This is going to be the biggest thing that kills this additive off. Even if it doesn't have a negative effect on the catalyst metals, aerosolized copper is incredibly bad for the environment, so much so that friction brake manufacturers have all but removed it from their blends for pads and shoes.
It was tested against the used oil already in the motor? Was this used oil tested in a lab, are we certain the additive package wasn't already depleted? If not to what degree could a depleted additive package skew the results worse case? It just seems like an unnecessary unknown to test the new oil against previously used oil with unknown mileage/hours on the oil. Unless I misunderstood something along the way.
i know a technician that puts copper powder and some form of lead powder in his car engine oil for years and the engine is spotless inside he got so pissed of with the lack of good additives in the industry and decided to make his own additives for of the shelf oils
Since it seems to be a ~150cc single cylinder engine, it would have to be revving to 8,000+ rpm to make the measured 9.5 kW / 12.7 hp. So it's clear that the gear ratios were not adjusted for, and that the chart isn't showing actual engine rpm. Another indication of this is that the power peaks, then drops off at high rpm, which would be an unusual thing to happen if the engine were at low rpm.
This test is inconclusive if you are doing this on a brand new engine. Doesn’t matter what you put in it a new engine is going through a break-in and will show increased efficiency over time as it wears in.
It's difficult to interpret the results without knowing what the baseline oil was. Was it used oil? I'm guessing it wasn't an energy conserving oil if the engine has a wet clutch. Some of the friction reduction would also be coming from reduced gearbox friction in an engine like this. I'd expect the results to be less pronounced in automotive engines, which typically have total friction of
I previously left a comment about this oil. my practice of working with this technology is more than 8 years. the result of using such oil on different engines looks different, but the increase in torque is very noticeable. the resource of the unit also increases
For a DOHC single cylinder motorcycle engine those revs are at the bottom of its rev range. Where are the measurement at 7000 RPM? How did they look? One would think the differences would be more pronounced...
Hello, I made a mistake in an earlier comment as I had mentioned 'Resurs' product. It actually has nothing to do with copper and is instead a ceramic agent that crystallizes into surfaces with local high temperatures from friction. Same principle as the product 'RVS'. Both are however working products that you should test. I personally have experience with RVS oil treatment, it works. Can't comment about Resurs personally.
What chemical was this? Copper oleate? If you're using copper soap, do you dial down on the conventional detetgent package? Are lead soaps, historical anti-wear and extreme pressure additives, pre-dating ZDDP, being considered as well?
copper was chosen for a reason, the main enemy for the metal is hydrogen. copper is located to the right of hydrogen, unlike lead. also, copper oleate alone is not enough, this component itself does not work very well
This should not be a new concept. You have Titanium, Tungsten, ZDDP, Boron, Moly, and on and on already. On top of that Copper has been used as an antisieze so not much of a stretch.
these additives are good, but have some disadvantages. copper is good, but many technologies based on it had a serious problem, the copper layer grew uncontrollably.
There was a company that blended and sold oil called "NEO" oil that for an insane amount of time had a fairly normal additive package but as their novel additive was a lead sulfate if I recall properly. This was over 15-20 years ago. It was a diester based synthetic. As you might imagine having a low speed lead based EP/AW additive traditionaly used in slow speed high load gear boxes made it hard to spot bearing wear! As I understand it people that used it loved it. I try to limit my exposure to toxic heavy metals though!
Are you sure it wasn't lead stearate or lead sulfonate? Lead soaps were used as historic anti-wear and extreme pressure additives before ZDDP become widely recognized and available.
Imagine the red flags in oil analisys 😅
Is there any study about the impact of copper in the exhaust, on the catalytic converter?
This is going to be the biggest thing that kills this additive off. Even if it doesn't have a negative effect on the catalyst metals, aerosolized copper is incredibly bad for the environment, so much so that friction brake manufacturers have all but removed it from their blends for pads and shoes.
Very interested to see what this does in cars/trucks.
"How to safely use Palm oil as motorbike lubricant"
that's the real passion for every Indonesian 😂😂
What about titanium dioxide or oxide? I know it's in some Castrol Edge products.
It was tested against the used oil already in the motor?
