BORPower additive?

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We've looked at this already and it went down in flames due to it's 'context'.
It has absolutely no bearing on 'the real world.'
It appears that you are absolutely incapable of sharing data that isn't related to 'SEVERE' , 'EXTREME' engine operating conditions, having no actionable information for people operating automobiles ( like BORPower additive users ), not gen-sets at 7%-load, at very low RPM, at very low temperature.
When you offer us a buffet of BS, it's quite easy to reject it. It's the only 'logical' outcome.

The idea behind experiment is to see what will happen.
To learn new things and be able to update our outdated view with that learned new knowledge...
That is what drives progress.

Deduction is how new experiments and uses for new discoveries come to be.

By your own admission, this stuff worked well in engines. (at whatever load)
Yet you jump and and try to convince everyone to conclude that, not only is this not worth testing, but should not be tested anywhere under any circumstances?
And that somehow seems rational to you..?

I NB that you've decided it unwise to take a dump on the researchers, research institutes and the Department Of Energy, but the that fact is there for all to see.

Instead; when the 20+ peer reviewed, published papers by the same research institutes that brought you your ZDDP "mouse Milk", using the same sort of test equipment are linked here; you take a dump on the equipment.
Yet you want to win the debate with a Viscosity test in a simple Viscometer.
That's your idea of winning a debate is it?
Where's all your 'Exhaustive testing in a real engine' now!?

But I'M delusional or just plain devious..?
Do you really believe that anyone reading all this thinks so..?

That's not the conclusion the one other person who has read all this and most of the linked research has reached. 'Paid Troll' is more in line with their conclusion IMHO.
What do you think the conclusion of anyone else who actually reads this and the research is? Whether they say so or not.

Speaking of research: You don't yet seem to have figured out the 'new' concept of linking any. So how do you figure your say so on new concepts carry any weight with anyone..?

As for your belief that you are slowly but surely winning this argument: Think again.
Engine oil makers thought the same of ZDDP and Boron in one form or another is already in just about every engine oil out there.
All the Boron based additives devolve into BA when they react with water and water is in all engine oils. How long before people figure things out..?

You can expect a video of my treating an engine.
"Oooh! He pumped the tires! He changed the timing! He changed the fueling! etc" is already going through your head as a means to dump on that.
The video will be uncut, so you will be left trying to convince everyone that 'a delusional idiot' has the chops to fake video. Good luck with that!

Also; I will be writing to Dr Ali Erdemir and others of similar ilk who have researched BA now that I have done my research and can better frame my questions.
You better hope they don't join the forum but rather reply to me directly so you can call the authenticity of any replies into question.

Fact is I could turn up at your house in a car with an old smokey engine and invite you to see the before after (compression, economy, vibration, noise) results of treating it with BA and you would still be dumping on this.
If I offered to leave the car with you for long term driving/testing; you would refuse it. Or sabotage it..?


Further:
Have you noticed that there are basically only 2 or 3 people actively posting on this forum nowadays?
That your negative comments are more often than not, NOT replied to and that the conversation often dries up right after?
Perhaps not because you are considered right, but because, being wiser than me, they know better than to bother trying to change your mind about anything whatsoever..?

Have you noticed the various comments basically calling you a Caging Runt by those who haven't simply self banned themselves by abandoning this forum?
Has it occurred to you that perhaps your snide, superior, narrow minded, yet carefully 'worded to enrage' comments may have a lot to do with the downturn in activity here?
Or that perhaps I am not the only person noticing..?

Perhaps it's time to post a novel new eco idea here!?
Does anything come to mind..?

[Logic]

Originally Posted by Piotrsko

What part of my request for definative proof is missing such that you do not understand the request?

You tube copypaste posting is not a legitimate answer, nor is someone elses one off "scientific" report.

I have accepted an increase of compression because the gaps were full of some sort of unknown compound. What do the bearing / wear faces look like? We dont know. How about plating the cylinder wear tapers or even the piston skirt? Once again we dont know what in the cylinder is altered. I have technical books from as far back as 1950 up to 2013 stating compression is not a reliable single indicator of engine condition.


