MolaKule
Staff member
My impression is that the rational for your brand and other brands of this ilk are attempting to impress the uniformed with the word, "Esters."
Friction Reducer
- Thread starter BlueOvalFitter
- Start date
- Status
Here's a few more responses, thank you for your patience.
Which API certifications, ACEA standards, or builder approvals rely on ASTM G133?
We did not make the claim that engine builders use the ASTM G133, that was an example of one of the tests we use to evaluate our competitors and our own additives.
In your question regarding esters, there are thousands of different esters. The amount of polarity and the size of the molecule is what makes this ester unique. The results and actions are really the base of most studies. When they compare different esters they can catalog different properties, we selected this ester because it works best in this application.
In this application, surface roughness is the largest factor for fluid velocity. Yes, there are many factors that contribute to fluid velocity, but this is the dependency that we find the best improvements with.
So what physical attribute of your product allows increased fluid flow in laminar or turbulent flow regimes?
Polarity, size and film strength. We always try to figure out the exact molecular interaction but it is not possible. We have discussed this in length with the top companies and chemists in the world and they can only confirm what we already know with their own results of testing. Similar to how the medical world does not know the root causes of high blood pressure, they only know how to affect it. Some of the gains we are achieving can only be studied and documented until future technology and methods become available.
The entire sentence on the website reads “Friction Reducer is great for keeping everything running smoothly, efficiently, and up to government standards”, meaning your vehicle (or equipment, automobile, etc.) will run smoothly, efficiently and up to government standards. I’m sorry if you misunderstood or thought it implied something else. While our products do meet and exceed all government safety and shipping standards that we would like them to, the sentence in question is referring to the user’s equipment.
As far as your impression of our company goes, I apologize you got the wrong impression. We impress people with our products, not our verbiage.
Which API certifications, ACEA standards, or builder approvals rely on ASTM G133?
We did not make the claim that engine builders use the ASTM G133, that was an example of one of the tests we use to evaluate our competitors and our own additives.
In your question regarding esters, there are thousands of different esters. The amount of polarity and the size of the molecule is what makes this ester unique. The results and actions are really the base of most studies. When they compare different esters they can catalog different properties, we selected this ester because it works best in this application.
In this application, surface roughness is the largest factor for fluid velocity. Yes, there are many factors that contribute to fluid velocity, but this is the dependency that we find the best improvements with.
So what physical attribute of your product allows increased fluid flow in laminar or turbulent flow regimes?
Polarity, size and film strength. We always try to figure out the exact molecular interaction but it is not possible. We have discussed this in length with the top companies and chemists in the world and they can only confirm what we already know with their own results of testing. Similar to how the medical world does not know the root causes of high blood pressure, they only know how to affect it. Some of the gains we are achieving can only be studied and documented until future technology and methods become available.
The entire sentence on the website reads “Friction Reducer is great for keeping everything running smoothly, efficiently, and up to government standards”, meaning your vehicle (or equipment, automobile, etc.) will run smoothly, efficiently and up to government standards. I’m sorry if you misunderstood or thought it implied something else. While our products do meet and exceed all government safety and shipping standards that we would like them to, the sentence in question is referring to the user’s equipment.
As far as your impression of our company goes, I apologize you got the wrong impression. We impress people with our products, not our verbiage.
Originally Posted By: SpencerHSS
We impress people with our products, not our verbiage.
If I were to use this product, what would I look for specifically to be impressed? What would (or could) I see that would tell me it works?
We impress people with our products, not our verbiage.
If I were to use this product, what would I look for specifically to be impressed? What would (or could) I see that would tell me it works?
Originally Posted By: SpencerHSS
Which API certifications, ACEA standards, or builder approvals rely on ASTM G133?
We did not make the claim that engine builders use the ASTM G133, that was an example of one of the tests we use to evaluate our competitors and our own additives.
Okay. The reason I asked was because if you're comparing Rotella, for instance, with no additive to Rotella with your additive at the recommended dose, I'm wondering why this test was chosen rather than something more germaine to motor oil testing (as per ACEA, API, or OEM testing), not to mention more repeatable. As I've posted here before, this is no more than a screening test for oils, and is not part of any standard test for API, ILSAC, ACEA or OEM standards, licensing, or approvals.
