The invention relates to the field of mechanical engineering and can be used as an additive to lubricants, mainly in drives of stationary devices and engines of vehicles, in transmission units and chassis of machines. Essence: the friction modifier contains as mineral components serpentine in the form of antigorite and kaolin with a particle size of 1-5 microns. The composition contains, wt%: serpentine in the form of antigorite 0.5-2; kaolin 0.5-3; aviation motor oil 89-97; castor oil 1-3; boric acid 1-3. The technical result is an increase in antifriction and antiwear characteristics, restoration of a worn out friction surface in the process of CIP operation of friction units due to the creation of a protective two-layer coating on the rubbing surfaces. 6 tbl, 2 dwg
Drawings for RF patent 2420562
The invention relates to the field of mechanical engineering and can be used as an additive to lubricants, mainly in drives of stationary devices and engines of vehicles, in transmission units and chassis of machines.
Known composition for the formation of a servovite film on rubbing surfaces [A.S. No. 1601426], containing as an abrasive powder 0.1-5 wt.% Natural abraded quartz and the rest of the organic binder, which is used as a synthetic solid oil. Quartz is used with a fineness of 0.1-5 microns.
The disadvantage of this invention is the deterioration of the antifriction characteristics of rubbing bodies due to the precipitation of mechanically activated abrasive-like powder (worn out quartz) as a result of the coagulation process, and the intensification of abrasive wear of the surfaces of rubbing bodies during the running-in period with larger particles of the composition.
Known solid lubricating coating [RF Patent No. 20433 93], containing a powdery filler and a binder comprising, wt%: Ni 0.2-0.3; Ti 0.66-0.70; Cu 0.10-0.15; Co 0.01-0.05; FeO 10.50-14.50; S 1.20-1.60; Si 36.0-43.0; CaO 3.0-5.0; MgO 21.0-27.0; Al 2 O 3 3.8-4.4,
with the following ratio of the components of the solid lubricating coating, wt%:
Natural mineral mixture of the specified composition 0.5-2.0;
Binder 98.0-99.5.
The disadvantages of this invention are the deterioration of the antifriction characteristics of rubbing bodies during long-term operation of the solid lubricant coating, due to an increase in the adhesive component of the friction force due to an increase in the actual contact area of \u200b\u200bthe rubbing surfaces as a result of the formation of sliding mirrors, as well as the danger of abrasive wear of friction units as a result of the use of a solid lubricant coating associated with the presence in its composition of a significant amount of solid abrasive particles.
Known repair and restoration composition used in the method of forming a protective coating, selectively compensating for the wear of friction surfaces and contact of machine parts [RF Patent No. 2135638], containing wt.%: 50-80 ophite; jade 10-40; shungite 1-10; catalyst up to 10, with a particle size of 5-10 microns.
The disadvantage of the proposed composition is the low wear resistance of the coating, due to the fact that the resulting coating is of the type of cermet, having high hardness and fragility, easily destroyed in conditions of dynamic frictional contact.
Known composition for in-place improvement of tribotechnical characteristics of friction units "geomodifier friction" [RF Patent No. 2169172], taken as a prototype, containing wt.%: 87.4-88.0 serpentine (lizardite, chrysotile) Mg 6 (Si 4 O 10) (OH) 8; 8.2-8.6 iron in an isomorphic Fe impurity; 2.2-2.7 aluminum in the isomorphic impurity Al; 0.6-1.0 silica SiO 2; 0.6-1.0 dolomite CaMg (CO 3) 2, fineness 0.01-5 microns.
The disadvantage of the prototype is the insufficiently high antifriction and antiwear characteristics of rubbing bodies, due to abrasive destruction of friction surfaces of internal combustion engines, mechanisms and devices due to the use in the composition of the "friction geomodifier" solid with respect to serpentine and abrasive aggressive with respect to friction surfaces of internal combustion engines, mechanisms and devices of dolomite and silica particles.
The objective of the invention is to develop a composition of additives for lubricants, which increases the durability of the friction units of machines and mechanisms.
At the same time, the technical result is achieved, which consists in partial compensation of wear, an increase in antifriction and antiwear characteristics of the operation of friction units in the process of their CIP operation due to the creation of a protective two-layer coating on the rubbing surfaces.
The specified technical result is achieved by the fact that the composition of the friction modifier (hereinafter referred to as the modifier) \u200b\u200bincludes mineral components, which are serpentine in the form of antigorite and kaolin with a particle size of 1 ÷ 5 microns, in addition, the composition contains aviation engine oil, castor oil , boric acid, with the following ratio of components, wt%:
serpentine in the form of antigorite 0.5 ÷ 2;
kaolin 0.5 ÷ 3;
aviation motor oil 89 ÷ 97;
castor oil 1 ÷ 3;
boric acid 1 ÷ 3.
The specified qualitative and quantitative ratio of the modifier components is optimal, going beyond the claimed ranges of ratios is not economically justified, since the technical result declared above is not achieved.
The specified particle size of the mineral components provides optimal antifriction modes at the stage of running-in of the inventive modifier, and subsequently improves its antiwear properties due to the fact that particles of this size:
Reduces electrostatic wear as a result of increased electrical conductivity and surface tension of oil films;
Improves heat transfer between friction surfaces;
They neutralize the roughness of the friction surfaces, reducing the pressure in the mates, and, consequently, the possibility of microsealing.
