BORPower additive?

[aerohead]

1) Each cylinder fires every other revolution ( 4-stroke, Otto-cycle )
2) At 4,000-rpm, each cylinder provides 2,000 power strokes /minute.
3) Times four cylinders = 8,000 power strikes / minute ?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Logic

So...
Your experience with BA in engine oil, as a lubricant is zero?
ZERO EXPERIENCE with BA in oil.
Is that correct?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) BA is not a 'lubricant', the 'lubricant' is the motor oil.
2) BA is an alleged 'friction modifier' ( FM )
3) My 'experience' with BA in oil is as 'vast' at that of the tribologists who've reported on it, and the 'context' regarding the conditions under which they 'experienced' it.
Not what appears to be some cherry-picked, desperate attempt to 'save the hypothesis at all cost', which will likely strip you of any credibility you might have ever had.
Perhaps unlike yourself, I don't need to go the the Sun to find out that I'd perish in the process.
I can 'satisfactorily know' the probable outcome from an 'academic' standpoint.
The 'data' you presented us in defense of your hypothesis seems to support the opposite of what you argue. If you thought you were 'sitting' on a factual six-legged stool, the data have seemed to have already kicked about five of them away.
And it would probably take someone, familiar with the life's work of the late, Dr. Oliver Sacks to explain it; and then, that probably wouldn't be sufficient to alter your hallucination, since they probably hadn't been to the Sun either.
It's been fun to watch you both defend and attack education in the same breath. Bizarre.
But hey, keep going with that massive IQ of yours , there's still time to produce some overwhelmingly-convincing evidence that 'll devastate the village idiot from Texas Tech.

[freebeard]

' 4,000 power strokes / minute '
1) Each cylinder fires every other revolution ( 4-stroke, Otto-cycle )
2) At 4,000-rpm, each cylinder provides 2,000 power strokes /minute.
3) Times four cylinders = 8,000 power strikes / minute ?

Bot-like typing detected. What is the point of this post?

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) So let's see, you poured your coffee cup of boric acid dissolved in boiling water into the Toyota, and all that 'water' boiled away ( paraphrasing your words ).
2) However, even though your crankcase, at [ 100-C ( 212-F ) couldn't support the water you added, at the boiling point of water, somehow there's still 'plenty' of it in there to take care of the BA/BO? ( paraphrasing your words ).
3) And, up in the combustion chamber, where the products of combustion are around 1,600-F ( 1,388-F above the boiling point of water ), there's enough 'RELATIVE HUMIDITY' to 'wet' your 'dry' BA?
' you cooking pasta in there also?

IF
the temperatures in top the combustion chamber equaled the temperatures of the cylinder walls
THEN
What would happen?

[/B] Are you now saying that you are unaware of quench distances from the cylinder and
[/B]despite the links, believe engine piston sleeves and lube run at 1600F?
OR
Do you just want any readers of this post to think so.

Sleeves usually run at around 140C
and DO NOT go above 170C


Do you need a hand opening the linked research???
Say if it's beyond you and I'll paste in the pictures for you.
I know how much you hate the pictures. (for all to see)


And yes; there is enough water/steam/vapour moisture both above and below the piston to turn any Boric Oxide back into Boric Acid.

But nice work at discombobulating any other readers.
I'm sure it works/worked on many of them.
Only 1 in 20 people has an IQ over 120 after all...
So you've more than earned your pay and no chance of being kicked out of the 'Keep X,Y and Z quiet and make people add weight to their cars around town in an effort to save fuel' club.
Congrats!!!

So again:

Have YOU tested it?
Because until then, you don't REALLY know...
and

Given an engine to test it on; would you test it OBJECTIVELY??

As you refuse even to answer this questions;
it's pretty obvious what you are actually doing here..!

[aerohead]

NOTE: Study Tables on page-2 & 3 very carefully.https://patentimages.storage.googlea.../US5431830.pdf

[aerohead]

A look into hydrated alkali metal borate, water,& emulsifier:https://patents.google.com/patent/US3313727A

[aerohead]

Read it and weep!
https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2013/09/77152.pdf

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Read it and weep!
https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2013/09/77152.pdf

Which part am I supposed to weep about??
The pictures?




All the graphs showing decreased friction and wear?
eg:


This last bit??

Benefits Assessment
The boron-based nanolubrication products developed and optimized in this project have
demonstrated high potential to substantially improve the friction, wear, and scuffing performance of base and formulated oils over a range of test conditions.
Optimization of particle size and concentration, as well as the selection of surfactants, was all important for the overall performance of the lubricants and/or additives tested.