Can you even properly reply to C Sagans request for extrodinary proof?

Does that Hurt your feelings? Poor baby. Not my friend anymore? BTDTMODCA, take a number.

The Peer review and publishing Process:
Harvard medical for eg. writes a paper.
Before they can publish it, it gets sent off to Stanford, Oxford, Yale, Johns Hopkins etc for Peer review.
If the paper is controversial, as in claims to have for eg. found a cure for cancer, the other universities will replicate the study to see if they get the same results.
Only if they do and give 'The Nod' to a study, is it white-balled and allowed to be published.

If you reject this process:
Go flush any and all the medication in your possession that you and yours take, immediately!
I'll wait ..............................

Have you done so?
If not; Why not?
So... you do accept Peer Reviewed, Published Research?

Therefore it seems; YOU choose to not accept or accept the linked research proving everything that is proven so far as it suits you.

So you don't want me to play by The Rules, you want me to play by YOUR rules...
Sorry, go find a moron to play with.


"What part.." I'll spell it out for you:
The part where you reject any definitive proof and demand I go get more for you to reject, etc-etc.
You know, the typical; ruck afound and waste the persons time tactic? That part!

So here's my demand:
You go prove it doesn't work.
When you come back and say so; I'll reject your claim and demand more definitive proof. ok..???
MY rules are as good as yours....

But I think I get your problem:
https://ecomodder.com/forum/showthre...tml#post697028

I say "bugger all this high pressure bottling! Pipe it up and put it through a (modded) diesel genset if that's all you have"

Meaning; put it through a fuel cell immediately and transport it as electricity.
(If you haven't got a fuel cell use a modded genset)

That solves all your embrittlement and storage 'road blocks' with one simple/clever idea, making you look stupid.
And you don't like that do you!?

DON'T try BA ever!
It's was brought up in the 1st place as a means to help decent people...
There's the door.

[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.

1: Aren't we..?
Take a look at the top graph: see the fully formulated oil vs 5% BA + surfactant.

Also NB the Wear bar chart.





I'm posting similar graphs of wear too.

2: IF
no high points ever touched
THEN
Engines would never wear out.

Is that in fact what you are saying?

3: The 'Lasts For Ever Engine' in 2 again.

4: So you're saying it's 'The Bomb' in gearboxes and differentials?



Looking at the pitting comparison:
Does it look like other anti corrosion chemicals are necessary to you?




The why:
On the left is Iron when its just started rusting but is still shiny. ie: The factory finish.
On the right is BA attached to that oxide layer.

Air being air, what do you suppose the oxide layer on other metals looks like..?

Don't forget the 'pack of playing cards' BA above that ceramic layer filling in any asperities.

And keep in mind that should that chemically inert protective layer with 80% the hardness of diamond get scraped off;
it becomes BA again and re-reacts with the newly exposed surface in a self renewing cycle.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

The idea behind experiment is to see what will happen.
To learn new things and be able to update our outdated view with that learned new knowledge...
That is what drives progress.

Deduction is how new experiments and uses for new discoveries come to be.

By your own admission, this stuff worked well in engines. (at whatever load)
Yet you jump and and try to convince everyone to conclude that, not only is this not worth testing, but should not be tested anywhere under any circumstances?
And that somehow seems rational to you..?

I NB that you've decided it unwise to take a dump on the researchers, research institutes and the Department Of Energy, but the that fact is there for all to see.

Instead; when the 20+ peer reviewed, published papers by the same research institutes that brought you your ZDDP "mouse Milk", using the same sort of test equipment are linked here; you take a dump on the equipment.
Yet you want to win the debate with a Viscosity test in a simple Viscometer.
That's your idea of winning a debate is it?
Where's all your 'Exhaustive testing in a real engine' now!?

But I'M delusional or just plain devious..?
Do you really believe that anyone reading all this thinks so..?

