HMW polyisobutylene

[GMorg]

jage73,

The inventor's proposed mechanism is as an antimisting agent. The inventor then goes on to suggest that preventing the smallest droplets from forming during the injection process somehow prevents the most volitile compound from leaving the droplet. Given the concentration used and the extensive use of PIB as an anti-misting compound, I think that the first part of the mechanism is correct. I am not as sure about the second part.

 

[GMorg]

For anyone that cares, there are three units of molecular mass which on earth at sea level is equal to molecular weight.

1) AMU= atomic mass unit= 1/12 of C12= 1 hydrogen
2) dalton= 1/16 of O16= 1 hydrogen
3) grams/mole, which really reflects the mass of a mole as opposed to the mass of a molecule. (A mole is approximately 6.02 X 10^23 molecules which is how many atoms of hydrogen is take to way one gram. By some definitions, a mole is the number of molecules required to weigh [in grams] the molecular weight of a given molecule)

Since numerically these units are identical, people often do not utilize any units. Never-the-less, units are associated with molecular weight. The units become particularly useful when dealing with very large molecules. The most common unit for large molecules is daltons and its derivitives kilodalton and megadalton.

If there were no radioisotopes, one could use the position in the periodic chart at a precise representation of the atomic weight of each element. However, isotopes do exist in every sample of everything. So, we use the average atomic weight for each element to account for the prevalence of each isotope in nature. As a correlate, the molecular weight of radiolabled molecules are therfore different from their non-labled counterparts.

 

[MolaKule]

GMorg,

No one is disputing your data at all and realize it is used as a molecular weight or mass.

The conversion given is from one of the references given, possibly the engineer's toolbox? Don't remember which at this time. They didn't specify what mass upon which the force was based.

The dalton is part of the new unified mass unit and is a unit used to express the relative atomic masses and referenced to 1/12 of the mass of an atom of the isotope carbon-12 which is equal to 1.66x10^-27 kg. Molcecular weights can vary due to natural variations in isotopic composition.

For polymer chemistry polymer molecular weights or masses are given in daltons but in fuel and lubrication formulation, we use the basic physical units related to the Poise and the stoke for viscosity descriptions.

As I have explained elsewhere, PIB's are hydrocarbon aliphatic polymers made up of isobutylene repeating units.

Polybutenes are compatible with all mineral oils and PAO's, alkyl benzenes, and most esters, but are not compatible with polyalylene glycols or silicone oils. Commercial polybutenes are available from 1 to 45,000 cSt corresponding to molecular weights of 180 to 5,800, respectively. Densities range from 0.82 to 0.92.

PIB's first found commercial use as oil thickeners and then as smoke reduction and lubricity agents for two-cycle engines.

Some commercial products obtained from the propylene oxide and C2 streams include:

1. Butyl rubbers

2. PIB rubbers

3. MTBE.

4. various molecular weight and viscosity oils from solvent like viscosites to thick semi-solids.

 

[GMorg]

first jage73 wrote: "I was in polmer R&D... Never heard of daltons as a unit for MW, suggest this is someones sense of humour showing."

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

I apparently misunderstood MolaKule and/or connected two comments that were unrelated. I offer an apology for my rant.


As for the product, I am beginning to think that high MW PIB if a very good fuel additive from the point of view of emissions, "pep", and maybe city mileage. At the concentrations used, I don't think that much if any lubrication effect could gained. It seems that this technology is getting dismissed by many (here and elsewhere) firstly because the inventors claims sound a lot like the claims of many others and secondly because the idea is being evaluated (by some) based on a subset of PIB's characteristics.

My biggest concern with the product (other than the cost/benefit ratio), is that when this stuff is allowed to dry, it is very, very tacky and then very similar to super-glue. I have tried dispensing it with syringes of various sizes and materials. If you wait very long after loading the syringe, the plunger cannot be pushed again. It has been PIB glued.

I am still rotating through the stuff. Luckily, if the company quits making this stuff, it looks as though it would be fairly easy to prepare home-made style.

 

[GMorg]

My "n" for each treatment has now reached 3 so I thought I would share some raw data. "Fill" is gallons added at fill. "Metered" is the reading of the in-dash average MPG calculator. Miles is the calculated distance since last fill. MPG is calculated MPG (Fill/Miles). Treatment list none or PIB for polyisobutylene. PIB is listed with the MPG as opposed to the data added. So, the 21.65 mpg tank contained PIB. It was added on 28-Feb. If anyone is interested I can keep this table updated. If not, oh well...

I will probably continue the 'few tanks on', 'few tanks off' strategy so that I am not confounded with season or weather.

code:

---

Date Odometer Fill Metered Miles MPG Treatment

17-Feb 9793

28-Feb 10121 17.36 19.6 328 18.89

9-Mar 10528 18.8 22.3 407 21.65 PIB

21-Mar 10914 18.8 20.8 386 20.53

3-Apr 11286 18.4 21 372 20.22

9-Apr 11597 14.38 22.7 311 21.63 PIB

13-Apr 11930 15.06 23 333 22.11 PIB

---

 

[GMorg]

As a summary of the above table, no PIB vs with PIB is 19.88 +/- 0.87 MPG vs. 21.79 +/- 0.26 MPG. For this data set, I am seeing almost 10% increase in mileage (9.6%).