Excess of the particle size of mineral components over 5 microns leads to a deterioration in the tribotechnical characteristics of the modifier both at the stage of running-in and steady-state wear; reducing the particle size less than 1 micron does not lead to any noticeable improvements in the tribotechnical characteristics of the modifier and is not economically justified.
The production of the modifier proposed for legal protection is carried out in the following sequence of performing the points of technological operations.
1. Separate grinding of mineral components to the specified fineness. Grinding is carried out using well-known low-load ball mills (no more than 250 mg) in an aqueous medium to prevent the combustion of crushed particles of mineral components on the walls of the feed nozzle.
2. Homogenization (mixing) of mineral components using the same low-load ball mills.
3. Heat treatment of a homogenized mixture of mineral components, designed to remove sorbed water, which consists in keeping the resulting homogenized mixture of mineral components in an oven at 45 ° C for 5 hours.
4. Introduction of a homogenized and heat-treated mixture of mineral components into aviation motor oil, for example MS-20 GOST 21743-76.
5. Introduction of castor oil into aircraft engine oil MC-20, which prevents the precipitation of mineral components of the modifier during long-term storage.
6. Adding boric acid to the engine oil MC-20 in a given percentage and mixing it using any known stirring device, for example, a magnetic stirrer or an ultrasonic mixer.
The use of castor oil provides a long-term (up to 24 months from the date of production) the presence of mineral components in suspension in the modifier, which increases the efficiency of its use in conditions of widespread consumption.
The introduction of the modifier as an additive to lubricants is carried out during the operation of the friction unit of a machine or mechanism without the need to disassemble them. The amount of the modifier introduced is determined by the operating conditions, design, geometric characteristics (wear value) and the material of the mating surfaces of the rubbing bodies, assessed by visual inspection, study of technical documentation for a given machine or mechanism, as well as diagnostics using any known tribomonitoring methods and tools.
The introduction of the modifier is carried out in one or three steps until the restoration of the optimal operating characteristics for a given friction unit of the machine or mechanism, determined by the readings of the technical passport, instruments or indirect signs (a decrease in the vibration-acoustic activity of the friction unit).
The introduction of a modifier into the friction unit leads to the formation of a two-layer coating on the rubbing surfaces, consisting of a microcellular mineral-ceramic layer resistant to abrasion and a tribopolymer layer that increases the antifriction characteristics of friction units of machines and mechanisms. The mechanism for the formation of the first layer of a two-layer coating is as follows:
1) serpentine in the form of antigorite, a preferred variety of serpentine, the most stable to mechanical stress and high temperatures as a running-in mineral component (3 ÷ 3.5 units on the Mohs scale) of the claimed modifier composition acts like a microabrasive material on surface films present on rubbing surfaces, cleaning the latter from contamination, forming open adhesion active areas of juvenile surfaces.
2) kaolin, as the softest mineral component of the modifier (1 unit on the Mohs scale), clad the friction surface, forming complex spatial structures on the emerging adhesion-active areas - polyhedra that make up the structural framework of a microcellular mineral-ceramic layer resistant to abrasion and having high absorption activity, effectively retaining the tribopolymer layer. The thickness of the microcellular mineral ceramic layer reaches values \u200b\u200bof about 5935 nm.
The second layer of the two-layer coating is a tribopolymer layer (about 5065 nm thick), which appears in the process of tribodegradation of the oil molecules of the engine aviation MC-20 and their subsequent radical tribopolymerization. Tribopolymer is present on the surface of the microcellular mineral-ceramic layer in the form of a thin transparent layer, firmly bound to it due to the absorption process, ensuring its protection from shock loads, while maintaining the principle of a positive gradient of mechanical properties. The tribopolymer layer is hydrophobic and has the ability to self-repair, the intensity of which is determined by the amount of boric acid introduced.
Boric acid, which is part of the modifier, catalyzes the formation of a two-layer coating.
The microcellular mineral ceramic layer determines the high antiwear properties of the modifier claimed for patent protection, and the tribopolymer layer causes an increase in antifriction characteristics and an expansion of the load range of operation of friction surfaces when using the modifier.
The stated essence of the proposed technical solution enables us to assert that the proposed solution meets the criterion of patentability of the invention "novelty". Comparison of the proposed composition "friction modifier" not only with the prototype, but also with other technical solutions in this field of technology did not reveal signs similar to those claimed, which makes it possible to conclude that the invention meets the patentability condition "inventive step".
The invention can be illustrated by the following examples.
The tests of the modifier proposed for patent protection were carried out on a four-ball friction machine at a temperature of (20 ± 5) ° С according to the method regulated by GOST 9490-75: “Liquid and plastic lubricating materials. Method for determining tribological characteristics on a four-ball machine ".
The modifier proposed for patent protection is an additive to lubricants, which include, for example, engine oils, gear oils, cutting fluids, and greases.
The proposed composition of the friction modifier is introduced as a 5 wt% additive in engine oil, which is used, for example, M-14V 2. The tests are illustrated in Table 1.
The proposed composition of the friction modifier is introduced as a 5 wt.% Additive in gear oil, which is used, for example, TAD-17i. The tests are illustrated in Table 2.
The proposed composition of the friction modifier is introduced as a 3 wt.% Additive in a lubricating and cooling technological tool, which is used, for example, AZMOL ShS-2. The tests are illustrated in Table 3.
