Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > The Unicorn Corral
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Closed Thread  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-27-2013, 08:30 PM   #111 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
P-hack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 1,408

awesomer - '04 Toyota prius
Thanks: 102
Thanked 249 Times in 201 Posts
I know, you use exceptionally tiny carbon atoms to build your diamonds, that is how you get them to be atom sized.

Wow, %31 improvement in MPG, even though driveline and engine friction add up to 10%. Can you say over-unity? And on an aerodynamic brick like a truck even?


 
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 12-27-2013, 09:56 PM   #112 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 907
Thanks: 196
Thanked 320 Times in 225 Posts
Please get some math skills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by P-hack View Post
I know, you use exceptionally tiny carbon atoms to build your diamonds, that is how you get them to be atom sized.

Wow, %31 improvement in MPG, even though driveline and engine friction add up to 10%. Can you say over-unity? And on an aerodynamic brick like a truck even?
There is no over unity implied in any of this. Choose the correct unity for comparison and it all makes sense. 30% improvement is plausible via reduced engine and drive line friction. Just do the simple math correctly. And, class 8 trucks have far higher drive-line losses than lightweight passenger cars.

Will DiamondLube net 30% fuel efficiency in a Class 8 tractor trailer? More testing needs to be done to answer that question with more clarity.
 
Old 12-27-2013, 11:06 PM   #113 (permalink)
Cyborg ECU
 
California98Civic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Coastal Southern California
Posts: 6,055

Black and Green - '98 Honda Civic DX Coupe
Team Honda
90 day: 66.42 mpg (US)

Black and Red - '00 Nashbar Custom built eBike
90 day: 3671.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,284
Thanked 2,004 Times in 1,366 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Charlie View Post
I linked to a joke product at a joke website.
Engine Scrub with metal shrapnel! Hahahaha!
__________________
See my car's mod & maintenance thread and my electric bicycle's thread for ongoing projects. I will rebuild Black and Green over decades as parts die, until it becomes a different car of roughly the same shape and color. My minimum fuel economy goal is 55 mpg while averaging posted speed limits. I generally top 60 mpg. See also my Honda manual transmission specs thread.



 
Old 12-28-2013, 12:04 AM   #114 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 39
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I am a CDL A licensed driver, and the first semi I loaded up with my diamond coating went from 5 to over 8 MPG, and that was in 2006. The old smoker stopped smoking and got quieter, all the hundreds of other treated vehicles did likewise. Question is, now what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
There is no over unity implied in any of this. Choose the correct unity for comparison and it all makes sense. 30% improvement is plausible via reduced engine and drive line friction. Just do the simple math correctly. And, class 8 trucks have far higher drive-line losses than lightweight passenger cars.

Will DiamondLube net 30% fuel efficiency in a Class 8 tractor trailer? More testing needs to be done to answer that question with more clarity.
 
Old 12-28-2013, 01:52 AM   #115 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
redneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: SC Lowcountry
Posts: 1,351

Geo XL1 - '94 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Boat tails and more mods
90 day: 72.22 mpg (US)

Big, Bad & Flat - '01 Dodge Ram 3500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 21.13 mpg (US)
Thanks: 182
Thanked 1,111 Times in 536 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiamondLube View Post
I ran across an independant test of ws2 and quicken at Picture and ws2 kind a sucks.
So according to you Froglube contains Ws2...???

FrogLube | The World's Only Complete Bio Based 'Green' Weapons Care system, Solvent and CLP USDA Approved doesn't claim to have added WS2.

Even the link that you provided to the comparison doesn't claim that Quicken®CLP was compared to WS2.

Also, who or what is "www.spartamax.com"...???

What are their credentials...???

Searching the web trying to find more info on "www.spartamax.com" this is what I found.

Quote:
spartamax.com domain and website information

spartamax.com has been registered on 11/18/2013
Funny, it doesn't appear that they have been around very long...

I also came across this.

Airsoft Forum > Most Advanced and Universal Lubricant

It looks like the thread was closed and locked.


