Which Stabilizer to use ?

[badtlc]

all you said was it was false. You didn't say why. Not many people will just take you at your word regardless of your qualifications.

Also, I have to question your reading ability since nobody asked you to address any studies themselves, just the results and how those results might be true if nothing was changing during the combustion process.

 

[Vikas]

Come on, all he said was that the fluff material on the StarTron website is complete baloney. As a scientific minded person, I agree with him totally. It seems as a community, we lack rational and logical sense and that is a shame.

Real studies are peer reviewed and published in respectable technical journals. Everything else is fluff.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Come on, all he said was that the fluff material on the StarTron website is complete baloney. As a scientific minded person, I agree with him totally. It seems as a community, we lack rational and logical sense and that is a shame.

Real studies are peer reviewed and published in respectable technical journals. Everything else is fluff.


and nobody disputes that is possible it is all baloney, but why is it? just calling it baloney is as bad as pure marketing gimmicks. if one is an expert making that claim, there should be some reasons for them doing so. I'd like to learn more about it. this place is all about educating and sharing information.

 

[GMorg]

To evaluate results, one MUST know the methods and the control groups. I was asked to address results. Not seeing any results that could possibly be evaluated, I asked for specific examples. The reply was a version of "those, there". I re-read the page in question thinking that I missed something. I still haven't found anything on the site that could be evaluated.

My original comment was related to the way the word "enzyme" was used. I even sited some of the language. I'll attempt some of this again.

Peptide bonds, the chemical bonds that connect the protein building blocks (amino acids) cannot survive conditions found just before nor during combustion. Therefore, an enzyme cannot participate in combustion that would occur in an engine. The reader that doesn't already know anything about the behavior of proteins at elevated temperatures is left having to accept my word or educate themselves. However, that is where we started.

Further, biological systems have very few enzymes that are capable of withstanding non-aqueous conditions. In other words, without being dissolved in WATER, enzymes don't function. There are enzymes that can survive organic conditions, in that if they were placed back into an aqueous solution, then they may refold and may retain some enzyme activity. But again, activity in an aqueous environment. It's not my word, but if without a lot of additional study, a reader is stuck with it appearing as my word.

In the video on the Star Tron site, they represent enzymes that separate gums. I can easily believe that there are proteins that could disassemble gum formations. However, they would not be enzymes. Enzymes catalyze reactions. They would likely be some sort of surfactant, structure binding protein, or micelle former (two of this activities would again require water). None of these activities are enzymatic.

There are many, many problems with the site's presentation of their enzymes. As already stated, this issue could be an attempt to simplify in the hope of communication. However, it remains the case that the statements cannot be literally true.

I took the time today to see if I could find any examples in the scientific literature of enzymes that continue to perform their chemistry in a non-aqueous solution. I could not find anything that was useful to this discussion. If some wants to comb the scientific literature to prove me wrong, more power to them. If I am wrong, I always want to know that fact.

I realize that this is an internet site and you guys don't know me from a hill of beans (Tennessean coming out), but I have participated on this site for seven years. I have been open, honest, and intellectually transparent in every post. It not like I spew false statements for fun nor do I argue for fun.

I am left to conclude that either I have developed a negative reputation for reasons that have not been communicated, or I have not participated enough to have a reputation that allows me to offer logical or rational positions that are accepted as such.

By the way, thanks for posting Vikas.

 

[GMorg]

Added note: My position is a little different from Vikas'. Good science can be done without peer review and publication - companies do it every day. Most drug discover and development is never published. Likewise, people try all sorts of things until they get it right. The day that they can communicate what they did to their neighbor, and their neighbor can independently come to the same conclusion, then the methods of science are at work.

 

[Vikas]

But if they claim to have published studies, they absolutely need to be specific about it.

In general, lot of people have very poor grasp of difference between rigorous statistical versus anecdotal data and rarely understand how many different factors can skew the final (one time) results.

 

[badtlc]

I don't know why you are taking it as a negative. I'm just interested to see what you know. I have never met anyone who claimed to know much about enzymes. I don't care about proper testing and what not, I'd like to know more about enzymes and what they can or cannot do with regards to petroleum based products.

 

[GMorg]

I think that the reason why someone would know much about the use of enzymes in fuel is because their use is very limited and not widespread.

I don't know much about the use of witchcraft. However, if someone tells me that witchcraft isn't involved in combustion, I am not going to ask them to prove it. It does not seem practical to ask them to educate me on exactly why witchcraft can't be involved in combustion; why their claims cannot be due to witchcraft. I am not going to suggest that they have made some sort of wild claim and that they aren't willing to take the time to educate me. I am not trying to belittle the situation. I am trying to illustrate the parallel. Proteins do not maintain structure and function in conditions found in a combustion chamber.

I'll try to address the curiosity.

Most of the work involving enzymes and hydrocarbons deals with remediation of contaminated sites. In other words, various enzymes have been characterized to degrade various petroleum components. This activity requires water and is unrelated to the claims in question.

