BORPower additive?

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) here again, they're not testing a commercial motor oil, and there's no mention of testing for chemical compatibility of additive packages which would be found in commercial motor oils; a violation of Dr. Erdemir's conditions.
2) they're interested in 'SEVERE' conditions in which 'high-point' might be achieved, not in 'NORMAL' operation.
3) in 'NORMAL' operation, at least a nanolayer of oil would be separating metal surfaces, boundary lubrication would be at play, with zero metal-to metal contact.
4) the 75W-90 gear oil testing is not germane to 'engine oils', as transmissions, transaxles, transfer cases, rear axle/differentials etc., are not subjected to the same conditions as are experienced within internal combustion engines.
5) we'll have a discussion in the future about 'how it worked so well' for you.

Polyalphaolefin 4 (PAO 4) is a synthetic oil used as a base stock and viscosity builder in Engine gear and motor oils etc.

So:
An admission that it works very well with the 2 main additives in most engine oils.

And we are now on to:
Yes but what about the other stuff?
Is this correct?

I NB that people mix different brands of engine oil all the time, adding a can of whatever the gas station has on hand to the engine when the oil's low.
It would seem then that, while ill advised, there are no disastrous effects from this age old practice.

In fact; one might go so far as to say that the oil makers avoid using substances likely to clash disastrously with their counterparts.
Including Borate Esters, that react with the water in engine oil, to form BA.
Can we not..?

So why don't YOU list all the various:

• Rust and corrosion inhibitors (BA does this)
• Detergents
• Friction modifiers (BA does this)
• Antiwear agents (BA does this)
• Viscosity index improvers
• Pour point depressants
• Foam depressants
• Oxidation inhibitors

used in engine oils, along with their chemical reactions with the weak Lewis Acid; Boric Acid (reaction products) at the temperatures and pressures found in engines.

Remember; unlike you, I tested BA and I say; it works incredibly well.
Therefore:
It's up to YOU to find proof that I am either a liar or delusional.
(That's another question you have studiously avoided answering btw, although it is implied)

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) are you planning on filling the crankcase with water?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) is the 'alumina' from the alumina 'pin', from the 1990 ASTM, volume 3.02, Section 3, pps 391-395 Re: rotating-disc-steel / alumina hemispherical-tipped pin @ 3mm /second @ 22-25-degrees C ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) from the Roach Criteria for acceptable engine wearing surfaces, opposing a steel surface:
-germanium
-silver
-cadmium
-indium
-tin
-antimony
-thallium
-lead
-bismuth
-I'm not seeing 'alumina'

You want to see some alumina wearing surfaces:
Have a look at the most all the pistons in modern vehicle engines.
They are exposed to oxygen you know.





Perhaps you are also having trouble Iron Oxide despite the fact that is the base metal in just about every other wearing surface in an engine?

So Roach better take another look if Roach wants anyone here to take him seriously.

And yes; I dissolved BA in boiling water before adding it to engines.
One must assume that said emulsion got water and BA(aq) in contact with wearing surfaces to more or less the same extent.
That is after all one of your issues with my BA treatment.
Or isnt it?
It's hard to decide when you change your arguments all the time.

Tell you what:
YOU go off and prove that BA DOES NOT react with the alloys and their oxides in your list
despite
said reactions being one of the issues you had with all this in the 1st place..!

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Any 'high points' ( asperities ) would have have already interacted in service during break-in, and worn each other down 'smooth,' before the boric oxide film was ever plated on.
2) As soon as the asperities were knocked off, oil would flow over their former locations to 'plate' the metals surface.
3) From then on, unless the engine was neglected or abused, at least boundary region lubrication would be separating opposing surfaces from actual contact, by definition.
.

Ah...
So... once engines are run in, they just stop wearing completely and last for ever?
Is that what you're telling us?

Originally Posted by aerohead

4) If your motor oil is not getting 'darker and nastier-looking', then it has lost its detergent and dispersant additive package, and is doomed to premature failure.
5) And regardless of what the oil's anti-wear additive capabilities are, all the other protective additives will technically be 'gone' by 7,500-miles of 'normal' driving, or whatever interval is

Or...perhaps the detergents and dispersants simply had nothing to do thx to the BA..?
As you don't actually know due to zero experience with BA in an engine;
It's up to you to prove this opinion of yours.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

Yes... it is.
And after a much longer time than usual; it remains unanswered.
It must have caused much head scratching of many heads as to how best to avoid saying:
"Nothing"

Then there's this delay tactic:


Delay till the question goes away?
or
Divert the question by getting me to ask the obvious:
"What's a viscosity test going to tell us?"