There is a SpartaMax.net Products company that sells gun oil related products. SpartaMax Products - SpartaMax.Gun.Oil Tech Data & MSDS

However, your product is not listed or compared by them.



>
 
Old 12-28-2013, 02:00 AM   #116 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 907
Thanks: 196
Thanked 320 Times in 225 Posts
You can submit your product for testing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiamondLube View Post
I am a CDL A licensed driver, and the first semi I loaded up with my diamond coating went from 5 to over 8 MPG, and that was in 2006. The old smoker stopped smoking and got quieter, all the hundreds of other treated vehicles did likewise. Question is, now what?
There is a testing protocol that can be used to verify your product's effectiveness. It was brought up in these forums in the discussion of HHO generators and the testing needed for verification. I posted a company called The Cell, who tested their device using the SAE J1321 protocol. It is a real world testing protocol that returns under 1% resolution. It is the same test procedure used by many aftermarket trucking manufacturers to verify fuel economy gains.

SAE Results Using The Cell Inc | THE CELL INC - USA

The link should take you to the company's published results. The presented report contained some anomalies that "experts" on these forums saw as leverage to disallow the entire test. But, let it be said, these are the same experts that seem unable to do 8th grade percentage math.

The licensed consulting engineer for this particular test just happened to be a member of the team that created the testing protocol for The SAE. This testing protocol has been used for years and is an accepted form of verification in professional circles if not here on the Ecomodder Forums.

There will be costs involved of course. The consulting engineer must be licensed, the test vehicles must be closely matched and an acceptable test circuit must be found.

The greatest difficulty I see for testing your product would be the time to apply the product to effectiveness. This is not as simple as turning on a gas generator or hanging aerodynamic aids on the vehicle. How long does it take for the product to "burnish in" and become effective?

I put forth this testing procedure only as an example. You may find more direct and effective ways. A dynometer tested engine might be more direct and lower cost but, if trucking companies are your target market, I would suggest the SAE J1321. I honestly would not bother with these forums if it wasn't for the entertainment I gather from the discussions and the informative tidbits that occasionally surface. You should simply take the criticism , learn from it and . . . leave. Seriously. These forums are populated by car and bike guys. Test your product rigorously. If you have even a measured 5% efficiency gain, you will be able to sell 1200 dollar lubrication kits to truckers who dump tens of thousands of dollars a year into their fuel tanks. But I think you already know this.

I'll keep track of your company. And I'll purchase some of your product from Ebay to test. I wish you the best of luck and success.
 
Old 12-28-2013, 02:08 AM   #117 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 39
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
there was a comparison to ws2 a few weeks ago - and it showed horrible wear but better than FrogLube.. You are saying its my fault that its not there now? It showed that WS2 is better than whatever is in FrogLube, and ws2 is not that great compared to a diamond coating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redneck View Post
So according to you Froglube contains Ws2...???

FrogLube | The World's Only Complete Bio Based 'Green' Weapons Care system, Solvent and CLP USDA Approved doesn't claim to have added WS2.

Even the link that you provided to the comparison doesn't claim that Quicken®CLP was compared to WS2.

Also, who or what is "www.spartamax.com"...???

What are their credentials...???

Searching the web trying to find more info on "www.spartamax.com" this is what I found.



Funny, it doesn't appear that they have been around very long...

I also came across this.

Airsoft Forum > Most Advanced and Universal Lubricant

It looks like the thread was closed and locked.


There is a SpartaMax.net Products company that sells gun oil related products. SpartaMax Products - SpartaMax.Gun.Oil Tech Data & MSDS

However, your product is not listed or compared by them.



>
 
Old 12-28-2013, 02:29 AM   #118 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 39
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Rusty,

You really know where to kick a guy.

