BORPower additive?

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Perhaps you're the only one on Earth to draw such a conclusion.
You get credit for 'originality' though!

IF
None of the tests done on BA counted
THEN
None of those same tests counrted for any other additive
THEREFORE
None of those things have any more right to be in oil than BA has.


That's logical deduction.
It does not get to be 'switched off' when it suits you or because you're too old to fit new stuff in your brain My Friend...

Oh and btw:
There are 2 oil certification 'clubs'.
The 2nd costs 150 000 $ annually to be a member of.
So most oil manufacturers forgo being members of that 'club' because it would make their oils so expensive no one would buy them anyway.

So by yet another tiny bit of deductive thinking; at least half of the acronyms you stated with 'your great authority' do not apply to the oils in the engines of people on this forum.

Perhaps, as the Oil Savior of Ecomodder, you might spend the time explaining the origins and meaning of all of them to all us stupid, ignorant, mere mortals, stuck so far below your great and authoritative intellect!
You know; that same intellect unable to format posts or even put links in them...

[freebeard]

You know; that same intellect unable to format posts or even put links in them...

The last bit is a little harsh. Creating links is motor memory, not intellection.

[manmanyi]

I haven't tested Borpower, but the promises of increased power and reduced friction are interesting. Many additives make great promises, but the real results vary according to the engine and the use. If a serious magazine is talking about it, it might be worth a try. Has anyone here ever tested and seen a difference?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

IF
None of the tests done on BA counted
THEN
None of those same tests counrted for any other additive
THEREFORE
None of those things have any more right to be in oil than BA has.


That's logical deduction.
It does not get to be 'switched off' when it suits you or because you're too old to fit new stuff in your brain My Friend...

Oh and btw:
There are 2 oil certification 'clubs'.
The 2nd costs 150 000 $ annually to be a member of.
So most oil manufacturers forgo being members of that 'club' because it would make their oils so expensive no one would buy them anyway.

So by yet another tiny bit of deductive thinking; at least half of the acronyms you stated with 'your great authority' do not apply to the oils in the engines of people on this forum.

Perhaps, as the Oil Savior of Ecomodder, you might spend the time explaining the origins and meaning of all of them to all us stupid, ignorant, mere mortals, stuck so far below your great and authoritative intellect!
You know; that same intellect unable to format posts or even put links in them...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can recommend is that you, very slowly, re-read everything Dr. Erdemir ever reported on the 'boron' research, and see if you can finally discern all the 'conditions', 'caveats' mentioned in his text, which illustrated the 'incompleteness' of their 'screening-out-process' testing, and how 'boron' was never 'proved' to be efficacious in a commercially-mass-produced automobile engine under 'non-extreme-tribological condition' operation; unlike 'all' commercially accepted additive packages 'which were'.
What you need to know is hiding in plain view! Always has been.
Your deduction is illogical.

[aerohead]

The Quaker State, with 670 X more boron than the ARCO, had 3.4% higher friction torque power loss.
Comparative tests of 'un-cooked' oil would have been more instructive ( intellectual dishonesty by default ).

[freebeard]

Your unattributed comment likely in reference to permalink #318?

If you watch the whole video he does in fact test both cooked and uncooked samples of both.

(intellectual honesty by default )

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can recommend is that you, very slowly, re-read everything Dr. Erdemir ever reported on the 'boron' research, and see if you can finally discern all the 'conditions', 'caveats' mentioned in his text, which illustrated the 'incompleteness' of their 'screening-out-process' testing, and how 'boron' was never 'proved' to be efficacious in a commercially-mass-produced automobile engine under 'non-extreme-tribological condition' operation; unlike 'all' commercially accepted additive packages 'which were'.
What you need to know is hiding in plain view! Always has been.
Your deduction is illogical.

I tested it for myself.
Can YOU (and most others) say the same?

I discerned and deducted a whole lot.
Hence my deviation from the (research) norm of 'fine as possible' powder, to dissolving the BA in (god forbid) water! to get the 'finest particles' of (god forbid) acid! (Boric)
(No the oil did not go milky as is the case with a gasket leak etc)

I also went to great pains to explain how the BA reacts with the normal oxide layer that's on all metal surfaces in an engine, instead forming a hard, chemically inert layer. that none of the similar additives, like Molybdenum Disulfide etc, do.
I even added photos where anyone can see for themselves the smoother surface.
But Nooo! Chemistry isn't Chemistry!? Is it 'above you'?
And the photos are... what? PhotoShopped lies by the DOE?


I also reported my findings, in which engines worked way better and lasted for years.
"Illogical"..??? Or the logical next step..???

You stopped just short of calling me a liar!
Hence my animosity etc. What did you expect/hope for!?
That's what happened and I will NOT back down from my observations/results.
Observations = Personal test results, of which you have NONE of your own! NONE..!
Yet here you are shouting, with no soap box to stand on. Is that logical to you..!?