No one uses ASTM G133 to compare one oil to another outside of marketing materials. And even when using it in marketing materials, they tend to get slapped down hard here for their efforts, as in this thread.
Which API certifications, ACEA standards, or builder approvals rely on ASTM G133?
We did not make the claim that engine builders use the ASTM G133, that was an example of one of the tests we use to evaluate our competitors and our own additives.
Okay. The reason I asked was because if you're comparing Rotella, for instance, with no additive to Rotella with your additive at the recommended dose, I'm wondering why this test was chosen rather than something more germaine to motor oil testing (as per ACEA, API, or OEM testing), not to mention more repeatable. As I've posted here before, this is no more than a screening test for oils, and is not part of any standard test for API, ILSAC, ACEA or OEM standards, licensing, or approvals.
No one uses ASTM G133 to compare one oil to another outside of marketing materials. And even when using it in marketing materials, they tend to get slapped down hard here for their efforts, as in this thread.
If I were to use this product, what would I look for specifically to be impressed? What would (or could) I see that would tell me it works?
By reducing friction inside the engine it reduces wear, noise, vibration and heat. Quieter/smoother running engine, cooler operating temperatures and a bump in MPG. Please refer to product page or other comments in the first page of this thread for other benefits and effects.
Which API certifications, ACEA standards, or builder approvals rely on ASTM G133?
We did not make the claim that engine builders use the ASTM G133, that was an example of one of the tests we use to evaluate our competitors and our own additives.
Okay. The reason I asked was because if you're comparing Rotella, for instance, with no additive to Rotella with your additive at the recommended dose, I'm wondering why this test was chosen rather than something more germaine to motor oil testing (as per ACEA, API, or OEM testing), not to mention more repeatable. As I've posted here before, this is no more than a screening test for oils, and is not part of any standard test for API, ILSAC, ACEA or OEM standards, licensing, or approvals.
No one uses ASTM G133 to compare one oil to another outside of marketing materials. And even when using it in marketing materials, they tend to get slapped down hard here for their efforts, as in this thread.
The test I mentioned was not us against Rotella, it was one of the tests we ran on our own product to see how well it reduced wear scar. I would not consider this marketing material, I listed one test as an example for a previous question: What happens when you dilute the AW additives in commercially formulated motor oil? I never intended to claim ASTM G133 is a standard test for API, ILSAC, ACEA or OEM standards, as it is not; it was simply the first test result I was given and posted for the additive's ability when mixed with an oil. Not really a slap down, more of a picking apart words and splitting hairs session than anything else. My offer for setting up a phone call still stands for anyone interested, I'll ask them to gather all the information they have, we will set a time up and they would be more than happy to go over it with you.
By reducing friction inside the engine it reduces wear, noise, vibration and heat. Quieter/smoother running engine, cooler operating temperatures and a bump in MPG. Please refer to product page or other comments in the first page of this thread for other benefits and effects.
Which API certifications, ACEA standards, or builder approvals rely on ASTM G133?
We did not make the claim that engine builders use the ASTM G133, that was an example of one of the tests we use to evaluate our competitors and our own additives.
Okay. The reason I asked was because if you're comparing Rotella, for instance, with no additive to Rotella with your additive at the recommended dose, I'm wondering why this test was chosen rather than something more germaine to motor oil testing (as per ACEA, API, or OEM testing), not to mention more repeatable. As I've posted here before, this is no more than a screening test for oils, and is not part of any standard test for API, ILSAC, ACEA or OEM standards, licensing, or approvals.
No one uses ASTM G133 to compare one oil to another outside of marketing materials. And even when using it in marketing materials, they tend to get slapped down hard here for their efforts, as in this thread.