The proposed composition of the friction modifier is introduced as a 3 wt.% Additive in lithium grease, which is used, for example, Litol-24. The tests are illustrated in Table 4.
The proposed composition of the friction modifier is introduced as a 3 wt.% Additive in a complex calcium grease, which is used, for example, Uniol-2M / 1. The tests are illustrated in Table 5.
For comparative tests of the tribological characteristics of the compositions, two samples of material samples were prepared:
1) sample sample - the proposed composition of the friction modifier was introduced as a 3 wt.% Additive in the Litol-24 grease.
2) a sample sample - "geomodifier of friction" of the composition reflected in the patent of the Russian Federation No. 2169172, dispersion of 0.01 ÷ 5 microns, introduced as a 3 wt.% Additive in the Litol-24 grease.
The tests are illustrated in Table 6.
Partial surface recovery can be illustrated by photographs (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), performed on the atomic force microscope (AFM) Nanoeducator as a result of microscopic examination of the friction surfaces after testing the latter on a four-ball friction machine, carried out by the method of preliminary imprints [Lubricants : Anti-friction and anti-wear properties. Test methods: Handbook / R.M. Matveevsky, V.L. Lashkhi, I.A. Buyanovsky, I.G. Fuchs and others - M .: Mashinostroenie, 1989, 27 pp.] On a standard lubricant, which is used, for example, motor oil M-14V 2.
Figure 1 shows a photograph of a worn friction surface after one hour of testing. Moreover, Fig. 1a shows a top view of the worn surface. Figure 1b shows a view of the thickness of the worn surface.
Figure 2 shows a photograph of a two-layer coating formed by using a modifier on a previously worn friction surface. Moreover, Fig. 2a shows a top view of a two-layer coating consisting of a microcellular mineral ceramic layer and a tribopolymer layer. Figure 2b shows a view of the distribution of these layers over the thickness of a two-layer coating.
The dark color (figa, 1b) corresponds to surface oxide films having a thickness of about 700 nm and present on worn friction surfaces. The light color corresponds to a layer of standard lubricant about 76 nm thick.
The dark color (Fig. 2a, 2b) corresponds to a microcellular mineral ceramic layer having a thickness of 5935 nm. The light color corresponds to the tribopolymer layer having a thickness of 5065 nm.
Almost everything that is available for purchase and testing in the field of car operation, I try to test and research practically from the moment such technologies appeared on the free market. Moreover, for quite a long time, there was even an announcement on the blog about the free trial of any drugs (first of all, lubricants). After some time, in the practice of appeals, stable tendencies were formed in the classification of the proposed methods. The main (but not all) test proposals relate to surface-modifying (for example, HMT-compositions - "micro-grinding"), metal-cladding ("soft" metals, literally rubbed into the surface by contact friction), as well as preparations based on organochlorine, which are quite widespread on the market. connections. There are many offers, the situation with informing potential buyers is much worse.
The fact is that on the part of almost any manufacturer in relation to the consumer, one way or another there is some cunning, in the form of a peculiarly built line of defense: "everything has been tested and works for a long time, here are the pictures drawn by our artist." The explanation for this is also found pretty quickly,
because, for your part, you clearly understand that a "full-scale" test of a drug of this kind requires not only a lot of time, considerable finances, but also a more or less objective method. In order, for example, to obtain such results, it took some three years of practical operation "for the result." There is at least one manufacturer of something that has published something similar, at least laboratory, on "living" engine parts ?! I would be glad to read them. The search finds only some plates of metal (including copper), tested for anything, including (what horror) corrosion! In the engine! Don't be confused with fretting, which is really possible.
Only a few of the innovators of "something out there" can afford (and allow) at the very least to roll back (and roll back) laboratory cycles. But a natural question immediately arises: what does a low-speed "laboratory" "DagDiesel" filled with M8 oil, constantly threshing, for hundreds of hours at rated speed, have to do with the actual operation of a modern car ?! It would be much smarter to find a killed Zhigulenka and make an experiment, albeit a "non-laboratory" one, but closer to reality. By the way, again - what kind? To form an endless resource, or to "revive" a motor of any kind?
Long gone are the days of long-term and multimillion-dollar (in terms of budget and mileage) romantic trials-runs that were characteristic of the middle of the 20th century. What will the "special case with the Zhigulenk" give now for the formation of systemic sales? The specifics of choosing a car "to try" should take into account a number of features, from design to operational. The 20-year-old Zhiguli and the 5-year-old BMW, consuming oil in equal amounts, are not at all the same, despite the similarity, the reasons are completely different. Any positive effect of the application should be considered rather as expected not universal, rather than suitable "by analogy" for any engine. On the other hand, what will an honest and objective "millionth" run at the stand give or the same run on real roads, but "without traffic jams"?
Many earlier, in the materials on oil, I have already published several similar tests, carried out, as they say, "to the fullest extent." The results were expected there - the engine is barely worn out... It would seem that after a million km and the wear is minimal, hardly noticeable at all, why, then, are similar examples from "usual" practice isolated and presented to the public hardly as a global event in the life of a particular brand?
