HMW polyisobutylene

GMorg · Mar 1, 2006

I have been using a fuel additive made by GTA. It is a very, very high molecular weight polyisobutylene that came out of jet fuel anti-misting research. It is much higher molecular weight PIB than what is found in 2-stroke oils or in gear oils. It is actually higher MW than is found in chewing gum and carpet adhesive. I am beginning to like this stuff more and more.

I am absolutely convinced that this stuff does NOTHING for highway driving. However I am impressed with throttle responsiveness and city mileage. The problem is these two parameters are very subjective and difficult to measure.

Has anyone here used it before? I have found a few references here to PIB, but they seem to all refer to 2-stroke oils or to a detergent variation.

I also think that manufacturer is slightly off on the mechanism of action. Anyone have any input.

bruce381 · Mar 1, 2006

what MW is the one you are using?
bruce

GMorg · Mar 1, 2006

My understanding is that the mean MW starts out at 7.2 Megadaltons. I presume that during preparation the mean would have to be sheared down some. The final prep is still the consistancy of snot .. thick gooy snot that is.

TallPaul · Mar 1, 2006

Won't the snot clogg the injectors or does it dissole in the gasoline?

GMorg · Mar 1, 2006

Once diluted in gasoline, it flows well. I suppose that a good fuel injector cleaner may be useful BEFORE you start using it (I am guessing though). It gets used in the parts per million range. It is routinely used in jet fuel to prevent explosions during those abrupt stops that occasionaly occur (ie. crashes). It is also use in variety of cutting tool lubricants to prevent misting.

bruce381 · Mar 2, 2006

"MW starts out at 7.2 Megadaltons'???

huh is thata funny ha ha?? I asked a question to better answer whatever you are asking.
I use the type of PIB I think you are talking about so what do you need?
bruce

GMorg · Mar 2, 2006

Bruce,
Thanks for the interest. I don't understand the comedy reference (not offended, just confused). All long polymers that I use are sheared by mixing, pipetting, pouring ect. I would think that PIB would do the same and therefore the final mean MW after dissolution and packaging is likely to less than 7.2 Mdaltons. The starting material is marketed as "Viscon". It is not exotic. Not even as a fuel additive. However, to my knowledge it is not used in gasoline engines at this MW.

But anyway, GTA is selling this stuff as a fuel additive. The idea is that it prevent the smallest droplets from forming during carburation/injection. This phenomenon is very well characterized. I have been using the stuff, as sold, as a gasoline additive. I think that I am seeing an improvement in city mileage and the engine "feels" peppier. I have NOT seen any effect on highway mileage. However, the manufacturer suggest that highway mileage is should not be affected. GTA suggests that the product is only useful under load and during throttle changes.

I was curious if anyone here had experience with the product. From my current observations, I think that it may be useful. I also know that I don't have enough data to KNOW that it is useful. I am just looking for the other opinions.

andyd · Mar 3, 2006

I bought a qt of the pink glop to help lower NOx into passing range for my 282k miles 528e. I lowered Nox about 60% using it combined with a new O2 sensor, plugs, top cylinder de-carbonization; water, then Seafoam. I also used high test gas and an Italian tuneup just prior to the re-test. Because of the shotgun approach, I dont know which was most effective. I intend to use the rest of the GTA, next smog test in August.

Granted, I wasnt tracking MPG, but I think I would have noticed a 35% gain. I didnt notice anything spectacular. I think any gain in MPG would be way offset by its cost + shipping.

GMorg · Mar 3, 2006

Andyd,

Thanks for chiming in. I think that I am seeing at least 5% increase in mileage (maybe up to 10%). I am running a tank with PIB, a rinse tank, and then an assumed PIB free tank - in rotation. However, my routes are not routine. One good hill (mountain) can dramaticly affect the fuel consumption on a tank. I am also confounded with weather, stop-lights, and season. I am going to continue to collect data and see if a trend forms. The means (since Sept 05) for the rotation above are 21.9, 20.5, 19.6 mpg respectively. What's impressed me though is that there is little-to-no soot left on the plugs for the PIB tankfulls - visually - I can't tell the difference between the rinse and PIB free tanks. I quit looking at the plugs in Nov. I have also noticed that I have do adjust my driving habits between the tanks to prevent ramming my garage door. PIB does seem to make the car responde to the throttle a little faster.

goodvibes · Mar 3, 2006

If you're doing mileage runs you may want to run consecutive tanks in the same configuration, say 3 and get the mileage figures from the last 2. Depending on the vehicle, it will take a tank full of gas for the ECU to compensate for fuel differences. It will remove short peaks of change at the switch9good or bad) and also show the full benefit if there is one.

goodvibes · Mar 4, 2006

I'm sure that like most things, it will have a greater effect on some motors than others. FP never did a thing for my mileage except the one time I overdosed and one tankfull is no proof at all. Keep us in the loop. Impressions accepted.