The test I mentioned was not us against Rotella, it was one of the tests we ran on our own product to see how well it reduced wear scar. I would not consider this marketing material, I listed one test as an example for a previous question: What happens when you dilute the AW additives in commercially formulated motor oil? I never intended to claim ASTM G133 is a standard test for API, ILSAC, ACEA or OEM standards, as it is not; it was simply the first test result I was given and posted for the additive's ability when mixed with an oil. Not really a slap down, more of a picking apart words and splitting hairs session than anything else. My offer for setting up a phone call still stands for anyone interested, I'll ask them to gather all the information they have, we will set a time up and they would be more than happy to go over it with you.
Checking back on this thread, I apologize for the "not really a slap down" comment, in my view/browser it didnt show your "this" as a hyperlink to another thread, I thought you meant this particular thread. Sorry for the semi-snarky comment Garak, you know how you have to put your foot down on here or else you'll get walked over. I do appreciate your guy's feedback, especially seeing as I'm in a position of making sure all content and text is true and easy to understand on the site. I didnt write the page for this particular product, but your guy's insight is helpful.
Again, I was watching another episode of CAR FIX on the Velocity channel this week and there it was again, FRICTION REDUCER. So, as stated on here before, they only promote it because it most likely only pays the bills.
Another product they push a lot is ZMAX.
Another product they push a lot is ZMAX.
No problem. I always use a hyperlink like that, so I don't make a mess of the thread formatting with a long link.
In any event, what I'm getting at is that the test in question doesn't show that one oil (or oil and additive combination) shows more AW capabilities or FM capabilities than another oil (or oil and additive combination). It's not part of standardized motor oil testing and indicates nothing about wear or fuel economy.
In any event, what I'm getting at is that the test in question doesn't show that one oil (or oil and additive combination) shows more AW capabilities or FM capabilities than another oil (or oil and additive combination). It's not part of standardized motor oil testing and indicates nothing about wear or fuel economy.
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: SpencerHSS
In your question regarding esters, there are thousands of different esters. The amount of polarity and the size of the molecule is what makes this ester unique. The results and actions are really the base of most studies. When they compare different esters they can catalog different properties, we selected this ester because it works best in this application.
In this application, surface roughness is the largest factor for fluid velocity. Yes, there are many factors that contribute to fluid velocity, but this is the dependency that we find the best improvements with.
What application and what dependency? Throwing out words without context doesn't help a discussion.
I am very familiar with various esters as I use them in formulations.
And we have an ester chemist here on BITOG that designed esters, so be careful with your claims.
Again, tri-octanoate/decanoate ester of trimethylolpropane is not unique. It is used in most Full Synthetic motor oils and Blends to improve performance in various areas. But too much ester and you affect seal swell (over-swell) which you neglected to discuss.
How can you claim any increased fluid flow with the simple addition of an ester to a motor oil? One would have to put a flow meter in the oil stream of a pressurized system with separate runs on the additized and un-additized oil. I don't see any of those tests done to support your claim.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
So what physical attribute of your product allows increased fluid flow in laminar or turbulent flow regimes?
Originally Posted By: SpencerHSS
Polarity, size and film strength. We always try to figure out the exact molecular interaction but it is not possible. We have discussed this in length with the top companies and chemists in the world and they can only confirm what we already know with their own results of testing. Similar to how the medical world does not know the root causes of high blood pressure, they only know how to affect it. Some of the gains we are achieving can only be studied and documented until future technology and methods become available.
Noe of your answers are satisfactory from a tribological point of view.
Film strength has to do with the resistance of the film to shearing under pressure in surface interactions.
Molecular size and bonding is what defines esters and hydrocarbons so your answer is Non sequitur.
The only thing you left out was Surface Tension, but you never introduced ST as a possible answer. The surface tension of an ester is only a couple of mN/m less than motor oils, so you cannot prove or claim increased flow by increasing the ester content by a small percentage of the total fluid volume.
Originally Posted By: SpencerHSS
My offer for setting up a phone call still stands for anyone interested, I'll ask them to gather all the information they have, we will set a time up and they would be more than happy to go over it with you.
Thanks, but you and your company are the ones making the claims in the public domain so let's keep the Q&A going here.
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/guide/blood-pressure-causes
In your question regarding esters, there are thousands of different esters. The amount of polarity and the size of the molecule is what makes this ester unique. The results and actions are really the base of most studies. When they compare different esters they can catalog different properties, we selected this ester because it works best in this application.