This should be common practice! If a million has been passed there without any visible wear, then in real life, we expect at least the same amount before overhaul - what are the problems ?! But this practice is common only for commercial technology: there are plenty of examples of this, but as it is completely usual there, it does not even deserve discussion. Almost every "truck" without overhaul easily manages 1-2 million km and there is nothing to say about it, at the same time, a passenger car that has barely survived to such a run becomes a truly global event. The reasons for this phenomenon have already been repeatedly voiced and discussed. I will not repeat myself.
Now I would like to put the emphasis on the features of the intended "test methods", rather than on the resource. The best "theoretical tests" with a large budget will, in fact, repeat multi-month bench runs on ordinary engine oil, the results of which have been known for at least thirty years, and these results state that using ordinary engine oil (OMM), wear is generally obtained practically impossible.
And what, in essence, does the "progressive community" of any manufacturer of any "non-standard" additive urge to do? And here's what: "test your additive" at the stand ", where any engine oil shows no practical wear at all, but while these long tests are going on, we will choose the best engine oil ?! "The only way to" stand out "in such a test, is to demonstrate worse results than when using regular oil. It would be funny if would not be true.
The conditions called "special" turn out to be completely unrealistic, and unrealistically light and this is obvious to everyone who has studied the issue at least a little. Nevertheless, the reasoning about "manufacturer's tolerances", "manufacturer's tests", in the complete absence of information about the practical side of these tests, are basic and decisive when choosing an oil. For 90% of Russian (still Moscow) users of the modern "European" vehicle fleet produced by the "Big Three", the engine "without problems" did not even step over the 100,000 km mark, subject to strict compliance with all manufacturer's requirements!
It would be very strange not to try by all available means to push this line aside, so nothing more absurd than the slogan "do not put anything superfluous there, the manufacturer has already added everything there" is, perhaps, impossible to come up with.
The call "nothing more" is appropriate only where possible onlyspoil. If the statue stood for 2000 years and during its "operation" its nose and ears have already been broken off, then, obviously, continuing to drag it from place to place, there is a nonzero chances of something additionally chipping off and damaging. If a bed of guaranteed five-year-old plants in the fourth year of life begins to be watered and fertilized not only with water, but also with syrup, gasoline and chlorhexidine, then there is a nonzero probability that you are watching the tests, and not targeted sabotage.
The main focus of research activities should be aimed at avoiding operational collisions, rather than fixing problems that have already arisen. It is already difficult to introduce something new into the repair technology itself, there are much more chances to influence the operational period itself.
Let's go back to the additives.
It is obvious that the simplest and most susceptible to testing are drugs of "instant" action with a reversible result: sort of like "removed from the engine and returned everything back." These, obviously, include almost all modifiers (agents) of friction, including the usual additives that are part of any modern oil. Almost everything that is capable of forming a "layer" between friction pairs (ZDDP, NB) will also include "slippery organic matter", with all the variety of carbon modifiers. It is not difficult to test such technologies: purchased, uploaded, and the result can be observed immediately, in any available way.
The benchmark can be anything that is the defining criterion for the individual, up to the moment when the designated individual begins to cut his own self-confidence horizons. Then instrumental control may also be required - acoustic, bench, fuel consumption control, and so on, if there is access to them and you know exactly what and why you are doing.
It is puzzling, however, to try to measure and evaluate transients of any kind on a dynamic bench, where the width of the measurement window is about 15-20 seconds.
A particular case of such a vicious practice is an attempt to measure the influence of the "quality" of oil on the external speed characteristic of the engine, where the lack of control and accounting of time aboutth factor is also added with respect to small part friction losses when the throttle is actually open to maximum.
Acceleration is a derivative of speed, elasticity, obviously, should be a kind of "derivative" of the external speed, integrally accumulated characteristics of torque and power. There is no need to confuse these concepts in any way. For some reason, it does not occur to anyone to compare the dynamics of two cars with approximately the same maximum speed. These very near-maximum 250 km / h, one car can gain 15 seconds, and the second barely picks up in all 30 ...
If you look at anything, then it is at the speed of reaching this value. The engine of a truck in terms of the torque reserve may differ little from a sports car, or even noticeably surpass it. But everyone understands that to get the dynamics you need not so much the moment itself, but power - the derivative of the moment - work in time.
It is obviously necessary to test the so-called. "elasticity", emphasis on "partial loads" when the throttle does not open fully. The funny thing is that they experience (try) all the same exactly as described above, but they drive, in 90% of cases, around the city and do not "gas to the floor" at all, having every chance to feel and not use what is just "not seen "on the stand.
Moreover, even at the moment of acceleration, everyone tries to pay attention to the "pedal response" - this is a real transient process. Its duration under load is no more than a second, and that is how much time passes until the pressure in the cylinder stabilizes, when the main "surge" of the abrupt increase in pressure has already been overcome, the engine has already begun to spin up and makes it easier and easier, approaching the "shelf" moment ...
It is necessary to identify and analyze just such states when friction is "important" and "noticeable", although this is not always easy. And one of the best and most reliable ways to determine the result is a representative analysis of the opinions of drivers, professionals and not very, just knowing and understanding their car. Getting feedback on engine behavior, coupled with possible instrumental control, provides a comprehensive picture of the usefulness of almost any product.
The initial quality of the "working" friction surfaces in a typical car with relatively low mileage, I suggest you evaluate for yourself by looking at the illustrations. By the way, if you once changed the valve tappets in your car and it seemed to you that the engine now runs quieter and spins easier, then it did not seem to you at all. Everything was exactly so and there is a completely logical explanation for that.