Everyone knows:
Mix a less viscous liquid with a control liquid of viscosity X and the viscosity will go down.
And visa-versa.
So what. I'm NOT asking.

BA is tried, tested and found to be very successful by ME. (and others)
I... know it works.
(Also by well respected tribology research institutes worldwide.
They know it works)

Apparently:
You have NOT tested it in an engine. Therefore you DO NOT know, for sure, if it works or not.

So:
Tell us:
What have people got to lose by trying this in an engine that is about to be rebuilt anyway?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) When you first posted, long ago, you'd already ( paraphrasing AeroStealth's dad ) 'stood naked to the entire world, revealing the complete poverty of your intellect.'
I've only seen this one other time here at Ecomodder.
2) Over two years later you're still beating the same drum.
3) I don't know how it is in South Africa, but in the United States, even our federal government offers us some semblance of consumer protections.
4) In 1978 there was a 'person' who marketed an 'engine treatment' for public sale, 'who' was found, by way of an investigation by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, to be 'misrepresenting' certain 'facts' about 3rd-party laboratory test results of their product; which culminated in a $ 3,388,000 ( US Dollars ) fine [ 63,558,880- Rand ]. Their 'first' fine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) I don't know how long Dr. Ali Erdemir ( erdemir@anl.gov ) is going to take to respond to your question, but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to your ongoing mischaracterizations of his research.
6) There's a vast amount of empirical prima facie evidence in existence regarding automotive lubrication, of which you appear to have no acquaintance with at all, and every member and guest following this thread ought to know about if they're to have any chance of making 'informed' decisions about what they do with their cars.
I don't mean to trouble your delicate sensibilities, but your extraordinary claims will require extraordinary evidence, and I believe that I have enough information, given the necessary time, to create a linear, coherent, narrative that will explain, specifically why we're in this present 'situation.' Something you appear ill-equipped for.
7) I think that you're asking the wrong questions.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) When you first posted, long ago, you'd already ( paraphrasing AeroStealth's dad ) 'stood naked to the entire world, revealing the complete poverty of your intellect.'
I've only seen this one other time here at Ecomodder.
2) Over two years later you're still beating the same drum.
3) I don't know how it is in South Africa, but in the United States, even our federal government offers us some semblance of consumer protections.
4) In 1978 there was a 'person' who marketed an 'engine treatment' for public sale, 'who' was found, by way of an investigation by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, to be 'misrepresenting' certain 'facts' about 3rd-party laboratory test results of their product; which culminated in a $ 3,388,000 ( US Dollars ) fine [ 63,558,880- Rand ]. Their 'first' fine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5) I don't know how long Dr. Ali Erdemir ( erdemir@anl.gov ) is going to take to respond to your question, but I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt with respect to your ongoing mischaracterizations of his research.
6) There's a vast amount of empirical prima facie evidence in existence regarding automotive lubrication, of which you appear to have no acquaintance with at all, and every member and guest following this thread ought to know about if they're to have any chance of making 'informed' decisions about what they do with their cars.
I don't mean to trouble your delicate sensibilities, but your extraordinary claims will require extraordinary evidence, and I believe that I have enough information, given the necessary time, to create a linear, coherent, narrative that will explain, specifically why we're in this present 'situation.' Something you appear ill-equipped for.
7) I think that you're asking the wrong questions.

Marketing..?
What marketing??
LOL!

I put BA(aq) in a tired old miss-repaired engine and it 'fixed it'.
(for at least 5+ years, at which point it was stolen)
So I put BA in other engines and it saved on petrol, as well as making the engine feel more powerful, smoother and more refined.
Not just to me, but to the vehicle owners who were all more than pleased with the results.
(They also looked to require less oil servicing)

So I told people about it here, linking the research, as I felt it would be of great help to this community, and you 'jumped up' basically calling me a liar and/or delusional!
So what!? Am I supposed to go: "yes sir. Sorry sir. You are right" to that affront!???


