent / Dispersant' additive package to deal with.
4) 'Silk' is to displace ' varnish', which a OEM standard fill motor oil will have the same 'Detergent / Dispersant' additive package to deal with.
5) 'Silk' is to displace 'carbon'/ 'coking' seen in Turbocharger oil 'cooking.'
6) 'Silk's' 'solid' boric-oxide 'plating' ( of unknown surface roughness ) is to protect from 'surface-to-surface' contact, in an engine that's already 'plated' by a monolayer of motor oil which eliminates surface-to-surface contact, even when 'hot', and when rotative speeds are absent.
7) If 'Silk' performed as in Oak Ridge National Laboratory's notion of 'mixed-film lubrication', at 30-mph, the friction reducing challenge would apply to 1% of the system energy, improving it to 0.7% at 'best case scenario, allowing for a maximum MPG improvement of 0.14%.
8) At 80-mph, if 'Silk' was providing it's best-case, 90% parasitic friction reduction, it would have a capability of a 0.298% mpg increase.
9) A 5% parasitic friction reduction is required for a 1% mpg increase.
10) 'Silk', to replace Zinc, Organic phosphates, acid phosphates, organic sulfur, chlorine compounds, Molybdenum disulfide, and 'Boron', as friction modifier, Extreme-Pressure (EP ) additives, becomes problematic considering that catalytic converter performance is degraded by the presence of 'Boron.'
11) 'Testimonials' submitted as 'evidence' as to the efficacy of Motor Silk's engine performance, lack the scientific rigor of SAE, ASTM testing methodologies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING:
* 'chemically balanced motor oil products receive no benefit from aftermarket additives.' General Motors Research Laboratories
* 'The additive may greatly strengthen the ability of the oil for some duties while greatly weakening other abilities.' Professor Edward F. Obert
* ' additives must be chemically compatible with each other as well as with the base oil,... have little negative impact on the performance of the catalytic converter'. Winkelmann et al., REM Chemicals, Inc.
* 'non-textured 'smooth' = less performance than a smooth-textured.' Ditto.
* Arbitrary 'smoothing' of a surface can destroy a micro-textured isotropic surface that facilitates lubrication.' Winkelmann et al..
* 'micro-pitting is tied to fatigue and may not reveal itself until much later in a vehicle's duty cycle, at the expense of major mechanical overhauls.' Ditto.
* ' Outdoor environmental test condition variability make it difficult to produce repeatable results.' Ditto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's 2024. 'Boric acid in motor oil' dates to 1991 engine technology.

Point to ponder:

How did ZDDP end up in oil?

Remember no lab testing or field testing allowed. (your rules)

Seems you cant answer that.
So why should anyone read the above points?