BORPower additive?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

yes; much hyperbole.

Only a very small amount of the water formed during combustion will get past the piston rings on each power (and exhaust) stroke.
But in my defense; there are a good many power strokes in the average commute.
A 4 cylinder engine at say 4000 rpm has 4000 a minute, or 240 000 an hour.
Then there's condensation and bigger ring gaps in cold engines and all that.

I'll look through these later, but we both know that the water and thus acids formed in an engine sump is an issue.
Nice to turn it to an advantage in this case...
https://www.google.com/search?client...l+acids+formed

1) This is why 'cold cars' are never tested.
2) Properly done, the entire car is thermally-equilibrated,' achieving the highest-achievable operating temperature for all moving components under whatever ambient outdoor environmental conditions exist.
3) It's also why we're throwing 'caution flags' on your 'results.'
4) The car's mpg will vary by 20% during the 'warming' transition, making any data observed within that period 'garbage.'
5) Data recorded from fully-warmed vehicle road testing is what will later be factored into the ASTM dynamometer lab testing that will follow.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

As I advise dissolving the Boric Acid in hot water and adding it to a hot engine it actually makes no difference to the topic at hand.

From Argonne National Labs who works with the US govt and NASA etc, not some student thesis:

The above results demonstrate that with a mixture of boric acid and an oil lubricant, the friction coefficients are reduced by 10 to over 1000% below those of the unmixed lubricant itself. The wear rates of pins are reduced by factors of 50 to 100 below those of pins tested in unmixed oil itself
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5431830A/en

That's what 1st got my attention and why I studied BA.
Then an old smokey engine came along and I tried it.
That car continued operating for years after till it was stolen.
Now I believe in BA and am trying to share.

Perhaps I should start a new topic:
Looking for 'Old Smokey' (car/engine) for experiment.

The oil-insoluble Boron, in the presence of 'water' is what caused the 'boron' to crystalize into hard abrasive granules that destroyed the machinery in Peeler's US PATENT 3,313,727.
This why Dr. Erdemir 'abandoned' any idea of going further with boric-oxide 'plating and it was 'dropped' from the research program.

[freebeard]

Maybe trade your handle for' tribohead'?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

Yes it does:
1st layer is a ceramic layer with 85% the hardness of diamond and complete resistance to the acids etc formed in old oil.

Subsequent layers transition from that to ironically bonded micro platelets akin to micro playing cards sliding over each other.
The layer is around 0.5 microns thick in total.

The coefficient of friction numbers are crazy low. Well into the 'Too good to be true' range. Something like 70X more slippery than steel-oil-steel IIRC.

So my initial test of a heaped tablespoon of Boric Acid, stirred into a coffee mug of boiling water went into a properly knackered engine where you couldn't see behind you for smoke and max speed was around 80, at which point it felt frighteningly like the engine was about to vibrate itself too destruction.

I poured it into the pre warmed engine and took off immediately.
I took it very easy as I knew the emulsion was doing nothing for oil thickness.
About 10km later I could feel the engine smooth out and a look in the rearview mirror revealed that I could see behind me once again.

Gobsmaked and in a state of shock and awe I gave it the gas and discovered that the engine had come back to life, was smooth as can be, and happily went up to a bit over the original top speed of the car.
(It was a little 1200, 4 speed Toyota that maxed out at 140KM/h. (rpm limited))

After that it went into my 2L Mazda and Dads 728 BMW etc-etc. all to great effect.
Except:
The Isuzu truck was no fun on an early morning winter trip as the damn engine just wouldn't warm up to the point where the heater would work!