In this application, surface roughness is the largest factor for fluid velocity. Yes, there are many factors that contribute to fluid velocity, but this is the dependency that we find the best improvements with.
What application and what dependency? Throwing out words without context doesn't help a discussion.
I am very familiar with various esters as I use them in formulations.
And we have an ester chemist here on BITOG that designed esters, so be careful with your claims.
Again, tri-octanoate/decanoate ester of trimethylolpropane is not unique. It is used in most Full Synthetic motor oils and Blends to improve performance in various areas. But too much ester and you affect seal swell (over-swell) which you neglected to discuss.
How can you claim any increased fluid flow with the simple addition of an ester to a motor oil? One would have to put a flow meter in the oil stream of a pressurized system with separate runs on the additized and un-additized oil. I don't see any of those tests done to support your claim.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
So what physical attribute of your product allows increased fluid flow in laminar or turbulent flow regimes?
Originally Posted By: SpencerHSS
Polarity, size and film strength. We always try to figure out the exact molecular interaction but it is not possible. We have discussed this in length with the top companies and chemists in the world and they can only confirm what we already know with their own results of testing. Similar to how the medical world does not know the root causes of high blood pressure, they only know how to affect it. Some of the gains we are achieving can only be studied and documented until future technology and methods become available.
Noe of your answers are satisfactory from a tribological point of view.
Film strength has to do with the resistance of the film to shearing under pressure in surface interactions.
Molecular size and bonding is what defines esters and hydrocarbons so your answer is Non sequitur.
The only thing you left out was Surface Tension, but you never introduced ST as a possible answer. The surface tension of an ester is only a couple of mN/m less than motor oils, so you cannot prove or claim increased flow by increasing the ester content by a small percentage of the total fluid volume.
Originally Posted By: SpencerHSS
My offer for setting up a phone call still stands for anyone interested, I'll ask them to gather all the information they have, we will set a time up and they would be more than happy to go over it with you.
Thanks, but you and your company are the ones making the claims in the public domain so let's keep the Q&A going here.
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/guide/blood-pressure-causes
Last edited:
***** x 100 at webmd.com link
I'll get back with the rest of the answers here as quickly as I can, but after checking out your link Molakule I'd like to pull a quote from it:
"What Causes High Blood Pressure?
The exact causes of high blood pressure are not known, but several factors and conditions may play a role in its development"
And then they list things that affect it (i.e.: smoking, obesity, salt), which is almost word for word from the response I wrote...
Looks like today we have a brief airing (6/24) on Two Guy's Garage on MAV TV for the family of products and another airing for Everyday Diesel Treatment. Tomorrow (6/25) on TruckU on Velocity we have an airing of Stiction Eliminator and another for the family of products. There are unfortunately no more Friction Reducer airings left in this season. We had Jared Zimmerman from CarFix in our warehouse shooting an infomercial Monday and Tuesday of this week, that will be airing everyday starting in a week or two, but I do not believe it talks specifically about FR.
I have no problem continuing the conversation here. I'll go hand your questions off to the other guys. Thanks for your time guys.
"What Causes High Blood Pressure?
The exact causes of high blood pressure are not known, but several factors and conditions may play a role in its development"
And then they list things that affect it (i.e.: smoking, obesity, salt), which is almost word for word from the response I wrote...
Looks like today we have a brief airing (6/24) on Two Guy's Garage on MAV TV for the family of products and another airing for Everyday Diesel Treatment. Tomorrow (6/25) on TruckU on Velocity we have an airing of Stiction Eliminator and another for the family of products. There are unfortunately no more Friction Reducer airings left in this season. We had Jared Zimmerman from CarFix in our warehouse shooting an infomercial Monday and Tuesday of this week, that will be airing everyday starting in a week or two, but I do not believe it talks specifically about FR.
I have no problem continuing the conversation here. I'll go hand your questions off to the other guys. Thanks for your time guys.
