New "Nanolube" cut engine friction by half???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Half sounds like a lot, but how much fuel is actually wasted by friction? (half of a small number is still a small number)
 
"Dr. Guojun Liu, a Chemistry professor at Queen’s University, augmented a base automobile engine oils with nanoscale polymer particles just tens of nanometers in size."

Ummm....isn't the standard particle size of molybdenum sulfide only a few nanometers?

In other news, dihydrogen monoxide exists in everything we eat or drink and is capable of killing if too much is ingested!!!!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Steiner
"Dr. Guojun Liu, a Chemistry professor at Queen’s University, augmented a base automobile engine oils with nanoscale polymer particles just tens of nanometers in size."

Ummm....isn't the standard particle size of molybdenum sulfide only a few nanometers?

In other news, dihydrogen monoxide exists in everything we eat or drink and is capable of killing if too much is ingested!!!!


omg dihydrogen monoxide is gonna kill us all!!111

just kidding. I've fooled my friends and family by using that word xD


Just I had expected, nothing new. I never really trusted Popular Science and its other cousin publications all that much...
 
Last edited:
Beware of getting sold the sizzle, did anyone test the steak?

That said, fractions and percent can really be misleading. 50 percent of .3o or .25 and so on and so on is not much, but if u can show me I will get 25 mpg out of a 318 v8 dodge engine, then u got my attention and if u would, come to my house and show me before I pay another 19 bucks for liquid do do. .IMHO, Im just saying>
 
I remember tests done many years ago and the mechanical friction loss of a I6 gas engine was ~ 4%. Therefor the major losses were from thermal losses i.e the inability to use ALL the energy in the fuel. So if I did the math correctly AND their data is perfect then a 20 mpg vehicle should see an increase of ~ 0.24 mpg which is within the variability of of tank to tank mpg measurements.
 
Last edited:
echo what Eddie just said.

Also: there are certain parts of engines (i.e. cylinder walls and oil control rings, etc.) rely on certain degree of friction in existence in order for the oil control rings/compression rings to work properly. Haphazardly throwing in wild ideas RE: out-of-this-world friction reduction inside an IC engine (particulary in the form of lubrication enhancements) isn't gonna work satisfactorily.

Kinda like those PTFE additions into motor lubricant, it's claims of benefits are questionable, and the jury is still out on the side-effects.


My 2c's worth. Torn down/blueprint enough engines to figure this out already.

Q.
 
If everything I've ever read in Popular Science were even close to predicting the future, we would all be doing UOAs on our flying cars....
 
Originally Posted By: D189379
So is there any sort of concensus on how much efficiency is lost in an engine due to friction?


No. Every engine design is different. It might surprise you to learn that many of the older low-tech pushrod engines had very low friction, and that newer high-tech DOHC engines have high friction. Basically high parts-count in an engine means high friction. Going to roller follower valve trains in the late 80's is said to have improved fuel consumption by 2%. Lighter moving parts and lower ring tensions in modern engines help offset the negatives caused by increasing parts counts. And the proliferation of hydraulically-actuated engine systems, particularly cam phasers also add to engine friction. Oil pumps must get larger to handle them, and greatly add to engine friction.
 
Whether you want to argue it or not is irrelevant.

Anything that could reduce or displace good ol' zddp is worth R&D time. If you can get a longer lasting engine or 1/4 mpg in the process, who's complaining?

The nano troll patent filing rush is on. File some and get in on the action.

It was almost a decade ago whenh ApNano started made their announces too. Now, their nanolub products are available.

There is also a movement against nano technology, and its negative affects on both the environment, the biological eco system, food chain, your health.... Nano tech could be more toxic than co2 and nox emissions. Scary future that we're creating. Hope that Pur/Brita/Zerowater add nano-filtration since I don't want to drink it. And, does anyone know where I can get a nano-gas mask?

Watch the future! The term 'nano' is already on many products that we use today from sunblock to clothes... When its toxicity is questioned publicly, it will still be in those products without the 'nano' marketing term.

"Lead acetate" is a great sweetener. Too bad I have to stick with sucralose, aspartame, or saccharin. And, you're going to let government or big business control 'nano' ?

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nanotoxicity.php
http://preventdisease.com/news/10/031110_nano_products_dangerous.shtml
http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/browse/countries/usa/
http://www.nanoandme.org/nano-products/
http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/nano/nano-facts.htm
http://www.innoresearch.net/
 
Originally Posted By: AWDfreak
Originally Posted By: Steiner
"Dr. Guojun Liu, a Chemistry professor at Queen’s University, augmented a base automobile engine oils with nanoscale polymer particles just tens of nanometers in size."

Ummm....isn't the standard particle size of molybdenum sulfide only a few nanometers?

In other news, dihydrogen monoxide exists in everything we eat or drink and is capable of killing if too much is ingested!!!!


omg dihydrogen monoxide is gonna kill us all!!111

just kidding. I've fooled my friends and family by using that word xD


Just I had expected, nothing new. I never really trusted Popular Science and its other cousin publications all that much...


Popular Mechanics was a good one, full of interesting things. i stopped reading it when i stopped reading magazines.

Ahh, memories.

Now, as to this friction business... Isnt this like PTFE?
Slick 50 wPTFE?
zMax?
Tufoil?
umm Mos2?
Would make one want to put ALL of thiose in an engine oil fill...
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: D189379
So is there any sort of concensus on how much efficiency is lost in an engine due to friction?


No. Every engine design is different. It might surprise you to learn that many of the older low-tech pushrod engines had very low friction, and that newer high-tech DOHC engines have high friction. Basically high parts-count in an engine means high friction. Going to roller follower valve trains in the late 80's is said to have improved fuel consumption by 2%. Lighter moving parts and lower ring tensions in modern engines help offset the negatives caused by increasing parts counts. And the proliferation of hydraulically-actuated engine systems, particularly cam phasers also add to engine friction. Oil pumps must get larger to handle them, and greatly add to engine friction.


Correct

I hope I'm correct here, remember reading a article several years ago on Ford's new for 1952 OHV 6cyl that replaced their flat head... Was said internal friction had been significantly reduced and the new engine "only" consumed 55Hp at something like 3800 rpms... So what a newer engine averages I dunno(I searched also with no clear cut answer), I'd guess probably half of the '52 figure...
 
Originally Posted By: BobFout
Half sounds like a lot, but how much fuel is actually wasted by friction? (half of a small number is still a small number)


This is about it.
And also what particular parts are involved/edited/singled out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Fuel Use vs Load for Gasoline Powered Generators
2
Replies
31
Views
6K
eljefino
wwillson
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Pennzoil Q&A GF-6 and GF-7 with the American Petroleum Institute (API) - Answers
2
Replies
22
Views
14K
weaponoffreedom
S
Why No Pushrod Modern 4's and V-6's?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
6K
BMWTurboDzl
AEHaas
Another "Taxi" Study: Relationship of Engine Bearing Wear and Oil Rheology 872128
17 18 19
Replies
361
Views
26K
TiGeo
redhat
This was a new one for me, '05 Suburban tracking down the noise
Replies
7
Views
2K
redhat
Back
Top