Boron-based particulate additives considered in this project included boric acid (H 3BO 3), hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN), boron oxide, and borax.
As part of this project, we also explored a hybrid MoS 2+boric acid formulation for more effective lubrication and reported the results.
These products have the potential to reduce the amount of anti-friction and -wear additives as well as synergistically work with oil additives to significantly improve the durability and long-term performance of many types of machine components that are subjected to the sliding, rolling, reciprocating, and rotating motions that occur in the transportation, manufacturing, oil and gas industry; in chemical and
petroleum plants; and in construction, agriculture, and earth-moving operations.

Overall, these lubrication additives have the potential to provide significant energy, environmental, and economic benefits to many industrial sectors by increasing energy efficiency, productivity, and environmental compatibility and by lowering operational and maintenance costs.
Reduction in friction and wear in mechanical components is expected to translate into higher efficiency, longer durability, and lower emissions in transportation and other cross-cutting industrial applications.

Overall, this project has clearly demonstrated the significant beneficial effect of particulate additives on limiting friction- and wear-related losses.
Improved resistance to scuffing, abrasion, and micropitting is expected to increase resistance to degradation in severe industrial operations involving forming, machining, rolling, rotating, and sliding.
By increasing component life, these lubricants will reduce the need for frequent part replacement and, hence, curtail the consumption of energy that is needed for the manufacturing of new parts.
Realizing such a beneficial impact, industrial partners are seriously considering licensing this technology pending cost-benefit analysis and environmental impact studies.


So again:
Have YOU tested it?
Because until then, you don't REALLY know...
and
Given an engine to test it on; would you test it OBJECTIVELY??
Because I have.

(and just so you know; that will remain the last question asked, no matter how much you try to get it off the last page with multiple long posts.
It simply wont ever 'recede in the rear-view mirror')

[Logic]

Oh and lotsa patents on BA in oil..?
Whats patents on using it supposed to prove?
That it works!???

eg:
Base Mineral Oil Friction coefficient: 0.15
Base Mineral Oil + 10% BA Friction coefficient: 0.01
15X better!

ALL the data shows great improvement from adding BA
Are you on my side now, or hoping everyone will just believe you that the numbers suck, without checking..?
If you want my question:
Have YOU tested it?
to recede in the rear-view mirror; using pro BA data to do so is probably not the best way (for you) to do it!

The numbers here:
https://patentimages.storage.googlea.../US5431830.pdf
are from PIN ON DISK tests, which you told everyone ,with great conviction, were crap!
So do make up your mind!

Same goes for the papers quoted by you from the Dept of Energy's Argonne National Labs and Dr Erdemir who you told everyone were fly by night snake oil salesman.
Contradiction after contradiction...


People: If aerohead is now contradicting himself (here and elsewhere):
How can you trust anything he says..?
I'm especially worried about his powers of deduction!
Following normal IF/THEN arguments (as used in dumb computer code for eg.) seems to be above him..?

[Logic]

Originally Posted by aerohead

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) BA is not a 'lubricant', the 'lubricant' is the motor oil.
2) BA is an alleged 'friction modifier' ( FM )
3) My 'experience' with BA in oil is as 'vast' at that of the tribologists who've reported on it, and the 'context' regarding the conditions under which they 'experienced' it.
Not what appears to be some cherry-picked, desperate attempt to 'save the hypothesis at all cost', which will likely strip you of any credibility you might have ever had.
Perhaps unlike yourself, I don't need to go the the Sun to find out that I'd perish in the process.
I can 'satisfactorily know' the probable outcome from an 'academic' standpoint.
The 'data' you presented us in defense of your hypothesis seems to support the opposite of what you argue. If you thought you were 'sitting' on a factual six-legged stool, the data have seemed to have already kicked about five of them away.
And it would probably take someone, familiar with the life's work of the late, Dr. Oliver Sacks to explain it; and then, that probably wouldn't be sufficient to alter your hallucination, since they probably hadn't been to the Sun either.
It's been fun to watch you both defend and attack education in the same breath. Bizarre.
But hey, keep going with that massive IQ of yours , there's still time to produce some overwhelmingly-convincing evidence that 'll devastate the village idiot from Texas Tech.

Whah-Ha-Ha-haa!!!

Have YOU tried it??
I have. It works.

So have many others.
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/techn...id-petrol.html
Mass hallucination..? Er no literature saying as much about BA.

Until YOU have tested it OBJECTIVLY (like that will ever happen) YOU don't know... Simple as that.

How do I know you don't know? Because I tested it. And it works!