NB!!!
VWs use a very fine sieve on the oil pump pickup.
The Boric ceramic coating gets in under the sludge that's inevitable in any engine fed a mixture of oil brands and the loosened sludge blocks the pickup, requiring one to drop the sump and clean the sieve.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need some clarification specifics on this please:
1) The car 'exceeded' the original 140-km/h top speed.
2) However, Toyota had 'limited' the top speed to 140-km/h ?
3) 'rpm limited' by Toyota ?
4) Toyota 'governed' the top speed ?
5) or, valves 'floated' at around 6,000-rpm, much-cited by Toyota as a 1200cc engine 'redline'.
6) The valves in my 1994 Toyota pickup 'float' at 5,500-rpm ( 157-mph, 'gearing limited )
7) It's OEM top speed is 96-mph ( drag-limited )
8) It's gone over 108-mph on the flat with a 'tailwind.'
9) Same motor oil in all conditions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A stuck thermostat might explain the ISUZU's inability to warm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Sludge' can be formed by the oxidation of oil-borne 'emulsions', acting as a binding agent for foreign particles, which can clog oil lines.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

Ionic
Same as Molybdenum Disulphide, but I don't think MoS2 forms a protective ceramic layer on the metal surface and does not have the crazy low coefficient of friction of Boric Acid.
I havent researched it nearly as much as H3BO3.


The above results demonstrate that with a mixture of boric acid and an oil lubricant, the friction coefficients are reduced by 10 to over 1000% below those of the unmixed lubricant itself. The wear rates of pins are reduced by factors of 50 to 100 below those of pins tested in unmixed oil itself.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US5431830A/en

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While friction coefficients are basically independent of 'load' ( ASTM wear test ), they ARE proportional to 'viscosity'
* hence viscosimeter testing of Dr. Erdemir's 50% (wt) H2o/ Boric Acid test mixture
* ( magnetically-stirring-mixture by the way for, 2-hours prior to the pin-on-disk test )
* in water of viscosity 1.0038 cSt @ 20-C
* internal combustion engines immediately self-destruct with lubricants with viscosities of below 3 cSt

[aerohead]

1) Boric acid dissolves completely in liquid water.
2) ICE's are 'atmospheric'
3) Water boils at 100-C ( 212-F )
4) When the water-boric acid solute loses all it's water at 100-C, it becomes an 'insoluble' substance in the motor oil.
5) 30-minutes after reaching 'operating' temperature ( 100-C ) there is NO water in an engines motor oil.
6) What mechanism exists within some random engine to render amorphous boric acid flocculant into 'engineered' nano-particles, typically achieved only in precision milling of boric acid powder, measured to 'extreme precision ' as Dr. Erdemir and associates performed for their ASTM tests?
7) Post-ASTM engine tests, engines are 'torn down' for 'parts evaluation' which includes precision measurements and microscopic examination to ascertain exactly 'what' the actual results were. Including any 'plating' by colloidal solutions that were present in the ISO Baseline Reference Oil, as a friction modifier.
8) These ASTM tests are only conducted when the 'entire vehicle' is at 'operating' temperature, and held there for the duration.

[aerohead]

1) As a colloid added to motor oil, it wasn't a 'new' idea.
2) 'Friction modifiers' weren't a 'new' idea.
3) According to TEXACO, 'boron' had been in use in motor oils since at least 1973.
4) Reducing boundary lubrication region and mixed-film lubrication region friction wasn't novel.
5) 'Nano-particles' weren't a 'new' idea.
6) 'Boron-nano particles were an 'idea'
- a conceptual construct
- which can be 'patented'
- It doesn't mean that it's a 'thing'.
7) as of 1994, Dr. Erdemir stated that Argonne's work still faced a 'dozen environmental' test hurdles, and a dozen 'safety' hurdles, that he thought might be resolved within two years ( 1996 ).
8) The 1994 US PATENT represented a 'work in progress ', not a 'proven' scientific breakthrough.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

I also NB that we are not just discussing (ye right!) friction and wear reduction:

We also need to consider the ~0.5 thickness of this layer:
In a piston and sleeve the play taken up by this frangible (for lack of a better word) layer is 2 microns in diameter/s...