Originally Posted By: SpencerHSS
I'll get back with the rest of the answers here as quickly as I can, but after checking out your link Molakule I'd like to pull a quote from it:
"What Causes High Blood Pressure?
The exact causes of high blood pressure are not known, but several factors and conditions may play a role in its development"
And then they list things that affect it (i.e.: smoking, obesity, salt), which is almost word for word from the response I wrote...
Looks like today we have a brief airing (6/24) on Two Guy's Garage on MAV TV for the family of products and another airing for Everyday Diesel Treatment. Tomorrow (6/25) on TruckU on Velocity we have an airing of Stiction Eliminator and another for the family of products. There are unfortunately no more Friction Reducer airings left in this season. We had Jared Zimmerman from CarFix in our warehouse shooting an infomercial Monday and Tuesday of this week, that will be airing everyday starting in a week or two, but I do not believe it talks specifically about FR.
I have no problem continuing the conversation here. I'll go hand your questions off to the other guys. Thanks for your time guys.
Spencer, as you know I am the OP of this post. I watch the Velocity channel religiously. And, CAR FIX is where I have seen it recommended.
When I started this post it was with the intent to show that a new snake oil was being advertised and wanted to know if anyone had tried it. There are only (3) additives that I believe in;
1)BG44K
2)Chevron Techron
3)Lubro Moly Engine Oil Saver
Everything else out there, IMO, IS snake oil!
Are you one of the "ACTUAL" engineers that helped invent this product? Do you have some kind of testing that you have documented showing the results of any before and after testing? Or, is this product being pushed by CAR FIX to pay their bills?
Make me a believer in your product! If you can do that then, I will use it and stand on the highest mountain (I live in La. so I would have to travel to find one
) and shout out how good FRICTION REDUCER is.
I'll get back with the rest of the answers here as quickly as I can, but after checking out your link Molakule I'd like to pull a quote from it:
"What Causes High Blood Pressure?
The exact causes of high blood pressure are not known, but several factors and conditions may play a role in its development"
And then they list things that affect it (i.e.: smoking, obesity, salt), which is almost word for word from the response I wrote...
Looks like today we have a brief airing (6/24) on Two Guy's Garage on MAV TV for the family of products and another airing for Everyday Diesel Treatment. Tomorrow (6/25) on TruckU on Velocity we have an airing of Stiction Eliminator and another for the family of products. There are unfortunately no more Friction Reducer airings left in this season. We had Jared Zimmerman from CarFix in our warehouse shooting an infomercial Monday and Tuesday of this week, that will be airing everyday starting in a week or two, but I do not believe it talks specifically about FR.
I have no problem continuing the conversation here. I'll go hand your questions off to the other guys. Thanks for your time guys.
Spencer, as you know I am the OP of this post. I watch the Velocity channel religiously. And, CAR FIX is where I have seen it recommended.
When I started this post it was with the intent to show that a new snake oil was being advertised and wanted to know if anyone had tried it. There are only (3) additives that I believe in;
1)BG44K
2)Chevron Techron
3)Lubro Moly Engine Oil Saver
Everything else out there, IMO, IS snake oil!
Are you one of the "ACTUAL" engineers that helped invent this product? Do you have some kind of testing that you have documented showing the results of any before and after testing? Or, is this product being pushed by CAR FIX to pay their bills?
Make me a believer in your product! If you can do that then, I will use it and stand on the highest mountain (I live in La. so I would have to travel to find one
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: SpencerHSS
Looks like today we have a brief airing (6/24) on Two Guy's Garage on MAV TV for the family of products and another airing for Everyday Diesel Treatment. Tomorrow (6/25) on TruckU on Velocity we have an airing of Stiction Eliminator and another for the family of products. There are unfortunately no more Friction Reducer airings left in this season. We had Jared Zimmerman from CarFix in our warehouse shooting an infomercial Monday and Tuesday of this week, that will be airing everyday starting in a week or two, but I do not believe it talks specifically about FR.
I have no problem continuing the conversation here. I'll go hand your questions off to the other guys. Thanks for your time guys.
Okay, but let's stick to the technical aspects of the product.
I for one am not interested in your free advertising. Please address the technical comments and questions with technical responses and let's drop the advertising.