Similar observations, obviously associated with the optimization of the "quality" of working surfaces, are also characteristic of the use of many added to oil friction modifiers, which are part of the oil and are able to interact with the friction surface in something like this (a simplified model is presented):
Another option: 
Such particles, as can be seen, form a "smooth" near-surface layer, which noticeably reduces the contact friction and the interaction time of the "metal-metal" pair.
When dry, almost all known friction modifiers look like powder: 
By the way, on the right photo the so-called. "hexagonal boron nitride" made in China with a fairly large dispersion. Little knowledgeable citizens are seriously discussing the possibility of applying it in practice in a car (the real cost of raw materials of this quality is 20-100 USD per kg), I advise you to consider the photocloser and estimate (at least "by eye") the particle size with the oil filter's capacity (about 20 microns, and if you believe serious manufacturers, then up to 10 microns). There is a non-zero probability that in the very near future we will get half of the introduced raw materials from the filter, taking into account the proposed 1-5 microns versus the "xenum" 0.25 microns produced at one of the Henkel factories. Such finely dispersed raw materials (similar to those used by Xenum) are much more expensive, which, however, should not stop true experimenters, who are saved only by the fact that 99.9% of them will not progress anywhere beyond these very conversations.
It is not difficult to formulate basic requirements for "additives" of this kind, namely:
1.Particle size should with a margin correspond to the fineness of the oil filter dropout.
2. Stability of the characteristics of the substance under conditions of high temperatures.
3. Good adhesion to metal - the ability to exhibit polarity properties to form a protective layer.
As a result, the use of these substances makes it possible to reduce sliding friction by 3 or more times, which, in terms of absolute units, under the condition of friction of a lubricated steel / steel pair (c.t. about 0.15), should lower the coefficient. friction to a level of about 0.05 and even lower. In absolute numbers, this could be represented by considering the losses for opening 4 valves at a time, as is usually the case per unit of time in a modern engine. The opening force of each valve is about 60 kgf, which adds up to about 240 kg. Friction losses, respectively, will amount to almost 36 kgf. Considering a decrease in friction at least three times, we get a considerable difference of 24 kgf for the timing belt of a conventional car.
Differences within the very class of friction modifiers, mainly with the actual particle size and concentration in the finished product, as well as potential temperature stability and processes associated with a change in the quality of the substance itself under the influence of temperature.
Boron nitride, other things being equal, can have a noticeable advantage in temperature stability (noticeably higher than 800 degrees Celsius, versus 400-500 for molybdenum-containing compounds). Some newfangled tungsten disulfide is an advantage in the potentially achievable coefficient of friction. And so on. In the end, even the specific gravity will be important - this affects the ability to stay in solution under the influence of gravity.
The genuine joy of users of oils with an insignificant content of "light" moDTC, which practically does not give a visible sludge, causes a slight irony, against the background of much more expensive (keyword, for manufacturers) and heavy tungsten disulfide or boron nitride, which, of course, give such a deposit. The very first seconds of engine operation, after an arbitrarily long idle time, this "difference" is completely destroyed: the oil in the engine is "shaken up" under a pressure of up to 5-6 atm and a fantastic flow rate of up to hundreds of liters per minute. To experience this fact in practice, it is enough to remove the valve cover, start the engine and press the gas well ...
In the most "terrible" case, even if the car stood for a year and all the free additive component settled on the bottom of the crankcase, it is just equivalent to seconds of engine operation on "normal oil" without those parts of the additive that did not have time to land on the metal surface. At the very moment of launch, obviously, the same NB, or moDTC is present on the metal. After a minute, the oil is already mixed until it is fully operational. Incredibly, the question about this "problem" was one of the most frequent, although the essence of the concerns, I am sure, is not entirely clear to any questioner ...
If we consider the products offered by the industry (that is, ready-made engine oil) from the point of view of efficiency, then a direct comparison of the elements used will not always be correct - the concentration of the active component can differ significantly from brand to brand. It is difficult to directly oppose, for example, 500-600 ppm MoDTC in many common "tuning" oils, to the same Xenum WRX with its 1800-2000 ppm hNB.
It is quite possible that the noticeable advantage of the latter is associated, for example, not only with the concentration, but also with the particle size itself. But not with the "modifying" component itself. 
As can be seen on the histogram, for different modifiers there is not only a direct dependence on concentration, but also a saturation limit, when a further increase in concentration no longer brings improvement.
I think such dependences also exist for different dispersion of raw materials, which is applicable to many modifiers. So, for example, the same hexagonal boron nitride can be purchased and used in sizes from 100 to 5, 2, 1.5, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.07 microns!
So it is not correct to say that modifier "one" is more effective than modifier "two" if there is no guarantee of at least equal concentration of it in the product. Only finished products are subject to comparison - the oils themselves.
I would also like to note that the admissible roughness of the cam-pusher pair in the industry is approximately 0.32-0.63 microns (roughness class 8), so it would be nice to measure the particles intended for use with this value if you decide to experiment on your own and count on direct effect of the application. On the other hand, a worn-out engine often has noticeably more "dirty" friction surfaces and the effect on it will be, as expected, more noticeable even if particles of a larger dispersion are used.
