Technology Disrupter may reduce US oil demand 10%

A nanotechnology lubrication additive (2 oz. per quart) reduces the metal coefficient of friction. Many results show an increase in fuel mileage and increase in torque. In the smaller quart size, $30 treats two mid-sized cars. For average commuters or truckers trying to cut fuel cost, the ROI is measured in days.

Could a technology Disrupter reduce US Oil Demand?

The direct sales product known as MC2 has set up a fund-raising program for a Veterans organization Veterans to Farmers. It provides the unique discount for buyers and raises money for a non-profit. Farmers have been showing increased interest in saving fuel cost as the price of oil rises. The discount site with ASTM Independent test results data is:

https://www.metalconditionersquared.net/veterans

In theory, if oil prices rise, would people seek out new technologies to make old and new vehicles more efficient to save money? This might in turn reduce the demand on oil.  

A nanotechnology additive applied to any lubrication vastly reduces the coefficient of friction on moving parts. In a typical car, tractor or truck it increases mileage that vary from 6% to 18%. In addition, there is documented increase in horsepower and reduced oil temperature. Most fleets used it to reduce wear and extend the life of lubricated moving parts.

On the east coast, it appears that this product has been used for two years and is very available for self-serve semi-truck maintenance garages. Estimated over 50,000 trucks. One state tested and applied the technology fleet wide. Another DOT district did the same. Cities and counties are also testing or using. My local city of Aurora is conducting a fleet-wide test for trucks with very routine routes. They are also conducing oil analysis tests on every truck for several oil changes. Preliminary results are very positive for not only fuel, but for reduced wear.

My company is ordering the 5 gallon to add 2 oz. to each quart of oil for our fleet. Based on multiple interstate trips to the same destination, over 150 miles each direction, we experienced a solid 14% improvement in gas for a Chevy SUV. A Dodge Challenger was dyno tested to show significant increased horsepower and a solid 22% increase in fuel. The Crown Victoria with 200,000 miles increased just under 9%. The 5 gallon (rather than single quart) cost roughly $16.00 a quart. One quart treats two average mid-sized cars. Between our industrial,  trucks, tractors, cars, we plan to treat over 20 of them. Using a sound dB level meter, the noise level reduced around 5dB. On my Honda Lawnmower, the sound level dropped to where I can listen to music on earbuds at a mid-level volume. The test before and after on a 15 HP 220vac electric generator indicated over 35% increase per gallon. 

Farm tractors and equipment have also reported more efficiency. Sometimes allowing a 2nd implement to be added  so a field is covered once instead of twice. Several semi-truck fleets have reported fuel savings of 2 mpg plus more torque for large rigs. I ordered the Veterans to Farmers fund raising site and received a discount. It also provided a donation to that non-profit.

ASTM test show the additive does not alter the lubrication. It only treats metal by adding a nano layer of rare-earth materials on the surfaces. Nanotechnology is not an oil, detergent, or old style chemical. We have tested it along with many of our friends. We know that hot rod groups such as Colorado Street Outlaws are also using it with the same fund-raising program. 

Weather anyone buys this or not, if technologies reduce the fuel usage at an economic level, would the demand for oil drop significantly? Significantly enough to make a difference in supply and demand? Many Americans buy SUV for the space or other reasons and claim they don't care about the mileage. But, will they care as gas rises to $4.00 or $5.00 a gallon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Careful @Tesla3D , this is bordering on advertising.  I'll allow it for now since it doesn't seem off topic for this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Engine components are designed to avoid metal-on-metal contact, that being what  causes engine wear.  Thus, the metal coefficient of friction shouldn't matter, and I'm skeptical of this claim.  To be fair, limited metal-on-metal happens: engine start-up, the brief moment of zero velocity when a piston reaches top dead center, possibly cam-to-valve contact, etc.  I doubt it's a significant component of engine friction though. 

Most of your friction losses should be caused by oil viscosity.  That's how oil works: two components are in relative motion with a layer of fluid trapped between them.  The faster the relative motion, the thicker the fluid layer necessary to handle the fluid shear.  If you design your machine correctly and run it continuously, there can be effectively zero metal-on-metal contact and, therefore, effectively zero wear. 