Looks like today we have a brief airing (6/24) on Two Guy's Garage on MAV TV for the family of products and another airing for Everyday Diesel Treatment. Tomorrow (6/25) on TruckU on Velocity we have an airing of Stiction Eliminator and another for the family of products. There are unfortunately no more Friction Reducer airings left in this season. We had Jared Zimmerman from CarFix in our warehouse shooting an infomercial Monday and Tuesday of this week, that will be airing everyday starting in a week or two, but I do not believe it talks specifically about FR.
I have no problem continuing the conversation here. I'll go hand your questions off to the other guys. Thanks for your time guys.
Okay, but let's stick to the technical aspects of the product.
I for one am not interested in your free advertising. Please address the technical comments and questions with technical responses and let's drop the advertising.
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
More like a Zmax fiasco.
I see two questions from your latest responses.
What application and what dependency?
In that last sentence I was referring to the application for the product, so the addition of this additive to the inside of a gasoline or diesel engine. The dependency in that statement was intended to mean "surface roughness" used in the previous sentence.
Your other question was How can you claim any increased fluid flow with the simple addition of an ester to a motor oil?
This product isn’t the simple addition of an ester, it has other propriety additives to enhance its performance properties, which are protected under trade laws (Defend Trade Secrets Act, etc.). Friction Reducer uses the ester to attach itself to engine internals where plain engine oil would drain and come off of while parked, causing damaging harsh cold starts. With the ester holding itself and other added propriety additives to those engine internals, the engine is better protected from cold starts, engine oil being pumped will initially reach the rest of the engine faster because the engine oil travels across the attached ester layer faster than it would an unlubricated engine component.
Did you have any other questions to add for now that you would like me to get answered?
What application and what dependency?
In that last sentence I was referring to the application for the product, so the addition of this additive to the inside of a gasoline or diesel engine. The dependency in that statement was intended to mean "surface roughness" used in the previous sentence.
Your other question was How can you claim any increased fluid flow with the simple addition of an ester to a motor oil?
This product isn’t the simple addition of an ester, it has other propriety additives to enhance its performance properties, which are protected under trade laws (Defend Trade Secrets Act, etc.). Friction Reducer uses the ester to attach itself to engine internals where plain engine oil would drain and come off of while parked, causing damaging harsh cold starts. With the ester holding itself and other added propriety additives to those engine internals, the engine is better protected from cold starts, engine oil being pumped will initially reach the rest of the engine faster because the engine oil travels across the attached ester layer faster than it would an unlubricated engine component.
Did you have any other questions to add for now that you would like me to get answered?
MolaKule
Staff member
Originally Posted By: SpencerHSS
Your other question was How can you claim any increased fluid flow with the simple addition of an ester to a motor oil?
This product isn’t the simple addition of an ester, it has other propriety additives to enhance its performance properties, which are protected under trade laws (Defend Trade Secrets Act, etc.). Friction Reducer uses the ester to attach itself to engine internals where plain engine oil would drain and come off of while parked, causing damaging harsh cold starts. With the ester holding itself and other added propriety additives to those engine internals, the engine is better protected from cold starts, engine oil being pumped will initially reach the rest of the engine faster because the engine oil travels across the attached ester layer faster than it would [in] an unlubricated engine component.
Right, I am not asking you to disclose any proprietary information.
I am not sure what you mean by, unlubricated engine component. I don't think an unlubricated engine component would tarry long.
Speaking in general terms, you have possibly some type of nanoparticle suspended in the ester.
I have to say, the "better or faster oil flow" statement still begs the question: "What physical explanation or experimental result produces any proof of your claim?"
On its face, the comment: "...because the engine oil travels across the attached ester layer faster than it would.." seems suspect and doesn't answer the question.
An attached layer of anything in a pipe or channel or orifice assumes the Inside Diameter of the orifice is reduced and thus flow velocity would decrease, unless of course, you have a specially shaped channel such as a diffuser or other specially shaped stream-wise (aerodynamic) modifier.
And any increased flow comes at the expense of higher pressure, which means more energy is required to increase the fluid stream velocity.