That's not the conclusion the one other person who has read all this and most of the linked research has reached. 'Paid Troll' is more in line with their conclusion IMHO.
What do you think the conclusion of anyone else who actually reads this and the research is? Whether they say so or not.

Speaking of research: You don't yet seem to have figured out the 'new' concept of linking any. So how do you figure your say so on new concepts carry any weight with anyone..?

As for your belief that you are slowly but surely winning this argument: Think again.
Engine oil makers thought the same of ZDDP and Boron in one form or another is already in just about every engine oil out there.
All the Boron based additives devolve into BA when they react with water and water is in all engine oils. How long before people figure things out..?

You can expect a video of my treating an engine.
"Oooh! He pumped the tires! He changed the timing! He changed the fueling! etc" is already going through your head as a means to dump on that.
The video will be uncut, so you will be left trying to convince everyone that 'a delusional idiot' has the chops to fake video. Good luck with that!

Also; I will be writing to Dr Ali Erdemir and others of similar ilk who have researched BA now that I have done my research and can better frame my questions.
You better hope they don't join the forum but rather reply to me directly so you can call the authenticity of any replies into question.

Fact is I could turn up at your house in a car with an old smokey engine and invite you to see the before after (compression, economy, vibration, noise) results of treating it with BA and you would still be dumping on this.
If I offered to leave the car with you for long term driving/testing; you would refuse it. Or sabotage it..?


Further:
Have you noticed that there are basically only 2 or 3 people actively posting on this forum nowadays?
That your negative comments are more often than not, NOT replied to and that the conversation often dries up right after?
Perhaps not because you are considered right, but because, being wiser than me, they know better than to bother trying to change your mind about anything whatsoever..?

Have you noticed the various comments basically calling you a Caging Runt by those who haven't simply self banned themselves by abandoning this forum?
Has it occurred to you that perhaps your snide, superior, narrow minded, yet carefully 'worded to enrage' comments may have a lot to do with the downturn in activity here?
Or that perhaps I am not the only person noticing..?

Perhaps it's time to post a novel new eco idea here!?
Does anything come to mind..?

1) I don't recall EVER saying such a thing.
2) As of 2013, it remained to be seen what it would do in 'engines.'
3) No reporting at BORPower includes enough data to satisfy the requirement for the attribution of Boric acid as being responsible for explaining reported phenomena.
4) All Argonne testing was conducted under conditions of which have no bearing on what motorists would encounter in 'real driving, especially the Diesel engine test you re-posted.
5) All final engine design criteria for tribological metrics come down to 'viscosity'. Reporting test data in its absence would be tantamount to reporting aircraft performance from tests conducted in outer space!
6) Viscosimeter testing of Dr. Erdemir's 'cocktail' will simply add data missing from his reporting. Red Line Synthetic Oil Corporation has been respectful enough to potential customers by providing viscosities.
7) 'Exhaustive testing' in a worn-out engine constitutes an oxymoron.
8) I'll be posting about what would constitute 'testing', and those following the information will be in a better position to 'know' in advance, what expectations they may want to hold, if any.
9) Water may be in YOUR engine oil, but not necessarily in anyone else's.
10) A video will be great considering that you never explained what you did in the past.
11) If you can't get Dr. Erdemir onto this thread, I'll contact him also and see what I can do. Thanks in advance.
12) I'll pay for your PASSPORT, round-trip airfare, meals, accommodations, the car, materials, and pre-test/ post-test engine teardown and measurements ( there's a fine engine builder nearby, in Denton, who can do all the component measurements: and PACCAR Corporation has offices at the University of North Texas Engineering Park, and they have the electron microscope / Time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometer, x-ray photoelectron spectrometer equipment ).
Just send me a PM with your bank routing number for your account.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

1: Aren't we..?
Take a look at the top graph: see the fully formulated oil vs 5% BA + surfactant.

Also NB the Wear bar chart.





I'm posting similar graphs of wear too.

2: IF
no high points ever touched
THEN
Engines would never wear out.

Is that in fact what you are saying?

3: The 'Lasts For Ever Engine' in 2 again.

