Diamond Lube

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

I've read through all this and common sense would step in to ask,

What percentage of power generated by the engine is lost to friction?

So I find this. FuelEconomy.Gov

Now it looks to me like the friction loss is 3%, you can't claim your product eliminates friction, so even if you cut it in half, you only reduce engine loss by 1.5%.

How does this yield a 10% or better increase in MPG?

You understand this right? 3% of engine loss is due to friction, how does eliminating this yield a dyno test result that's 20% more horsepower?

A bunch of stories about how much better a gun shoots or how happy people are is not considered evidence as to the effectiveness of a product. Show us independent testing result numbers, cousin Bob winning his first race does not count.

And for the sake of Pete, do NOT go on some pseudo-science technobabble diatribe here, you will look pathetic if you try.

Plain English and simple terms following a logical progression of how it is that you can make a 3% loss result in a 20% gain would be really appreciated.

. . . because the math is exceedingly simple. If DiamondLube can answer, then fine. If the rest of you cannot answer, this reflects badly on this forum and it's members.

Or is this a rhetorical question by Chaz? You already know the answer and you are going to answer it, correct?

[DIMS]

These guys say 1/3 of engine power loss is due to friction & a potential for an 18 to 60% gain ?

One-third of car fuel consumption is due to friction loss

[RedDevil]

That's all friction on the vehicle, as the article states; tires, brakes, you name it. Oil is just a small part of it.

[DiamondLube]

Average 10-35% MPG gains, depending on the treatment level. When I treat a car, the engine, trans, power steering, water pump and A/C are treated. Major release of friction is from the trans, then engine and then the power steering, AC and water pump.

When an 18 wheeler is treated there are many more areas to remove friction from and gains are higher. When a garbage truck is treated, the hydraulics also release friction, further increasing efficiency.

But the Gov labs claiming only 3% friction on an engine is just not true, its more like 15% and we release on average 10% on engine only treatments. Dyno testing shows this

Originally Posted by DIMS

These guys say 1/3 of engine power loss is due to friction & a potential for an 18 to 60% gain ?

One-third of car fuel consumption is due to friction loss

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by DiamondLube

... I didn't realize where I was, cancel my membership please.

Too stupid to figure out how to cancel your own membership I see.

You are a lying POS. That is the only secret you wish to keep.

[BLSTIC]

All the figure swapping and throwing in that article was confusing, misleading, and full of holes

Let's get to the heart of that article, the one section with *meaningful* data related to friction reduction and energy.

Of the energy output of fuel in a car engine, 33% is spent in exhaust, 29% in cooling and 38% in mechanical energy, of which friction losses account for 33% and air resistance for 5%.

This sentence induces headaches.

Here it is presented in a more meaningful form:

The breakdown of energy in fuel:
33% Goes out the exhaust (heat and gas pressure) - Wasted
29% Goes gets dissipated in the cooling system (heat) - Wasted
38% Actually turns something (motion) - Useful

Is it saying 33% of the motion is lost due to friction, or 33% of the total losses (which make up 62% of your fuel energy) are due to friction?

At this point I would like to point out that almost all of the 'friction' inside an engine or any given gear set on a car is almost entirely fluid movement and ends up as heat. Any contact of solids quickly results in excessive noise or worn components.

This is completely different from systems where dry lubricant is used and there *is* significant hard surface contact and collection of spheres on a surface would be useful.

Which means your product has to reduce the energy lost to oil shear without losing the protection of that same layer of oil.

How is your product even applied to vehicles? Is it as an oil additive or does it require disassembly and reassembly of a given component?

Note that most small cars today (most of the guys here interested in fuel economy) have sealed for life wheel bearings and electric power steering. You only have the engine and gearbox oil that you can treat.

[BLSTIC]

Diamondlube - Please provide an explanation on how your system works. My thoughts so far are "Reduces friction, how quaint. How does it reduce friction on my non-contact moving parts without making oil dangerously thin?"

On your website you claim 20% power change on a pocket bike. This was 1hp. It was also on a two-stroke without forced oil lubrication, and it uses a chain. Where was the treatment applied?

If you can answer satisfactorily I will happily organise a testing session on a chassis dyno and a road loop with my brand new car (2000km on it, and it doesn't have any problems or previous treatments).

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by DiamondLube

Average 10-35% MPG gains, depending on the treatment level. When I treat a car, the engine, trans, power steering, water pump and A/C are treated. Major release of friction is from the trans, then engine and then the power steering, AC and water pump.

When an 18 wheeler is treated there are many more areas to remove friction from and gains are higher. When a garbage truck is treated, the hydraulics also release friction, further increasing efficiency.

But the Gov labs claiming only 3% friction on an engine is just not true, its more like 15% and we release on average 10% on engine only treatments. Dyno testing shows this

. . . is a good estimate of the common passenger car and it's energy distribution. And the 3% engine friction they claim is right in line with 15% engine friction you claim if you change the reference unity.

Passenger cars do have greatly reduced friction drag in comparison to heavy duty diesel applications which must have a more robust design and much greater service life. And, you are correct in stating that heavy applications have much greater opportunities to reduce friction.

I am convinced enough of the validity of nano lubricant's effectiveness to try one of your samples or smaller applications (gun lubricant), but I do urge you to be more educated on your own product. It is a difficult sale when you are selling a technical product and you are unable to deliver technical answers.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by DIMS

These guys say 1/3 of engine power loss is due to friction & a potential for an 18 to 60% gain ?

One-third of car fuel consumption is due to friction loss

At least they kindly provide the original reference material and they do state they heavily edit the content to fit their needs.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Too stupid to figure out how to cancel your own membership I see.

You are a lying POS. That is the only secret you wish to keep.

. . . weather he stayed or went. To his credit, DiamondLube has at least attempted to answer some questions even with the high level of animosity this forum displays to "outsiders" ( people with fringe ideas ).