"...commercially-mass-produced automobile engine under 'non-extreme-tribological condition' operation..."
Oh; now the 'in engine research', where you 'tossed out the results' due to their being at "non-extreme-tribological condition' operation" are in fact what is required..?
Do make up your mind!
All this 'changing the goalposts' to suit your argument is getting tiresome and smacks of 'Art of War' BS...
I could go back and re-quote all the times you contradicted yourself similarly, but that's plain for anyone to read themselves..!

(My testing was at both non extreme (normal city and highway eco driving) conditions
and at extreme WOT high rpm driving/racing)

What's "hiding in plain view" is this:
IF
You want to sell lots of engines/cars:
THEN
How would something that makes them last 'for ever' help you..?

I linked the info where ZDDP was equally rejected and called "Mouse Milk" by the motor industry for over 20 years... until (new at the time) overhead cams started seizing up.
Then all of a sudden something that made engines last longer than the sellers' cared for them to last, was suddenly 'The Holy Grail' of oil additives.
Do you have an explanation for that?


As usual any points you can't argue will be 'Art of War' ignored and instead; some new argument will be sucked out of your thumb, making any debate a farce.

[Logic]

Originally Posted by manmanyi

I haven't tested Borpower, but the promises of increased power and reduced friction are interesting. Many additives make great promises, but the real results vary according to the engine and the use. If a serious magazine is talking about it, it might be worth a try. Has anyone here ever tested and seen a difference?

• Yes. I have!
  
• There's also a ton of linked peer reviewed, published research in this thread, including running engines.
  
• Then there's a good number of people who added BA powder to their oil and reported their results in other forums linked here.

I did things somewhat differently:
All the research was about 'How fine can you make the BA powder' to be added to the oil as that kept it in suspension and just worked better.
I deduced/decided that you couldn't get any finer than dissolved.
And that the ideal solvent was in fact water!


IMHO, based on actual personal experimentation the above works unbelievably (apparently!) well.

As the layer/s formed by BA is around 0.5 microns thick, it removes 2 microns of play from bearings and pistons/sleeves, etc.
So I suggested testing on old smokey engines that are about to be rebuilt anyway.

Despite research engines at universities etc running better than new with BA added; the ...er... 'views' stated here (all 2 of them) is that doing so is more likely to result in a small nuclear meltdown with radio active shrapnel headed directly toward the driver's head!


If you'd like to experiment either way; I'm happy to advise manmanyi.

The best DIY @ home method of creating very fine BA power, for the conventional method of testing, that I have found is:

• Fill a coffee grinder with BA and put it in the bottom (coldest) of a freezer for a day or 2. The idea here is to make the (water heavy by it's nature) BA powder as brittle as possible so the grinder can break the particles easily.
• Then you remove the BA filled grinder and immediately run it.
• Then give the dust a moment to settle and open the grinder and let the powder warm up, with the occasional, by hand, stir. This will attract a bit of (the desired) moisture out of the air.
• Then back in the freezer and repeat 3 or 4 times.
• Then add around 10% (by weight/eye) to the however much oil the engine takes.

Although I dissolved much of the above processed powder in boiling water, I went to the trouble of doing this as I oversaturated my solution.
ie: There was more powder than would all dissolve in my 'cup of' hot water.

My method 'kicked in' in around 10-20 km of slow, easy driving (thinner oil till the excess water 'boils' off),
whereas just adding the powder alone takes a lot longer as you are waiting for the engine to produce water, (HC + O2 = H2O + carbon this-n-that) some of which gets past the rings into the oil.
That's 'come back in 1000 km'.

Also; you can't get BA much finer than dissolved!

BA is sold as ant/roach poison at chemist shops here.
If you want to go the conventional method and pay through the nose; MotorSilk is the product name to search.

[freebeard]

...and instead; some new argument will be sucked out of your thumb...

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Your unattributed comment likely in reference to permalink #318?

If you watch the whole video he does in fact test both cooked and uncooked samples of both.

(intellectual honesty by default )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* We have no 'lab' data for either of the 'cooked' oils, so any 'test data' ascribed to them are wrapped in 'unknown quantity' status. By default.
* The 'lab' data for the ARCO oil doesn't appear to recognize the 'existence' of 'graphite', very curious! It does appear to suggest that ZDDP is in the oil, responsible for both the 'zinc' and 'phosphorous'.
* ARCO was introduced 33-years before its 'comparison' oil. ARCO was an API- SF oil, designed for cars which no longer exist, it should be 'compared' only within the context of the 'universe' as it existed in 1977, not API-SN oils, which weren't introduced until 2010, intended for model year 2011 cars.