Another active area of research is the use of enzyme to convert biomass (or sometimes petroleum products) into a useable fuel. In other words, the goal is to make gasoline or diesel from other things. This activity requires water. The resulting products need to be separated from the water after the fact.

There has also been work to use enzymes to process fuels. Enzymes can be used to modify various chemicals in hydrocarbon mixtures. There has been significant research into the use of enzymes to oxidize and remove sulfur from diesel for example. However, these systems require the use of water. The enzymatic reactions take place in the aqueous environment or at the aqueous/organic interface. The water must then be separated from the fuel. This activity may be related to the claims in question, but again, this activity requires water and can only occur at temperatures that are compatible with protein structure.

In this entire discussion my reference points have been protein enzymes. The vast majority of all enzymes are proteins. However, there are other biological molecules that can have enzymatic activity, nucleic acids for example. Also, many short peptides (small piece of protein) and a metal can serve as a mixed function oxidase. This activity tends to be purely chemical (as opposed to biochemical) and rarely has anything to do with a biological process. In fact, iron and nearly any partially degraded protein will spontaneously produce a mixed function oxidase. However, all of these activities again require water.

Lastly, there are also research efforts to create molecules that can wrap around proteins (or coat them) so that a micro-environment can be created around the protein that either mimics an aqueous environment or can include just enough water molecules to retain protein function. At the moment, this strategy is experimental and expensive. This strategy may allow for some sort enzyme activity that could be useful in fuel. However, this strategy does not provide any protection for the temperature of engine.

Given that the claims on the Star Tron web site (as they state them) appear to be outside of the laws of physics, it seems to me that they are in the position of having to prove them - just like if they had made claims about witchcraft. Their claims involving enzymes do not appear to literally true. It is beyond my comprehension how it would be possible to have an enzyme that functioned during combustion. As someone that works with biological systems, there claims are on par with a claim that added lead to hot hair balloons makes them rise faster. Perhaps the lead is a part of some sort of low density gaseous molecule. Without more specific information, I can't imagine how lead can make anything float better. I also can imagine asking someone to back-up the position that lead makes most things heavier, not lighter.

Life takes place in aqueous environments. Enzymes are molecules of aqueous environments. If a company said that they had an enzyme that could remove carbon from metal when the metal was soaked in a water-based solution, that would be surprising, but it would also be well within the realm of enzyme activity. If an enzyme was discovered that could do the same as fuel passed through the combustion chamber, that would reset all of biologic science. Discoveries like this is the stuff of Nobel prizes.

People often know of the fact that microbes can affect stored fuel. However, this activity requires water. In the absence of water, biology cannot affect fuel in any way. If a bio-sludge does form, there are many enzymes known that can degrade the build-up. It is just a controlled form of digestion. However, these activities require water. After the system is clean, the water still must be removed.

 

[badtlc]

Sounds like Startron works on these basic concepts. The enzymes stabilize by using the water attracted by the ethanol to process the ethanol in some fashion. This in turn removes the water. Seems plausible to me.

 

[GMorg]

I can't tell if badtlc is serious or not.

In the absence of a nuclear reaction, we are stuck with the conservation of matter. How can an enzyme use ethanol and water to make water go away? How does that seem plausible? Where is away?

Are you suggesting that there is an enzyme that can convert ethanol into a polyol and release hydrogen in the absence of energy input? Are you suggesting that the ethanol is converted ethane and hydrogen peroxide is produced? Exactly what is plausible here?

Enzymes do not perform magic; they catalyze chemical reactions.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: GMorg
I can't tell if badtlc is serious or not.

In the absence of a nuclear reaction, we are stuck with the conservation of matter. How can an enzyme use ethanol and water to make water go away? How does that seem plausible? Where is away?

Are you suggesting that there is an enzyme that can convert ethanol into a polyol and release hydrogen in the absence of energy input? Are you suggesting that the ethanol is converted ethane and hydrogen peroxide is produced? Exactly what is plausible here?

Enzymes do not perform magic; they catalyze chemical reactions.


I'm only going by what you posted. You said enzymes could process hydrocarbons but it requires water. You said it could be related to what is happening with Startron. Water gets into the fuel due to the ethanol. Why couldn't the enzymes use that water to process the ethanol at the boundary? Process it into what? You tell me. This would do two things, change the structure of the ethanol and possibly its burning characteristics while also removing water from the fuel (the stabilizing feature).

 

[GMorg]

Enzymes need an aqueous environment. To create an aqueous environment, there would need to be enough water absorbed to result in phase separation, the very thing that that product is designed to prevent. Even at phase separation, there is still much more ethanol than water in the aqueous fraction. I recognize that you have already decided that the Star Tron site is literally true. I don't really know if we can get to where we need to be from where we are.

I am clearly not a good enough teacher to communicate adequately in this format, but I do now have some insight into how Enzyte stays in business. They too imply enzyme activities that have no basis in reality.