Also noteworthy are some studies of the "mechanisms of work" of such additives, in terms of their interaction with the surface of parts in the engine. At high temperatures, it is possible that modification (adsorption) of the working surface also occurs with the formation of iron and sulfur compounds (in the case of molybdenum disulfide, for example), therefore, one should not consider only one friction reduction mechanism, focusing only on the "laboratory coefficients" of friction of these substances in the near-surface zone.
In general, I would like to note once again a relatively simple and accessible (in every sense) way of using and evaluating such "technologies", but even this will not help those who are used to evaluating and condemning technologies solely on the basis of pictures on the Web.
We will talk about more complex drugs and technologies in the next article ...
A short extract of some blog posts, aka FAQ:The essence of the problem:
A modern engine contains a number of metal-to-metal contact friction (mainly sliding) assemblies, which are not always and not completely separated by the lubricant. The consequence of this is not only physical wear, but also tangible power losses in ineffective operating modes (low speed, idle) and, most importantly, high losses in.
In simple words: the metals in the contact groups wear out, the engine acceleration-deceleration mode (including elasticity) becomes less effective. Over the past time, the timing of the engines has become much more complicated, the force on the springs has increased in some cases (quite often now oversized turbo engines are becoming the norm) to hundreds (!) Kilograms:
Structurally, they try to fight against this (increased load and losses) (for "ecology and fuel consumption"), for example, by introducing combined sliding-rolling friction pairs: 
But this, obviously, is only half-measures: it is impossible to adapt so rapidly by metal science and tribology to pure physics: let us compare the motors of the past and the present with the same unit displacement. Classic M20B20 and modern B48B20: 120 hp against 255! 170 Nm versus 350 ... As you can see, the increase in force more than doubled.
In addition, these super-powered engines are now forced to carry bodies of significantly heavier weight.
Although even without this, in the already familiar 16-valve timing, moderately, by today's standards, forced engines, the spring preload force is very serious 50-60 kg: 
All these force values \u200b\u200bcorrespond almost exactly to the actual load in a cam-follower pair for a typical reduced surface: 
As you can see, in the peaks we have all the same tens of kgf per mm square... Let us take into account that the lubricated friction of the steel-steel (cast iron) type has a coefficient of about 0.1-0.05 (depending on the load and the initial roughness).
With a standard modern timing belt, with four valves open at the same time, the conversation will focus on values \u200b\u200bequivalent to 10-30 kgf / mm square friction losses. To feel them (losses), try to crank the engine "by hand" with the timing (plugs turned out) and without timing.
A similar full-scale experiment with the moment the engine starts to move can be carried out, for example, by starting the motor of a lawn mower. But such motors are known to have low operating speed, compression and, therefore, a relatively low effort at the start.
A visual equivalent of the transient loading process is the current characteristic of the starter. The starting power can reach several kW:
Formally, we have in front of us 2 kW at the peak, 1.5 kW average, at 0-300 rpm. The most interesting thing here is 0-200A for 0.2 s, with a twofold excess of the consumption level of the steady-state rotation mode.
What to do with all this?
1. Modification of the friction surface - "".
Mineral cladding looks like this: 
Operating principle: it is a kind of "polish" or "mastic" for the surface. The first actually insulates metal-metal friction pairs, the second changes the nature of their interaction (wear), penetrating into the surface.
Resource: depending on the load, tens of thousands of kilometers.
Analogy: rub the parquet floor and run.
Comparative efficiency:medium and high, depends on the type of raw material and dosage.
: low and medium revs.
2.Layered friction modifiers:
Formally, it is a dry oil-soluble lubricant.
Operating principle: the slippery micro-powder of graphite, tungsten disulfide, molybdenum, boron nitride, fluoroplastic and similar organics physically present in the contact vapor. For maximum efficiency of use, it requires hanging in the volume of oil using a surfactant, therefore it is often sold in the form of finished products (concentrates).
Resource:the effectiveness is greatly reduced after the next oil change, since a significant part of the drug is poured out together with the oil.
Analogy:sprinkle flour on the floor and run .
Comparative efficiency:from low to high, depending on the type and dosage of the drug.
Most noticeable when used: low and medium revs.
3. Modification of oil as a liquid (friction in liquid layers).
This includes some polar and non-polar fractions: ethers (esters), PAO, PAG, in addition, various modifiers with different principles of action,.
Operating principle: the influence of internal friction in the liquid layers increases with increasing pressure in the lubrication system and is proportional to the speed, while the proportion of contact friction decreases proportionally.
Resource:the effectiveness of the oil change is completely lost, since the preparation is poured out with the oil / forms the basis of the oil.
Analogy:spill water on the floor and freeze .
Comparative efficiency:low to high.
Most noticeable when used: medium and high revs.
1. "Well, all the manufacturers of oils / additives / motors around are so stupid ..."
Already at the end of the 20s of the last century, large and advanced US oil companies, such as Quaker state, began to use additive packages of phosphorus and zinc compounds in oils. They have survived to this day and in their modern form are known under the abbreviation ZDDP type. It is a typical cladding additive with low efficiency by today's standards. But without it, it was much worse, despite the fact that oils "without additives at all", API SA according to the modern classification, they are also autoly, existed in the world right up to the end of the 70s. So in any modern engine oil there is a primitive, antediluvian, but still antiwear cladding additive.
2.With ZDDP it is common knowledge, and the rest ...
