Nissan Ester oil...
- Thread starter wemay
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Certainly marketing has their work cut out for them. Make no mistake, cutting valvetrain friction (and rings, wrist pin) by 45% is not trivial. Saves gas. Engine runs cooler.
BITOG members are usually interested in promising new tech. Value propositions are penny-ante.
Always like to think about the latest and greatest, and what they promise to deliver.
From the paper...
Quote:
The test condition is shown in the table of Fig. 1. The
slow sliding speed was ranging from 0.03 to 1 m/s and
the high contact pressure of 700 Mpa was comparable to
the actual cam follower contact pressure.
If the base circle is 1.4" diameter, that's 35.6mm...times pi gives 112mm around a cylindrical lobe (no lobe, i.e. plain cylinder).
0.03m/s gives an applicable cam rotational speed of 0.2655 revs per second, a crank speed of 0.53 RPS, or 32RPM. 1m/s gives an engine cam rotational speed of 8.9 RPS, a crank speed of 1070 RPM
The most "effective speed" was 0.1m/s, equivalent to an engine speed of 100RPM.
I'm quite frankly surprised that Nissan have managed to get even a smooth idle out of the engine, let alone appreciable power out of it in the range 32-1070 RPM, which are the surface speeds that are applicable to the disk/pin speeds tested.
Makes one question just how applicable the 0.006 friction coefficient is to the engines in question at anything resembling normal engine speeds...where hydrodynamics means that surface effects of the additive are reduced to almost nothing.
It looks, smells, and quacks a bit like a 1 armed bandit test.
The paper then shifts to cam bench tests... nothing related to the above...it's two papers.
Fig 6 - smoother means less friction, who could have guessed.
Fig 8 Note the steep end of the curves is all sub 1000 RPM (I'm assuming that they are choosing "engine RPM" as the traditional cam spins half speed thing.
The PVD-DLC line appears almost flat, at quite low RPM...indicating most likely that it is essentially hydrodynamically running at that point.
The rougher surfaces appear to still be behaving boundary like, heading more to the right on a Streibeck curve as revs rise (as they do)
Once again, smoother surface, lower asperities, more hydrodynamic lubrication taking place.
Friction reduction at 1700(ish) RPM is certainly 45%. down from 1.3Nm to 0.6 give or take....It is assumed that there is a single cam, with full compliment of lobes in the test rig (ambiguous, but the torque values are multiples of those on Fig 6, so there's multiples of something).
Take the 1700RPM phosphate cam, multiply it by 4 (cams), and there's a torque value of say 6nm...cam torque is being read at 850RPM according to the drawing (not detailed), so the phosphate cams at 1700 engine RPM are consuming 0.7hp.
A 45% reduction would result in the liberation of 0.3hp...at 1700 engine RPM.
To gain a feel for what that would feel like, drive at 1700RPM, and turn the headlights off and on a few time...it's there, and real...
Certainly marketing has their work cut out for them. Make no mistake, cutting valvetrain friction (and rings, wrist pin) by 45% is not trivial. Saves gas. Engine runs cooler.
BITOG members are usually interested in promising new tech. Value propositions are penny-ante.
Always like to think about the latest and greatest, and what they promise to deliver.
From the paper...
Quote:
The test condition is shown in the table of Fig. 1. The
slow sliding speed was ranging from 0.03 to 1 m/s and
the high contact pressure of 700 Mpa was comparable to
the actual cam follower contact pressure.
If the base circle is 1.4" diameter, that's 35.6mm...times pi gives 112mm around a cylindrical lobe (no lobe, i.e. plain cylinder).
0.03m/s gives an applicable cam rotational speed of 0.2655 revs per second, a crank speed of 0.53 RPS, or 32RPM. 1m/s gives an engine cam rotational speed of 8.9 RPS, a crank speed of 1070 RPM
The most "effective speed" was 0.1m/s, equivalent to an engine speed of 100RPM.
I'm quite frankly surprised that Nissan have managed to get even a smooth idle out of the engine, let alone appreciable power out of it in the range 32-1070 RPM, which are the surface speeds that are applicable to the disk/pin speeds tested.
Makes one question just how applicable the 0.006 friction coefficient is to the engines in question at anything resembling normal engine speeds...where hydrodynamics means that surface effects of the additive are reduced to almost nothing.
It looks, smells, and quacks a bit like a 1 armed bandit test.
The paper then shifts to cam bench tests... nothing related to the above...it's two papers.
Fig 6 - smoother means less friction, who could have guessed.
Fig 8 Note the steep end of the curves is all sub 1000 RPM (I'm assuming that they are choosing "engine RPM" as the traditional cam spins half speed thing.
The PVD-DLC line appears almost flat, at quite low RPM...indicating most likely that it is essentially hydrodynamically running at that point.
The rougher surfaces appear to still be behaving boundary like, heading more to the right on a Streibeck curve as revs rise (as they do)
Once again, smoother surface, lower asperities, more hydrodynamic lubrication taking place.