4: So you're saying it's 'The Bomb' in gearboxes and differentials?



Looking at the pitting comparison:
Does it look like other anti corrosion chemicals are necessary to you?




The why:
On the left is Iron when its just started rusting but is still shiny. ie: The factory finish.
On the right is BA attached to that oxide layer.

Air being air, what do you suppose the oxide layer on other metals looks like..?

Don't forget the 'pack of playing cards' BA above that ceramic layer filling in any asperities.

And keep in mind that should that chemically inert protective layer with 80% the hardness of diamond get scraped off;
it becomes BA again and re-reacts with the newly exposed surface in a self renewing cycle.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this page-37 from Erdemir's 2013 report, Re. University of Arkansas, table-top steel block-on-ring rest?
If so, YES, it's a 'fully-formulated SAE 5W-30 motor oil, but it's yet to be tested under ASTM Sequence tests in a 'fired' engine, in a dynamometer test cell.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or, page-38, with 'full passenger car package, plus 0.5% BA', @ mu= 0.10- 0.12 ( same or worse than a common industrial roller -bearing ) table-top test, with some blends 'agglomerating into larger chunks ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of 2011, when they 'ended' their research, no one had tested it in an automotive engine ( on page-27 Dr. Erdemir writes that they had 'an interest
for automotive application', but they never got that far ( they were just conducting ' Initial screening studies').
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll address your other 'dead-end' questions when I complete my library materials.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this page-37 from Erdemir's 2013 report, Re. University of Arkansas, table-top steel block-on-ring rest?
If so, YES, it's a 'fully-formulated SAE 5W-30 motor oil, but it's yet to be tested under ASTM Sequence tests in a 'fired' engine, in a dynamometer test cell.

It's from the study you replied to:
https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2013/09/77152.pdf

Do you mean the PAO4 + BA hasn't passed the required tests
or the fully formulated oil hasn't?

Either way, lets practice some logical deduction here:

IF
the base oil + BA is better than the fully formulated oil
THEN
As long as there's enough BA left afterward; Does is matter if the BA buggers up the additive package?

IF
The quench distance from the cylinder walls is ~2.5mm and the walls themselves are closer in temperature to those in the crankcase
THEN
Is the any high temperature reactions between BA and the oil and/or cylinder walls to worry about?

IF
the the micropitting/corrosion tests show this kind of surface:


Does it matter if the previous anti corrosive additive becomes ineffective?

Lastly:
IF
its been tested to some extent in engines already without:
"Explosive instantaneous disassembly?, view ports in the block? Siezing parts so solid they will not disassemble" (Piotrsko being an hass-ole)
THEN
Will it do so if tested in an old smokey engine, pre rebuild?

I NB that you have no problem with grille block mods where people may well end with coolant temperatures above the norm..? it seems to me that if you consider yourself the 'policeman of Ecomodder' some caution signs would have been waved about with similar gusto!?

Originally Posted by aerohead

Or, page-38, with 'full passenger car package, plus 0.5% BA', @ mu= 0.10- 0.12 ( same or worse than a common industrial roller -bearing ) table-top test, with some blends 'agglomerating into larger chunks ?

Page 37 here states:
...The TOF-SIMS chemical analysis of the same film (see Fig. 20) revealed that it primarily
consisted of boron and some organic compounds (containing zinc, phosphorus, and sulfur). The elements other than boron may have come from the additive package of the carrier oil (in this case, a fully formulated engine oil).
The significance of this observation is that our nanolubricants are compatible with the current additive packages and capable of further enhancing their friction- and wear-reducing capacity.
The protective boundary film formed on the sliding surface was one of the main reasons for their excellent resistance to wear and scuffing...

Using a steel block-on-ring test machine, we assessed the scuffing performance of the base PAO containing different levels of conventional additives and boric acid (BA). Specifically, in addition to base oil, we evaluated the friction, wear, and scuffing behaviors of:

• base oil + full passenger car package,
• base oil + antioxidant,
• base oil + full passenger car package without friction modifier, and
• base oil + full passenger car package without friction modifier and dispersant.