Molybdenum and graphite compounds are used as friction modifiers, for example, Motul and LiquiMoly. As a rule, oils of these grades do not and cannot have specific "tolerances" assigned by manufacturers of standard additive packages that earn money on "tolerances". Therefore, these products simply cannot receive a general recommendation pass to the mass market. Paradoxically, they are often the most expensive / complex in the line, and the manufacturer flaunts statements like "exceeds all known tolerances." It does not even "match", but "surpasses": 
Oh, by the way, here's an excellent example of a publicly available oil with three technologies at once: ZDDP as a cladding agent, esters (the polar fraction is an oil base modifier) \u200b\u200band molybdenum (a layered friction modifier).
In addition, for example, a more complex modification of the "chemistry" of the oil base is offered, for example, by such a well-known premium brand as Castrol: 
3. I constantly hear about decoking with cladding additives ... but what does it have to do with it ?!
The cladding additive, almost no matter on what basis, must inevitably get to the metal - by friction. If there is ash on the way of its surface-active material in the friction pair, part of it will go to rub it off: 
The hardness of grains HMT, for example, can reach 3 Mohs units. Copper, lead, tin, antimony - these are all the same 2-3 units on a scale ...
4. Will it "spoil" the hon?
Hardness is not comparable. The buckle can be cleaned with chalk and even sand, but polishing it is impossible to tear off the star from it.
5. If there are at least three technologies, which one to choose ?!
Nobody bothers, literally, to rub the parquet with polish and additionally sprinkle the result with flour. Since the principles of operation are different, both of these technologies work completely independently. Modification of the properties of a liquid - even more so it works independently, since it is predominantly more efficient at higher speeds.
6.I have a well-known engine in narrow circles with a problematic camshaft chipping, will it help ?!
It's funny that the design errors in the timing associated with the working profile of the cams have followed motorists literally from the very beginning of the emergence of massive forced designs of the European school. Smart people base entire enterprises on this. It is the XXI century, and your supermodern Honda, on oils "with all tolerances and additives", as you know: 
Let's put it this way: there are certainly chances of a significant decrease in the load and an increase in the resource, but the layer is relatively thin, and its wear rate in the event of a practically emergency situation will be abnormal. To constantly renew the layer, it will soon be necessary to spend so much money that it would be easier to replace the camshaft once again with a (probably) version finally modified by the manufacturer ...
7. Constantly I stand in traffic jams, mainly urban operation of the "start-stop" type - I do not have any such loads, to use something like that - it makes no sense.
Paradoxically, it is these modes that make the use of something like this a priority. Low frequency, acceleration and deceleration modes under low oil pressure conditions are the most unpleasant for metal. For example, when you move the refrigerator around the kitchen, you try to add water under it so that it is easy to move. The engine in this sense is not a bit more complicated, and the load per square mm of friction surface is many times higher. There, 1 square mm of the surface of the cam-pusher pair is installed just over the refrigerator ...
8. Well, where are the results for improving wear? The analyzes have repeatedly shown that there is no result!
ICP, as a research method, is not and never has been. Is that in the imagination of forum readers. But in fairness, as they say, I will say that on those runs until the oil is contaminated (!), And this is no more than 100-200 hours (2500-5000 km in the city), the content of suspended wear products in the oil is not registered at all by this method (within methodological error) for almost any serviceable oil / engine. Closer to 10,000 km, dirty oil begins to "rub" the metals with carbon black and the metallic powder begins to grow exponentially. To compare the effectiveness of protection in such, frankly, emergency mode, you will need to take two completely identical cars and do a lot of analyzes (or maybe all this several times), but I'll make it simpler and clearer: 
8.Less Friction Means More Power! Where are the graphs ?!
In the understanding of most forum readers, b aboutmost of which have never seen a dyno, the power stand shows a kind of "virtual everything" about the characteristics of the engine. , the stand builds only the VSX of the engine in a quasi-stationary mode (the measurement takes place in within ten to one and a half seconds) without measuring transient modes - time derivatives. You can earn 10,000 rubles per hour, or you can earn in a week. But it will formally be the same amount. You can carry a bag weighing 50 kg to the 10th floor in a minute and in an hour, but formally it will remain the same "50 kg bag". ВСХ is a palliative technique for fixing the power value for rpm, achieved with full throttle opening, bypassing the issues of partial and alternating load modes. If you have not realized the difference now, then you have no problems at all in the material world. The relationship is about the same as between engine power and its required conversion - acceleration time to 100 km / h. Cars of roughly equal power can vary greatly in dynamics. Moreover, a car of comparatively less power may even have an advantage in dynamics. The first condition (power) is necessary, but not sufficient. And nevertheless, almost all effective friction modifiers provide a clearly recorded difference in power at the VLC from 1.5 to 3% even in a quasi-stationary regime, as evidenced, for example, by Motul and dozens of my personal experiments, but it would be much more correct to measure at least (!) overclocking: 
The addition follows ...
An additive in engine or transmission oil for cleaning and washing away carbon deposits and varnish formations from friction pairs, protecting engine parts and transmission units from wear. This latest development contains a friction modifier and an active metal conditioner that enhances the oil's abrasion and tear resistance. A thin protective cermet coating (500-700 nm) is created on friction pairs. The use of ACTIVE PROTECTION eliminates dry friction when starting the engine.