Fact: The engine/car industry makes/has a lot of money.
More than enough to pay "Trolls" (as freebeard put it) to take a dump on any mention of info that might hurt their bottom line.
And here you are acting exactly as such a troll would, under the guise of a 1 man consumer protection agency.

I also NB the kind of professional 'delay and divert the question' tactics being employed...

• Where is your defense of Roach's omission of Aluminum and Iron from bearing surfaces?
• Where is your defense of the mixing of oil brands = additive packages, including Boric Acid forming Boron Esters, with no catastrophic failures?
• Where is your defense of implying that engines stop wearing, implying they last forever once run in?

All I see is a whole lot of changing the subject when your arguments are refuted.

Before ZDDP was adopted in every oil it was called: "Mouse Milk" by the oil industry for 20 years. (That also happens to be how long patents last btw)
Yet it was tested using similar methods to those used in the numerous peer reviewed, published research papers I LINKED here

• Where is your defense of implying that all the tests are useless, meaning that the only real test is in a working engine, but then contradicting yourself by saying "Don't test it"

I never wrote Dr Ali Erdemir:
As I recall you basically called him, and Argonne National Labs, owned by the US Dept Of Energy, a Snake Oil Salesman.
So; any reply (if any) from him would have been dumped on in the same manner/tactic as before IMHO, helpfully delaying and diverting this debate.

So:
What have people got to lose by trying this in an engine that is about to be rebuilt anyway?

I can think of only 2 reasons for a person NOT to answer: "Nothing":

1. Financial Incentive.
2. A losing of face or reputation.

Just an interesting hypothetical question:
What if someone here tries it (like that will ever happen! ) and it works for them..?
Then there would be 2 people to argue against and 'call' liars!?
Then perhaps 4, then 8....
WHAT! would you do if that happened!?

[aerohead]

From Logic's reference, # 223 ( permalink ):
1) 19-months for Erdemir to publish the results.
2) 22-years 'AFTER' 'MotorSilk's' PATENT data.
3) Zero automotive testing.
4) 52-pages of data germane only to 'EXTREME' 'SEVERE' tribological 'benchtop' conditions.
5) No actionable data for EcoModder.com members or guests.

[aerohead]

1) 'Alumina' is a specialized ceramic coating, and is not associated with typical aluminum automotive pistons.
2) If piston 'scuffing' is presenting, then the piston has experienced an 'overheat' situation at which the aluminum has reached metallurgic 'plasticity' and yielded. Re.: Daimler-Benz AG, Stuttgart, Germany ( operator abuse or neglect )
3) The Roach Criteria are related to 'steel' surfaces.
4) Pistons typically ride inside 'cast-iron' engine block bores, cast-iron-'sleeved' aluminum engine blocks... HONDA/ACURA have successfully 'surface-treated' aluminum bores, obviating the need of 'liners.'

[aerohead]

The Roach Criteria undergirds every internal combustion engine design. Ask Erdemir. That's where he learned the value of 'covalent bonding' as with all automotive engineers and tribologists ( Van der Waals forces ).
Please see:
'Why Bearings Seize', A.E. Roach & C. Goodzeit, General Motors Engineering Journal, 3rd-Quarter, 1955, pp 25-29.

[aerohead]

As far as anyone knows, what you added to the crankcase, is just a wad of mush, still sitting at the bottom of the oil pan, submerged underneath the oil, like Italian salad dressing, exactly where it entered.
And you have no evidence to the contrary.
( You'll want to be looking for comparative, laboratory, nBA- organic oil surfactant 'concentrate', added to a fully-formulated commercial motor oil research program, conducted 'after' about 2011, in relation to contemporary, industry standard reference oils, ASTM Sequence ensemble tests, not 'table-top' tests )

[aerohead]

This is the best point of argument you've ever brought to the table however, as of 2013, we still had no official test results from anyone to say, one way or another.
DOE-funded research ended in December, 2011, and as they WERE 'interested ' in 'automotive' additives, they never got into it ( 20-years after Argonne's US Patent ).
*Erdemir had dropped boric oxide on account of hardness and abrasiveness.
*There were 'agglomeration', 'clumping' and 'chunk' issues with some nBA blends.
* Oil starvation exactly where 'boundary-lubrication' was needed most!, with attendant machine failure.
* Surfactants ( canola oil, coconut oil, rapeseed oil and soybean oil had shown promise ) to create dispersion-stabilizing ' concentrates '.