Table 2 summarizes all the results obtained from this series of tests.
As is clear,

• the steel block-and-ring samples could scuff at loads as low as 230 N when a PAO oil was used.
• Addition of the antioxidant additive had no significant effect on the scuffing load.
• With the full passenger additive package (synthetic 5W30), the scuffing load increased to 1200-1250 N.
• These baseline tests clearly stressed the importance of oil additives in tribological performance.

Compared to base and fully formulated engine oils,
the BA-containing oil blends were in most cases very effective in reducing friction and increasing resistance to wear and scuffing in these test series as well.
In particular,

• the scuffing limit for blends that contained 0.25 to 0.5 wt.% boric acid powders in base oil + antioxidant improved by a factor 2 (i.e., 230-300 N vs. 560 to 660 N).
• In the case of the full passenger car package without friction modifiers, BA-containing oils
  surpassed the scuffing limit of the commercial fully formulated synthetic oils by 350 N.
• At 1 wt.% load, the scuffing limit decreased, thus confirming that the optimum range was 0.25 to 0.5 wt.%.
• The scuffing load of commercial synthetic oil in this case was about 1250 N, but the nanoparticle boric acid containing the new oil blend was as high as 1600 N.

Such impressive performance persisted even in the total absence of a friction modifier in the carrier oils.
Note that the level of friction coefficients provided by boric acid additives is comparable to that of fully formulated oils with friction modifiers; however, friction modifiers used in current oils are expensive and a source of SAPS in engines.
Despite the lack of any friction modifiers in this oil blend, the friction coefficient of this BA-containing oil blend was comparable to that of the fully formulated synthetic oils.

IMHO the 'worse than results' seen in the test with higher levels of BA may be due to the fact that BA powder is likely to contain some Boric OXIDE.

IF
The test oils did not contain enough water to change that into BA.
THEN
Particles similar to the hard layer formed on the metal surfaces will be in suspension and scuffing is likely.
The difference is that these highly hygroscopic (absorbs Water) particles of Boric Oxide WILL react with any water, forming BA.

In an average engine where 4ml (liquid) of water pass into and mostly through the crankcase; the situation is likely to resolve itself in short order.

Further:
If some water is added to the mix; there is NO ISSUE.

While water not taking care of by the surfactant in all oils will be in suspension as an emulsion, the water is over saturated with BA atoms due to boil-off.

That means that the water part of the solution will form the OH oxide layer alluded to here:

Upon which the free atoms of BA in solution will form the the layer shown at a much faster rate than if the BA was in powder form or even so fine as to be colloidal.

Subsequently; any remaining water is presented with the chemically inert Boron Oxide layer rather than bare steel and can NOT cause any further erosion.

This leaves it to boil and evaporate away out of the highly agitated oil, with the remainder becoming more oversaturated with BA.
That will result in the crystallization of the layered, ZDDP etc like, solid lubricant in suspension in the oil, but at the colloidal (floats) sizes so desired in all the positive research so far.


Agglomeration:
An agglomerate of highly effective solid lubricant in the highly agitated oil in a crankcase is likely to end up somewhere where it is physically broken down into the micro platelets that make it such a good solid lubricant.

Alternately:
Being soluble in water; any water that gets into the oil would slowly dissolve it, becoming useful as a means of it's removal and then deposition and circulation of a solid lubricant suitable to the moisture laden conditions in a crankcase.
As you yourself know; this condition does not exist in the lab tests where only the humidity in the air in the lab is available to the BO/BA.
An oversight IMHO.

Originally Posted by aerohead

As of 2011, when they 'ended' their research, no one had tested it in an automotive engine ( on page-27 Dr. Erdemir writes that they had 'an interest
for automotive application', but they never got that far ( they were just conducting ' Initial screening studies').

That there is EXACTLY were we, as the Ecomodder community should, in the spirit of inquiry, come in IMHO!

NB that no matter how hard we look, NO reason is ever given for the cessation of research.
I speculate that the results were so good as to cost both the car/engine and the oil manufacturers profit!?
Right or not, it's time to find out for ourselves IMHO!