The bottom line is, I don't think you have shown any physical evidence, in terms of fluid dynamics or lubrication engineering, to support your claims.
Now looking at the "macro" view, you could attempt to show some efficacy by running an instrumented engine on a dyno with various additized and un-additized off-the-shelf engines oils, with a complete flush after each run. Even a "motorized" engine might show some interesting data.
Some interesting comparative data points would be:
1. Oil and coolant temperatures as a function of time,
2. Torque and HP curves.
With all due respect, unless you present some valid physical explanations or machine data, you are effectively, "Blowing Smoke."
Your other question was How can you claim any increased fluid flow with the simple addition of an ester to a motor oil?
This product isn’t the simple addition of an ester, it has other propriety additives to enhance its performance properties, which are protected under trade laws (Defend Trade Secrets Act, etc.). Friction Reducer uses the ester to attach itself to engine internals where plain engine oil would drain and come off of while parked, causing damaging harsh cold starts. With the ester holding itself and other added propriety additives to those engine internals, the engine is better protected from cold starts, engine oil being pumped will initially reach the rest of the engine faster because the engine oil travels across the attached ester layer faster than it would [in] an unlubricated engine component.
Right, I am not asking you to disclose any proprietary information.
I am not sure what you mean by, unlubricated engine component. I don't think an unlubricated engine component would tarry long.
Speaking in general terms, you have possibly some type of nanoparticle suspended in the ester.
I have to say, the "better or faster oil flow" statement still begs the question: "What physical explanation or experimental result produces any proof of your claim?"
On its face, the comment: "...because the engine oil travels across the attached ester layer faster than it would.." seems suspect and doesn't answer the question.
An attached layer of anything in a pipe or channel or orifice assumes the Inside Diameter of the orifice is reduced and thus flow velocity would decrease, unless of course, you have a specially shaped channel such as a diffuser or other specially shaped stream-wise (aerodynamic) modifier.
And any increased flow comes at the expense of higher pressure, which means more energy is required to increase the fluid stream velocity.
The bottom line is, I don't think you have shown any physical evidence, in terms of fluid dynamics or lubrication engineering, to support your claims.
Now looking at the "macro" view, you could attempt to show some efficacy by running an instrumented engine on a dyno with various additized and un-additized off-the-shelf engines oils, with a complete flush after each run. Even a "motorized" engine might show some interesting data.
Some interesting comparative data points would be:
1. Oil and coolant temperatures as a function of time,
2. Torque and HP curves.
With all due respect, unless you present some valid physical explanations or machine data, you are effectively, "Blowing Smoke."
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Addendum:
Quote:
And any increased flow comes at the expense of higher pressure, which means more energy is required to increase the fluid stream velocity.
Should have said (editor timeout caught me):
"Furthermore, any increased flow velocity would come at the expense of higher pressure, which means more energy is required to increase the fluid stream velocity.
The Bernoulli equations and Poiseuille's Law just do not support your claims."
Quote:
And any increased flow comes at the expense of higher pressure, which means more energy is required to increase the fluid stream velocity.
Should have said (editor timeout caught me):
"Furthermore, any increased flow velocity would come at the expense of higher pressure, which means more energy is required to increase the fluid stream velocity.
The Bernoulli equations and Poiseuille's Law just do not support your claims."
Last edited:
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
Now looking at the "macro" view, you could attempt to show some efficacy by running an instrumented engine on a dyno with various additized and un-additized off-the-shelf engines oils, with a complete flush after each run. Even a "motorized" engine might show some interesting data.
Some interesting comparative data points would be:
1. Oil and coolant temperatures as a function of time,
2. Torque and HP curves.
3. flow velocity of oil.
Now looking at the "macro" view, you could attempt to show some efficacy by running an instrumented engine on a dyno with various additized and un-additized off-the-shelf engines oils, with a complete flush after each run. Even a "motorized" engine might show some interesting data.
Some interesting comparative data points would be:
1. Oil and coolant temperatures as a function of time,
2. Torque and HP curves.
3. flow velocity of oil.
- Status