The result from the use of the additive in the engine is very noticeable when the hydraulic lifters knock on the engine or the rings are coked and, as a result, increased oil consumption for waste. All these problems are eliminated by our ACTIVE PROTECTION. When used in transmission units, hum and vibration are reduced, and the operation of hydraulic pumps is improved.
As a prophylaxis and protection against wear, its work is very clearly visible on "fresh" engines with less than 50% wear (on Russian-made cars with mileage up to 60,000 km, on foreign cars up to 100,000 km). An increase in dynamism and fuel savings on units that were previously treated with metal-ceramic additives from EDIAL or other manufacturers are also well felt.
This additive was created as a "finishing" treatment after the application of repair and restoration additives to oil for high mileage engines. It is completely mixed with engine or transmission oil and gets on all friction pairs in the unit. According to the principle of the effect on the engine, it is similar to the EDIAL repair and restoration modifier, only the resulting protective coating on friction pairs is thinner and wears out after 20-25 thousand km of vehicle run.
ACTIVE PROTECTION is safe to use and suitable for intermittent use, especially ideal for turbocharged engines, where the use of powder additives is not desirable, so as not to scratch the "pastels" of plastic, high-speed bearings.
ACTIVE PROTECTION - de-coking rings !!!
An additional plus of this oil additive is a fast and very high-quality decarbonization of engine piston rings from carbon deposits. Rings quickly gain mobility, oil consumption for waste is significantly reduced, and compression is increased. Oil change is NOT REQUIRED (oil changes according to the regular schedule). It can be used for express cleaning of rings, because after 10-15 minutes of idling, the soot in the grooves of the rings is already softening and splitting, followed by its washing out with engine oil. As a result of cleaning the rings from carbon deposits - black smoke and splashes of "black" dirt from the exhaust pipe when using the additive.
We recommend using the ACTIVE PROTECTION in case of strong coking of the piston rings together with, so in combination it is best to clean the engine from carbon deposits.
The bottle is designed to handle a mechanism with 5 liters of oil in the lubrication system.
Method of application of ACTIVE PROTECTION: pour the contents of the bottle into the warm engine (after shaking it well several times) through the oil filling hole and let the engine idle for 10-15 minutes. After that, operate the vehicle as usual.
REPAIR AND RESTORATION ADDITIVES
Repair and reduction additives in oil are designed to treat the engine and transmission units with high mileage (from 100,000 km and more). On such a run, the gaps in the friction pairs are already increasing, and the use of a reducing additive allows the mechanism to return to the operability of the "new" unit. A protective cermet coating with a thickness of up to 200 microns is formed on friction pairs, which makes it possible to return the geometry of parts to nominal values. The motor resource of the resulting coating is 70-100 thousand kilometers and does not depend on the oil change. After a run of 70-100 thousand km or earlier (deterioration of dynamic characteristics due to poor oil or fuel), it is necessary to reapply the additive to the oil to restore the engine or to periodically apply EDIAL ACTIVE PROTECTION every 15-30 thousand km of run.
The use of reducing additives (friction modifiers) on new units or after a major overhaul allows much faster and smoother running-in of the engine, gearbox or other transmission units.
EP additives
EP additives and friction modifiers
Lubricants must have a high load-bearing capacity to withstand heavy loads. To impart these properties, extreme pressure additives are introduced into the oils.
Under high load conditions, temperature bursts are observed on individual spots of actual contact, leading to the formation of welding bridges. When these bridges are destroyed, metal particles are formed - products, wear. With a sharp rise in temperature ("flashes" of temperature), EP additives form on the microsections of the frictional interaction of the surface of the friction pairs of joints with metals. These compounds are solids at ordinary temperatures, but under conditions of "flash" temperatures they are lubricating liquids that provide sliding of the contacting metal surfaces. This prevents welding and therefore uncontrolled wear.
The atoms of phosphorus, sulfur and chlorine, which are part of extreme pressure additives, interact with metals under friction conditions. Layers are formed on the friction surfaces that prevent seizure and deep pull-out.
Compounds of sulfur, phosphorus, chlorine and other reagents are used as extreme pressure additives.
Compounds containing P and S possess good extreme pressure properties. These additives have extreme pressure, anticorrosive and antioxidant effects and are therefore especially widely used in engine oils. The additives used are dialkyldithiophosphates, phenols and fatty acid esters treated with P 2 S 5, thiophosphonic acids.
Combinations of compounds of different classes containing 3 to 4 different additives are used as EP additives to achieve optimum EP properties and minimize disadvantages (tendency to corrosion). Currently, preference is given to compounds containing S-P-N, C1-P-S.
When starting and stopping the engine, the metal surfaces of sliding friction pairs are subjected to high loads and a mixed lubrication mode is created. Therefore, in some cases, weak EP additives are used to prevent vibration or noise. These additives, called friction modifiers, mainly act by the formation of thin films on friction surfaces as a result of physical adsorption. Friction modifiers are polar oil-soluble substances - fatty alcohols, amides or salts, the antifriction efficiency of which increases with increasing molecular weight. The antifriction effect of these substances drops sharply when the temperature reaches the melting point of the given fatty acid or salt. The high antifriction effect of fatty acids at such temperatures is associated with chemical interaction with the metal surface (formation of salts).
Friction modifiers of various chemical structures are introduced into modern fuel-saving oils to reduce the friction of metal pairs (pistons, cylinder walls, etc.).