Originally Posted by aerohead

I'll address your other 'dead-end' questions when I complete my library materials.

Most of my dead end questions are due to a lack of logical deduction on your part:

Despite similar research, ZDDP was rejected until cams started friction welding themselves to cam followers at which point the more frequent sales of oils became a moot point if there were no engines to put them in!

Claiming that all the industry standard testing is of no value means that ZDDP would not even have been 'on the radar' of tribologists.
ie: It's illogical at best and idiotic at worst to suggest that the established, accepted, and published upon research is 'all crap' in the case of this one substance, but not in the case of ZDDP etc and makes further debate nonsensical, and unworthy of any time spent reading your arguments..!

(The unformatted 'text walls' and lack of linked references don't help either and say nothing for your ability to learn simple things...
Things like properly using the tools provided by the forum software..!)

I have no idea how you or any thinking, deductive mind could even suggest such absurdity..!?
Yet it cannot be left unanswered as ignorance then wins they day yet again,
progress takes a step backward and my intellect and reputation are left in doubt by those who scan this ...'debate' because there engine is old and they just want to know what to by at Walmart.
That angers me and anger on top of "will I make the house payment and what will we eat today" is not a good combination. You may be able to tell by this reply that my personal situation is alleviated for the moment. My apologies for any past or future uncalled for rudeness etc.
Disrespecting my ability to think and logically deduce is, if you haven't yet realized it, uncalled for.

[aerohead]

I've told yo before, STOP providing test data not related to internal combustion engines!
Start another thread if you want to address transmissions, transaxles, transfer- cases, and differentials.
They have nothing to do with 'BORPower addtive'.
You shoot yourself in the foot and lose even more credibility every time you bring this up!

[aerohead]

In internal combustion engines, the 'micropitting' phenomena is associated with surface metal fatigue, which might not present itself until much late in a vehicle's duty cycle ( Oak Ridge National Laboratory ).

[aerohead]

1) NEVER tested in a 4-Stroke, Otto-Cycle, atmospheric engine, at 300-F degrees oil sump temperature ( 150-C ), @ Wide-Open-Throttle, @ 3,000-rpm, for 196-hours, with a 100-Horsepower Load, and considering that 'WATER' Boils @ 212-F ( 100-C ), and there's ZERO MOISTURE IN THE ENGINE .
2) Zero discussion of:
- Pascal Fluid
- Newtonian Fluids
- Non-Newtonian Fluids
- Thixotropic substances
- Reynolds number effects, turbulence, loss of linear relationships to coefficients
- Entropy

[aerohead]

Here's another from the rubbish pile:
From the alleged 'boric-oxide' ( dropped by Argonne's Dr. Erdemir between 1991, and 2007 ) we go completely off the rails, veering onto Cubic Lattice Structured Boron- Nitride ( c-BN ).
And again, South Africa gets all of the 'TOP-SECRET' engines that were never intended to see the light of day!
South Africa, engines operating at 1700-C ( 3,092-F ) and completely sealed and reinforced, allowing operational internal pressures of 1,000,000-psi ( 68,911,351-kPa ) the requirement for c-BN formation.
I must also presume that South Africa also gets the CIA / MI6 super-secret 'super-heavy' water, with a boiling point above 1,700-C, @ 68,027-atmospheres, in order for the BA platelets to swim close to the 'diamond ' surfaces.
Where, for the rest of the world, c-BN is only used to 'machine' machined parts used in engines, S. Africa gets engines with parts actually made of the stuff.
Truly amazing!
PS,
A) The friction coefficient for c-BN on diamond is 0.700 ( 700% higher than 100% PAO base oil )
B) The friction coefficient for c-BN on stainless-steel balls of ASTM 4-Ball test machine in 0.100 ( identical to the raw PAO-4 oil )
C) The Erdemir, Fenske, & Erck boric oxide- boric acid interface is predicated upon a load and substrate exposed to open air, a problematic situation @ 68,911,351-kPa.