• What does that do for compression?
• What does it do for the pesky charge hiding in the area enclosed by the piston, sleeve and top ring?
• What does the removal of 2 microns of play with a much smoother surface do to optimize the stock pressurized lubrication of the main etc bearings in an engine? (Yes the electron microscope? pictures do show a smoother surface if you bother to look)
• What happens when you remove 2 microns per link from a run in to somewhat worn cam chain?
• What happens if there is 1 micron less valve clearance?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Engine design involves STEM.
2) STEM includes 'Mathematics' at its trailing edge.
3) I presume that you've already calculated the differences that you reference and await mathematic confirmation.
4) Should that be the case, you'd already know the 'folly' of the whole enterprise, given the differences in volumetrics you speak of, and the 'presumption' that they would even exist at all, and lastly, your ability to even discern the effects.
5) Your arbitrary deference for 'smoothness' may be diminished when you realize that too much of it spells complete disaster for an engine.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

There's no point in my adding Boric Acid to an engine freebeard.
Someone else has to experience the stuff and report back...

So ye; if someone here happens to have an old smokey engine that they are going to rebuild anyway...

So my question is; what concerns would you/everyone have if you did have an old engine you were about to rebuild anyway and you tried this?

Some microscopic shots of a metal surface with and without BA and the HOW it works:
https://sci-hub.ru/https://www.scien...01679X21000578
The abstract and conclusion, at the very least, are worth a read.

Here's an easy read press release from Argonne National Labs:
https://www.anl.gov/article/nanobori...-more-slippery

Strangely; here I am posting links again because everyone prefers to consider this BS rather than simply do a search for eg:
boric acid in oil lubricant research argonne national labs
So I find myself wondering: What the hell is wrong with people!? Why CHOOSE to live under a rock!??

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) It's the 'due diligence' on our part of, 'reading' your supporting documents which cause us to throw caution flags on the field of play.
2) And it's from Dr. Ali Erdemir's own testimony within those documents that your hypotheses begins to unravel, with no recognition of this fact on your part!
3) It might as well be BS, as it has failed to live up to your 'interpretation' of the data.
4) Bringing the data out into the sunlight has revealed that the 'reality' of boric acid-modified motor oil doesn't remotely resemble the 'hopes' that were attached to it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

In the labs that study lubrication they use a Pin on Disk device to test the lubricants.
Part of the test is to put the post test, scratched disk under a microscope and pear at it intently.

This is Proof that:
Without actually reading the NEW FACTS presented to you, (LINKED for your convenience); any pre conceived opinions you may have are in fact about as useful as a one armed boxer with an itchy arse!

Also a 'Don't wanna know' type opinion hurts you more than it does the presenter of the idea.
HowTF am I, or anyone, supposed to give any weight whatsoever to anything you have to say on this subject if you insist on remaining ignorant of the new facts presented..?

1) The pin-on-disk test crudely mimics a cam-follower at extremely-low rpm. 'Speed' isn't an issue, but 'viscosity' is CRITICAL to engine survival.
2) As of 1999, flat-tappet cam failures were the only 'sliding-friction' ( boundary lubrication region ) related engine issues being experienced, and only in FORMULA 1 and NASCAR racing events, involving cars 'drafting' another car, where cooling air was cut off, leading to 'overheat'- thinning and viscosity failure, ending the race.
3) 'Superfinishing' had been around since 1989, and F1 and NASCAR teams found that superfinishing even just one 'side' of the valvetrain components could remove enough of the asperities, that 'NOTHING' could now penetrate the oil monolayer plating the cam, eliminating the failures.
Today's Ferrari's 12 Cilindri supercar borrows from their Formula 1 valvetrain technology to create indestructible low-friction cam followers, good for 9,250-RPM all day long.
SHELL's PENNZOIL and HELIX full-synthetic ( high-cleanliness ) motor oils, Ferrari factory-fills are adequate for the task, and SHELL doesn't make any specific attributions to any 'Boron' for engine protection.