At just under $1 per ounce (cost plus shipping) and use at 1 ounce per 7.5 gallons of fuel, I am adding about 13 cents per gallon to the cost of fuel. At the moment, I am saving money whenever fuel is over $1.30 per gallon.

 

[GMorg]

I have more data. I am sharing again. This round shows less differnce between the treatments. For the first time, my highest mileage WITHOUT PIB is higher than my lowest mileage with PIB. As before (last fall), I think that I am seeing an effect on the first tank after each PIB treatment. I think that this likely due to "leftovers" in the tank as opposed to computer compensation. However, the two are confounded. After running one more control tank, I think that I will stop this experiment for a while. I am curious about adding some ashless 2-stroke oil. There doesn't seem to be much interest in PIB anyway. It does seem to work though.

code:

---

Date Odometer Fill Metered Miles MPG Treatment

17-Feb 9793

28-Feb 10121 17.36 19.6 328 18.89

9-Mar 10528 18.8 22.3 407 21.65 PIB

21-Mar 10914 18.8 20.8 386 20.53

3-Apr 11286 18.4 21 372 20.22

9-Apr 11597 14.38 22.7 311 21.63 PIB

13-Apr 11930 15.06 23 333 22.11 PIB

24-Apr 12365 19.7 22.9 435 22.08 PIB

5-May 12792 19.5 22.3 427 21.90

---

 

[GMorg]

With the new data the means are 20.385 vs 21.867 MPG. That is 1.48 MPH difference or 7.3%. Considering these data, I am saving money as long as fuel is over $1.95.

There also seem to be a trend that warmer weather producing higher mileage. That's not news though, just more confounding effects.

 

[jamesn]

if you are concerned with over-mixing the PIB before you put it in the tank, what happens to it when it goes through the vane style fuel pump in most all fuel injected cars? does it not have an effect?

 

[GMorg]

I would think that there is some shearing from the pump, from the injectors, even from sloshing in the tank. However, once PIB gets diluted, it will not shear as badly as during preparation. Think of yanking a single strand of spagetti out of a pile on a plate vs out of a soup in a bowl. You much more likely to have the noodle break when it can entangle as opposed to being free floating.

 

[GMorg]

I quickly lost interest in ashless 2-stroke oil as a gas additive. So, I have ordered new HMW PIB. I am going to try this stuff a little longer. The data seems to suggest it works in my vehicle. I think that I will run a cycle of three tanks with, three tanks without. After several cycles, I hope to be able to reduce the effects of temperature, humidity, ect.

I am open to any input...anyone have any suggestions. Anyone want updates?

 

[technician]

I would be very interested in updates. Where are you getting your GTA product from? I found a few websites online but was curious were you obtained it.

 

[bulwnkl]

Keep the infor coming, GMorg; I'm very interested.

 

[axjohn]

GMorg: Where are you buying this stuff? I'd like to give it another verification.

 

[Titan]

And some people say this site isn't scientifically oriented enough.

 

[GMorg]

I have bought it twice from the link below. It arrives in 3-5 days if you choose the cheapest shipping.


http://www.apdinc.com/GTAfuel.html

 

[Rodbuckler]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GMorg:
I quickly lost interest in ashless 2-stroke oil as a gas additive.

---

Which 2-stroke oil did you try? Have you tried one of the full-synthetic 2-stroke oils?

 

[GMorg]

I tried a couple. I think that both were synthetic, but I am not sure. I will scrounge around the garage and see if I can find the bottles. I think that one was valvoline and the other had a name similar to "Exact Mix" - maybe from Homelite. Neither were expensive.

 

[GMorg]

Tempest,

HMW PIB makes for a more uniform distribution of droplet sizes - less smaller and less larger droplets. The common suggested mechanism has two parts. First, the most volatile fractions of the fuel are retained in the droplets, as liquid - the light stuff isn't vaporized. The idea is then put forth that burning the mixture of fuel uniformly is better than burning the light, vaporized fractions first, and then the heavier liquids next. I think that the hypothesis is weak, but I know that I don't know enough to evaluate it.

The second suggested mechanism is based on preventing vaporization of the smallest droplets by preventing formation of droplets smaller than about 5 microns. Since the small droplets are not formed, and therefore not vaporized, then the vaporized fuel cannot consume as much physical space in the intake stroke. So, there is more room for air and thus more oxygen can get into the engine.


JHZR2,

I can't confirm andyd's statement, but the diesel version of the additive is dyed pink. My understand is that the two formulation are identical except that the diesel stuff is more dilute to aid in mixing with diesel fuel.

 

[Tempest]

Thanks GMorg. Interesting ideas. I'm not sure why it would only have a positive effect when accelerating/under heavy load. I would think the improved droplet formation/geometry would help under all conditions.