GMorg · Mar 4, 2006

Goodvibes
I agree, sort of. I started by collecting data without PIB and then switched to PIB. PIB was the clear winner, except the data was confounded with break-in. So, I switched back to PIB free. Mileage dropped like rock, but it dropped on my wifes care too - I blamed a winter gas change. So I have trashed all previous data and started again. I also have issues with my very erratic driving pattern. Occassional long highway trip. Occassional over mount trip. Occassional traffic jam. I really don't think that I will ever know if MY city mileage is different. I thought that with 12,000 members, someone else would have some experience with this stuff.

bruce381 · Mar 4, 2006

quote:

Originally posted by GMorg:
My understanding is that the mean MW starts out at 7.2 Megadaltons. I presume that during preparation the mean would have to be sheared down some. The final prep is still the consistancy of snot .. thick gooy snot that is.

Sorry I have Never heard of that unit of mesurement on any PIBs I use in lubes and as anti mist oil additives maybe a MW of 400K or 500K but not a Megadaltons?? is that used for polymers for waste water use or what?
bruce

GMorg · Mar 6, 2006

Sorry for not resonding sooner, I have been away.

bruce 381,
I think that the PIB in chewing gum, adhesives, and maybe some fuels are in the MegaDalton range. When I have a chance again, I will look for other uses. My first hand knowledge of which MW is used for each application is limited.

I will likely buy another bottle of this stuff.

GMorg · Mar 7, 2006

I have found a similar thread here and thought that I should reference it in this thread. The other thread is trying to differentiate FP and Lucas fuel additives. The GTA additive is thrown into the discussion in reference to its PIB content. The thread seems to confuse a detergent PIB (I assume ether PIB amines or PIB succinimide) and a shorter version of PIB (lower MW) that is used for lubricity and its clinging/climbing nature. I don't know what MW range is used in which products. However, I routinely work with biopolymers that are among the longest in nature. My observation of the GTA product makes me think/guess that GTA is using longer (higher MW) PIB than other products that I have tried. I haven't tried FP or Lucas fuel additive though. The GTA referenced MW of their PIB is above.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=002967#000003

gotek · Mar 19, 2006

I know of one guy who obtained a sample of PIB (like a gum rubber eraser)...dissolved it to saturation in toluene.

He then used 2 oz of this syrup (like STP) per 10 gallons in a car with an instant mpg readout and claimed a 20% mileage gain at 65 mph.

He was mixing and applying the PIB in about the same way mentioned in the patent. It is not blended or vigorously stirred to avoid shearing the polymers.

GMorg · Mar 20, 2006

gotek,

thanks for the input. I haven't seen any highway effect. However, the data is clear that PIB would allow timing to be advanced. If your friends vehical responds to higher octane fuel (will advance timing enough to tack adantage of higher octane), then PIB is predicted to have an effect. I have not seen an effect of PIB nor high octane fuel on highway mileage. I have also not seen an effect of high octane fuel on city MPG.

thanks again

jage73 · Mar 22, 2006

Before i retired I was in polmer R&D. Molecular weights are given as a number, say 100 thousand. Never heard of daltons as a unit for MW, suggest this is someones sense of humour showing. The use of polyisobutylene (PIB )as an additive to gasolene I suspect is based on its ability to provide lubrication for the upper cylinder. On its own it has no real effect on the way that the gas burns, nor does it have any cleaning capability.Just my humble opinion.

MolaKule · Mar 23, 2006

1 Megadalton = 1.62843366e-20 Newtons, a measure of force, not viscosity or weight. Weight is molecular mass X g.

Absolute Viscosity is in cP is equivalent in SI units to 1 x 10^-3 N.s/m^2.

Kinematic Viscosity is mm^2/s.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dynamic-viscosity-d_571.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_mass

[ March 24, 2006, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

GMorg · Mar 25, 2006

I am clearly confused. The unit "megadalton", as I have used it, it not disputable.

I am not seeing your point MolaKule. I don't known why one would think that "Megadalton" had been used as a unit of viscosity. Its use to describe molecular weight, or more precisely, molecular mass is not disputable. There is a correlation between molecular mass/weight and viscosity-when comparing equal molar concentrations in the same solvent. Perhaps that is the root of the confusion.

I don't want to argue about all potential uses of the unit megadalton. I was not familiar with its use as a unit of force and I am still not clear on your conversion to Newtons - another unit with which I am familiar. As a molecular biologist, I use this unit daily. One dalton is the molecular mass of hydrogen. It is equal to 1 atomic mass unit. Most of protein biochemistry utilizes kilodalton sized molecules. However, very large biomolecules can easily reach the million dalton range, megadalton. One mole of a 7.2 megadalton molecule would weigh 7.2 million grams. For most polymers, this would represent a mean molecular weight. Both protein and nucleic acids would be an exception in that their length can be biologically predetermined.

MolaKule, I am unfamiliar with your use of the unit as a unit of force. Your wikipedia listing includes a link that does a good job describing the "datlon", as a unit of molecular mass. It even includes a short history of the chemist John Dalton for which the unit was named. Perhaps I have misunderstood your E-mail.

Follow the dalton link from your wikipedia reference.

My entire work-life revolves around molarity. I use molecular weight in calculations nearly every day. I suggest that you reconsider your position.

If you need further clarity, I can provide as many citations as you want that utilize this unit used as molecular mass. I am assuming though that there has been some sort of confusion.

HMW polyisobutylene

Similar threads