Of course, my opinion is based on undergraduate level fluid dynamics.  I'll happily defer to someone with more advanced training or experience in engine design. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone getting that Snakeoil feeling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feeling they duped at ASTM, Cummings Trucking, Specialty Equipment Marketing Association, ….?  New technology isn't for everyone.  The origins of the term "snake oil" for the younger generation is a derogatory phrase often associated with race that trace back to the latter half of the 19th century. Personally, I resemble your anxious feeling.  I am a sceptic  on everything. Once I took the time and talked with experienced professionals, I still had to personally witness dyno test myself. God Bless the skeptic, because I be one of them!

RE: Engine components are designed to avoid metal-on-metal contact, that being what  causes engine wear.  Thus, the metal coefficient of friction shouldn't matter

I presume you highly disagree with this and many other articles that are dedicated to lower meal coefficient:

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/new-coating-metals-could-cut-engine-wear

 If your theory is correct, are maintenance staff from car fleet managers to Licensed Merchant Mariners for the US Navy just wasting time and money conducting Oil Sample Spectroscopy and other test to manage internal wear? There are a lot of people feel the surface does matter.

I am also an engineer. If you find any actual test, results,  or articles to support your theory, I am very willing to consider it. I have been associated with Oil Sample Spectroscopy and other analysis since its early use during the Cold War. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 7/5/2018 at 9:39 AM, Tesla3D said:

I presume you highly disagree with this and many other articles that are dedicated to lower meal coefficient:

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/new-coating-metals-could-cut-engine-wear

 If your theory is correct, are maintenance staff from car fleet managers to Licensed Merchant Mariners for the US Navy just wasting time and money conducting Oil Sample Spectroscopy and other test to manage internal wear? There are a lot of people feel the surface does matter.

The claim in this thread is that reduced metal coefficient of friction will reduce oil consumption.  Unless engine fuel efficiency drops about 20% by end of life due to engine wear only, I don't see how that's possible. 

Fleet managers do oil sample spectroscopy, and it works.  The key point is that they're not necessarily doing spectroscopy to increase fuel economy; they're doing it to minimize engine wear, which maximizes the life of expensive capital equipment.  Thus, the claim that a metal friction modifier improves fuel economy by 10% is unrelated to the efficacy of oil sample spectroscopy. 

I would be surprised if metal-on-metal friction accounted for a 10% fuel economy loss.  I'd be even more surprised if metal-on-metal friction could be reduced that much.  A breakdown of engine losses would be a good starting point for anyone making this claim. 

 

Edited by mthebold
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

Let's remember that the purpose of oil sampling is to determine the level of bearing materials being propagated into the oil.  That tells the fleet managers that that particular truck/machine is running well or that the bearings are wearing out.  The purpose of the bearing is to introduce a soft metal in between the hardened pieces, for example the bearing between the connecting rod and the crankshaft.  You want the bearing material to wear, as that saves the rest of the machine.  When the metal is found in the oil, you know to take the machine out of service and overhaul, by simply replacing the bearings.  For those of you who are not familiar with engine builds, the bearings are "sleeve bearings" that are flat bands of material, typically copper based, cut with an oil port and groove in them, to introduce a thin film of oil between the surfaces. Those engines do not use ball or roller bearings, as the need is to provide the greatest possible bearing surface to distribute the loads. 

And yes, the whole idea of lube oil development is to find the exact balance of viscosity at starting and operating temperature, the ability to contain and transmit loads through the oil film, the ability to maintain the film characteristics without deterioration, and the ability to keep the bearing material off the hard metal crankshaft by keeping that film of oil constantly in place.  So, yes, properly done, an engine experiences essentially zero wear while running in design loads and temperatures, which is why you see these big marine diesels still running fine on the original bearings forty years later! 

Also keep in mind that easily 80% if not more of engine wear is on start-up, where the engine and the oil is cold.  Another good reason for extensive pre-heating before starting.  Cheers.

Edited by Jan van Eck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites