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To learn new things and be able to update our outdated view with that learned new knowledge...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.