(Edited, In 2007) That Travis ass hole took my $20,000 for the same SAE J1321 test and arrived at a 5% gain in fuel economy after only a 250 mile wear in period and he AND his team were excited as hell, even though they had to buy more fuel because they ran out - which is against the spec. They also did not provide the oiled bearings on the trailer as agreed. Travis checked the results three times on the day of testing, and kept coming up with a 5% gain that he said was worth billions. The following day he dropped it to 2.5% total gain and 30 days later he dropped it to 1.95% gain. I suppose he meant I was supposed to give him 50%. (or 51%)

2500 - 10,000 miles seems to be the correct mileage for treatment on a semi, but I did not know that when I had that ass hole steal my money.

(there are other issues with HHO, hydrogen embrittelment and cell oxidation, but there are solutions)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
There is a testing protocol that can be used to verify your product's effectiveness. It was brought up in these forums in the discussion of HHO generators and the testing needed for verification. I posted a company called The Cell, who tested their device using the SAE J1321 protocol. It is a real world testing protocol that returns under 1% resolution. It is the same test procedure used by many aftermarket trucking manufacturers to verify fuel economy gains.

SAE Results Using The Cell Inc | THE CELL INC - USA

The link should take you to the company's published results. The presented report contained some anomalies that "experts" on these forums saw as leverage to disallow the entire test. But, let it be said, these are the same experts that seem unable to do 8th grade percentage math.

The licensed consulting engineer for this particular test just happened to be a member of the team that created the testing protocol for The SAE. This testing protocol has been used for years and is an accepted form of verification in professional circles if not here on the Ecomodder Forums.

There will be costs involved of course. The consulting engineer must be licensed, the test vehicles must be closely matched and an acceptable test circuit must be found.

The greatest difficulty I see for testing your product would be the time to apply the product to effectiveness. This is not as simple as turning on a gas generator or hanging aerodynamic aids on the vehicle. How long does it take for the product to "burnish in" and become effective?

I put forth this testing procedure only as an example. You may find more direct and effective ways. A dynometer tested engine might be more direct and lower cost but, if trucking companies are your target market, I would suggest the SAE J1321. I honestly would not bother with these forums if it wasn't for the entertainment I gather from the discussions and the informative tidbits that occasionally surface. You should simply take the criticism , learn from it and . . . leave. Seriously. These forums are populated by car and bike guys. Test your product rigorously. If you have even a measured 5% efficiency gain, you will be able to sell 1200 dollar lubrication kits to truckers who dump tens of thousands of dollars a year into their fuel tanks. But I think you already know this.

I'll keep track of your company. And I'll purchase some of your product from Ebay to test. I wish you the best of luck and success.

Last edited by DiamondLube; 12-28-2013 at 02:41 AM..
 
Old 12-28-2013, 03:13 AM   #119 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 907
Thanks: 196
Thanked 320 Times in 225 Posts
Goodness. Where to start?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiamondLube View Post
Rusty,

You really know where to kick a guy.

That Travis ass hole took my $20,000 for the same SAE J1321 test and arrived at a 5% gain in fuel economy after only a 250 mile wear in period and he AND his team were excited as hell, even though they had to buy more fuel because they ran out - which is against the spec. They also did not provide the oiled bearings on the trailer as agreed. Travis checked the results three times on the day of testing, and kept coming up with a 5% gain that he said was worth billions. The following day he dropped it to 2.5% total gain and 30 days later he dropped it to 1.95% gain. I suppose he meant I was supposed to give him 50%.

2500 - 10,000 miles seems to be the correct mileage for treatment on a semi, but I did not know that when I had that ass hole steal my money.
What was your contract for him to execute the test? 1/3 rd at signing? The rest at completion of milestone performance? The fact he ran out of fuel would void the test unless he could certify that he had the exact same fuel. If he didn't provide bearings as agreed, then you could also void the agreement and withhold payment. If you don't like the feel of the results, you can hire an outside consultant, at your cost of course, to review the data. It would have been best to have your outside consultant present at the test of course.

Don't blame the consultant for your lack of product knowledge. It is your product after all. And you do have recourse. The fact he is a licensed engineer means you can approach his licensing body (the SAE ) as well as any state or county authorities if you feel you have been defrauded. But, again, you had better have good evidence against him. I am a consultant, and I have been sued by people who did not like the results of the tests and development I did for them. However, I performed to contract. I have never lost in court. And I have always been paid.