Was this used oil tested in a lab, are we certain the additive package wasn't already depleted? If not to what degree could a depleted additive package skew the results worse case? It just seems like an unnecessary unknown to test the new oil against previously used oil with unknown mileage/hours on the oil.
Unless I misunderstood something along the way.
Wow, very interesting. Looking forward to see the results of the next stage.
You can make a CuDDP with Copper instead of Zinc in Zddp. It works extremely well it’s more expensive than zinc so why bother.
Any video about stearic, oleic, linoleic acids?
Sounds like the product _Engine Restorer._
it does not contain copper.
i know a technician that puts copper powder and some form of lead powder in his car engine oil for years and the engine is spotless inside
he got so pissed of with the lack of good additives in the industry and decided to make his own additives for of the shelf oils
CUPPER Safe Line 5W-40 has been on market at least 6 years for now. According to uoas i dont think i put it in my engine.
Resurs Next or Resurs Total
What about wet clutch slippage ?
Excellent video
thats wow
Why was only reported up until 3000 rpm? A standard bike like this has like 9000rpm limiter... Was it the dyno brake rpm instead?
Since it seems to be a ~150cc single cylinder engine, it would have to be revving to 8,000+ rpm to make the measured 9.5 kW / 12.7 hp. So it's clear that the gear ratios were not adjusted for, and that the chart isn't showing actual engine rpm. Another indication of this is that the power peaks, then drops off at high rpm, which would be an unusual thing to happen if the engine were at low rpm.
Undoubtedly, this is a new and innovative invention that will revolutionize the automotive world
Indubitably.
cupper-shop
This test is inconclusive if you are doing this on a brand new engine. Doesn’t matter what you put in it a new engine is going through a break-in and will show increased efficiency over time as it wears in.
It wasn't a new engine
It's difficult to interpret the results without knowing what the baseline oil was. Was it used oil? I'm guessing it wasn't an energy conserving oil if the engine has a wet clutch. Some of the friction reduction would also be coming from reduced gearbox friction in an engine like this. I'd expect the results to be less pronounced in automotive engines, which typically have total friction of
I previously left a comment about this oil. my practice of working with this technology is more than 8 years. the result of using such oil on different engines looks different, but the increase in torque is very noticeable. the resource of the unit also increases
Not to mention it’s a brand new engine that’s going through a break-in. It will show increased efficiency over time as it wears in.
For a DOHC single cylinder motorcycle engine those revs are at the bottom of its rev range. Where are the measurement at 7000 RPM? How did they look? One would think the differences would be more pronounced...
Hello, I made a mistake in an earlier comment as I had mentioned 'Resurs' product. It actually has nothing to do with copper and is instead a ceramic agent that crystallizes into surfaces with local high temperatures from friction. Same principle as the product 'RVS'. Both are however working products that you should test. I personally have experience with RVS oil treatment, it works. Can't comment about Resurs personally.
What chemical was this? Copper oleate? If you're using copper soap, do you dial down on the conventional detetgent package? Are lead soaps, historical anti-wear and extreme pressure additives, pre-dating ZDDP, being considered as well?
copper was chosen for a reason, the main enemy for the metal is hydrogen. copper is located to the right of hydrogen, unlike lead. also, copper oleate alone is not enough, this component itself does not work very well
Nano amonia salt is the best COF from W element.
This should not be a new concept. You have Titanium, Tungsten, ZDDP, Boron, Moly, and on and on already. On top of that Copper has been used as an antisieze so not much of a stretch.
these additives are good, but have some disadvantages. copper is good, but many technologies based on it had a serious problem, the copper layer grew uncontrollably.
There was a company that blended and sold oil called "NEO" oil that for an insane amount of time had a fairly normal additive package but as their novel additive was a lead sulfate if I recall properly. This was over 15-20 years ago. It was a diester based synthetic. As you might imagine having a low speed lead based EP/AW additive traditionaly used in slow speed high load gear boxes made it hard to spot bearing wear! As I understand it people that used it loved it. I try to limit my exposure to toxic heavy metals though!
Are you sure it wasn't lead stearate or lead sulfonate? Lead soaps were used as historic anti-wear and extreme pressure additives before ZDDP become widely recognized and available.
huh, neat!
Wow🎉