Friction reduction at 1700(ish) RPM is certainly 45%. down from 1.3Nm to 0.6 give or take....It is assumed that there is a single cam, with full compliment of lobes in the test rig (ambiguous, but the torque values are multiples of those on Fig 6, so there's multiples of something).
Take the 1700RPM phosphate cam, multiply it by 4 (cams), and there's a torque value of say 6nm...cam torque is being read at 850RPM according to the drawing (not detailed), so the phosphate cams at 1700 engine RPM are consuming 0.7hp.
A 45% reduction would result in the liberation of 0.3hp...at 1700 engine RPM.
To gain a feel for what that would feel like, drive at 1700RPM, and turn the headlights off and on a few time...it's there, and real...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
To gain a feel for what that would feel like, drive at 1700RPM, and turn the headlights off and on a few time...it's there, and real...
As I've said a few times, a fraction of a very tiny number is an even tinier number, even if that fraction is 50%.
To gain a feel for what that would feel like, drive at 1700RPM, and turn the headlights off and on a few time...it's there, and real...
As I've said a few times, a fraction of a very tiny number is an even tinier number, even if that fraction is 50%.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Shannow
...I'm quite frankly surprised that Nissan have managed to get even a smooth idle out of the engine, let alone appreciable power out of it in the range 32-1070 RPM, which are the surface speeds that are applicable to the disk/pin speeds tested.
Makes one question just how applicable the 0.006 friction coefficient is to the engines in question at anything resembling normal engine speeds...where hydrodynamics means that surface effects of the additive are reduced to almost nothing.
It looks, smells, and quacks a bit like a 1 armed bandit test.
The paper then shifts to cam bench tests... nothing related to the above...it's two papers.
Fig 6 - smoother means less friction, who could have guessed.
Fig 8 Note the steep end of the curves is all sub 1000 RPM (I'm assuming that they are choosing "engine RPM" as the traditional cam spins half speed thing.
The PVD-DLC line appears almost flat, at quite low RPM...indicating most likely that it is essentially hydrodynamically running at that point.
The rougher surfaces appear to still be behaving boundary like, heading more to the right on a Streibeck curve as revs rise (as they do)
Once again, smoother surface, lower asperities, more hydrodynamic lubrication taking place.
Friction reduction at 1700(ish) RPM is certainly 45%. down from 1.3Nm to 0.6 give or take....It is assumed that there is a single cam, with full compliment of lobes in the test rig (ambiguous, but the torque values are multiples of those on Fig 6, so there's multiples of something).
Take the 1700RPM phosphate cam, multiply it by 4 (cams), and there's a torque value of say 6nm...cam torque is being read at 850RPM according to the drawing (not detailed), so the phosphate cams at 1700 engine RPM are consuming 0.7hp...
Haha. I was thinking along the same lines, but now you spoil the fun with real numbers.
...I'm quite frankly surprised that Nissan have managed to get even a smooth idle out of the engine, let alone appreciable power out of it in the range 32-1070 RPM, which are the surface speeds that are applicable to the disk/pin speeds tested.
Makes one question just how applicable the 0.006 friction coefficient is to the engines in question at anything resembling normal engine speeds...where hydrodynamics means that surface effects of the additive are reduced to almost nothing.
It looks, smells, and quacks a bit like a 1 armed bandit test.
The paper then shifts to cam bench tests... nothing related to the above...it's two papers.
Fig 6 - smoother means less friction, who could have guessed.
Fig 8 Note the steep end of the curves is all sub 1000 RPM (I'm assuming that they are choosing "engine RPM" as the traditional cam spins half speed thing.
The PVD-DLC line appears almost flat, at quite low RPM...indicating most likely that it is essentially hydrodynamically running at that point.
The rougher surfaces appear to still be behaving boundary like, heading more to the right on a Streibeck curve as revs rise (as they do)
Once again, smoother surface, lower asperities, more hydrodynamic lubrication taking place.
Friction reduction at 1700(ish) RPM is certainly 45%. down from 1.3Nm to 0.6 give or take....It is assumed that there is a single cam, with full compliment of lobes in the test rig (ambiguous, but the torque values are multiples of those on Fig 6, so there's multiples of something).
Take the 1700RPM phosphate cam, multiply it by 4 (cams), and there's a torque value of say 6nm...cam torque is being read at 850RPM according to the drawing (not detailed), so the phosphate cams at 1700 engine RPM are consuming 0.7hp...
Haha. I was thinking along the same lines, but now you spoil the fun with real numbers.
And, of course, surprise, surprise,
trinuclear-moly friction modifier results in a lower friction coefficient even on a steel - steel contact than the ester friction modifier:
https://www.google.com/patents/WO1998026030A1?cl=en
Not to mention that trinuclear moly is an AW/EP/FM/AO additive that shows unsurpassed wear protection on all steel as well as DLC and other unconventional materials.
https://www.google.com/patents/WO1998026030A1?cl=en
Not to mention that trinuclear moly is an AW/EP/FM/AO additive that shows unsurpassed wear protection on all steel as well as DLC and other unconventional materials.
- Status