Why you would agree to pay for a flawed test is beyond me. Or else, you are too naive to realize 5% is a GREAT result! If he is at fault, the responsibility to accept the contract is YOURS. If you are at fault for not knowing your product then, YOU are at fault. Either way, YOU are the problem here.

At this point, I am going to enjoy the weekend. And I suggest you hire someone with business and legal skills. How you survive in this wild west environment is beyond me.
 
Old 12-28-2013, 09:20 AM   #120 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Illinois
Posts: 39
Thanks: 1
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yes 5% was a great number, until it went away the following day and became 2.5%. I cant do it over, which is why I went the Military testing route.

Travis required $20,000 to be wired to his account before he would arrange the test. It sounded reasonable and he "was" recommended by Ryder, and the test was done to prove the product worked specifically to Ryder. I actually had no idea that nearly everyone on every level was so dishonest, but like you said, its like the Wild West out there, everywhere and I did not have another $20K for a lawyer.

What he concocted in the report was a 1.95 % improvement, which was exactly what the after DYNO registered compared to the first dyno, and since all the fuel (Both batches) was consumed I know he didn't use the same fuel as in the test to run the dyno. He used what was in the tank when the truck was rented. Any one of several test deviations invalidates the $20,000 test. SAE does not call for a second dyno run or base the outcome on any dyno results, only road testing between two class 8, same load trucks. I asked him at the time for the certified "same fuel report" but he did not have one, nor is it mentioned in the report - but I DO HAVE VIDEO of the fuel debacle. Too bad the camera battery died moments before he confirmed the 5%. The whole team was pretty shook up over the HUGE results as they called them and the old man needed a few drinks at his Club to calm down, coming close to crashing his speeding Lincoln several times driving me back to my car.

To answer the ring and cylinder question, the oil doesn't blow by the compression ring for lack of lubrication, it gets there because the oil ring is worn and using alcohol you get near Zero lubrication of the compression ring. When DiamondLube is added to the oil and fuel, the diamond coating treats the cylinder and all rings, stopping or greatly reducing blowby, smoke, oil burning and increasing rev speed, HP compression. Engine vibration is lowered as the parts glide past each other with the diamond coat in between. On Harley Davidson the head temp drops ~50F, vibration noise and wear go down, performance rises. A dozen desired effects occur as a result of lowering metal on metal contact, and the +MPG treatments are a one shot deal as this formula has 4 times the nanomaterial used in the SAE testing.

Diamonds are collected by running the concentrated slurry over hot grease trays, and something very similar happens in the engine after the particles embed. Oil sticks like glue to the diamond coating instead of shearing off leaving bare metal, and the seal improves dramatically while the points listed above begin showing up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
What was your contract for him to execute the test? 1/3 rd at signing? The rest at completion of milestone performance? The fact he ran out of fuel would void the test unless he could certify that he had the exact same fuel. If he didn't provide bearings as agreed, then you could also void the agreement and withhold payment. If you don't like the feel of the results, you can hire an outside consultant, at your cost of course, to review the data. It would have been best to have your outside consultant present at the test of course.

Don't blame the consultant for your lack of product knowledge. It is your product after all. And you do have recourse. The fact he is a licensed engineer means you can approach his licensing body (the SAE ) as well as any state or county authorities if you feel you have been defrauded. But, again, you had better have good evidence against him. I am a consultant, and I have been sued by people who did not like the results of the tests and development I did for them. However, I performed to contract. I have never lost in court. And I have always been paid.

Why you would agree to pay for a flawed test is beyond me. Or else, you are too naive to realize 5% is a GREAT result! If he is at fault, the responsibility to accept the contract is YOURS. If you are at fault for not knowing your product then, YOU are at fault. Either way, YOU are the problem here.

At this point, I am going to enjoy the weekend. And I suggest you hire someone with business and legal skills. How you survive in this wild west environment is beyond me.

 
Closed Thread  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com