white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

Problem #1 is the coating and the aluminum have different rates of expansion.

Problem #2 is that a thickness of ceramic that would be beneficial becomes a liability in the area of brittlness and tends to form cracks and eventually detach from the surface. The rougher the surface prep is the better the coating will hold, but it's still not thick enough to perform as a very effective insulator.

My piston coating stayed on during testing which impressed me, however I was never able to measure any added insulating value from the coating. Others may be different, and I'll be convinced only when I have tested them myself.

2001CamaroGuy

iTrader: (6)

Problem #1 is the coating and the aluminum have different rates of expansion.

rebuttal #1......10,000 miles of daily driving later my coating is still as rock solid as the day it went on........

rebuttal #1.2......I know that the coatings I had put on are FAA approved for aircraft engines and are required to pretty much outlast the rest of the engine....

Problem #2 is that a thickness of ceramic that would be beneficial becomes a liability in the area of brittleness and tends to form cracks and eventually detach from the surface. The rougher the surface prep is the better the coating will hold, but it's still not thick enough to perform as a very effective insulator.

rebuttal #2......somewhere (a good year ago+) I came across an article where two identical forged pistons (one coated the other uncoated) were subjected to the direct tip of an oxi/acetaline torch on the crown....the results were something like:

-the uncoated piston melted (burned through the crown) after ~20seconds....
-the coated piston went for ~60-90seconds and showed no appreciable damage....

rebuttal #2.2......if it didn't do anything, professional racers wouldn't spend the time and money to have their parts done......

My piston coating stayed on during testing which impressed me, however I was never able to measure any added insulating value from the coating. Others may be different, and I'll be convinced only when I have tested them myself.

are you the guy that did the "home coating" tests? if so, "do it yourself home coating" and professional coatings are quite a different matter......

MadBill

For a primer, try Googling Thermal Barrier Coatings and also the names Swain, Calico, Polydyne, HPC, Techline... (there are as number more I can't think of at the moment)

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

I still think this is very wishful thinking. The torch test could be easily faked, and I think if you studied statistics of coated parts failure vs non-coated you'd likely find no significant difference.

A piston could easily be coated to a thickness that would be effective with a type of ceramic, but like was mentioned is not likely to survive long in a running engine at that thickness. It would however be usefull for the torch test.

J-Rod

I'm not clear on what you are saying white2001s10 Are you saying that you tested them, but couldn't prove one way or another if they provided any value, and you won't be convinced that any coating works until you test it? I'm just trying to understand what you arte getting at...

Let me add a few points. GM coats pistons. Its all mostly skirt coating, but they do it. So if it didn't work or show benefit I doubt they do it. In fact they've used it on some motors to help reduce piston slap. But the main gain here is frictional losses.


I've been using coatings for many years now, and I've never had any loss of coating in a combustion chamber. Even in the turbo itself on the exhaust side, its stay on rock solid. Our GN has been together for about 5 years now. The last time we lifted a head gasket I checked the chambers and the pistons, and they looked great.

Coating work, plain and and simple. If they didn't, and they weren't worth something, then there are a lots of race teams chasing placebo HP, as whenever I go over to PolyDyn there are pallets of parts for a lot of well known teams sitting there.

I think the biggest gain in coatings is reduction in friction which is where most seem to concentrate. But keeping heat energy working instead of making it a radiated loss to me is a no brainer. Thats why I coat the exhaust side on a turbo app including the inside of the exhaust runner, headers, turbo, downpipe, etc...

But, I've seen those coating save a motor that would have otherwise burned a piston survive with a coated chamber and piston face that would have otherwise surely melted down.... Take that for what its worth...

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

Yes that's what I'm saying. My tests showed no insulating value at all with the coating, though it did survive the tests and did not burn or flake off. I have not tested any side-skirt coating, but my understanding is that it is to hold oil in place and not to reduce friction by itself. I don't think I have a way to test that, or to compare it to varying surface finishes. My main concern was insulating value from heat.

I understand some people have run coated and un-coated for years with success. I don't think that alone is worthy of scientific proof. I do understand that opinions and practical results do hold some value though.

H8 LUZN

This thread is full of half *** tests and guesses..

I agree that ceramic has a very low thermal conductivity and will have benefits in heat transfer.

However, there have been no posts with any engineering tests or data.. just "well if so and so uses it, it must be beneficial" assuming they did the testing.

Dart331Stroker

There was mention of many test we have done regarding coatings, and I explained it pretty well. Coatings is no snake oil horsepower, it is real, and it does work. Super Stock racers, class racers, turbo guys, all high end, Nascar, ASA, ARCA, IHRA and NHRA racers use coatings whether done by us (dart), PolyDyn, or whomever there is much added value.

Skirt coatings or anti friction coatings dont hold oil, there goal is to allow for less oil as the weight of oil actually cause parasitic drag, or lets just call it friction. But running skirt coatings, rod coatings, and crank journal coatings the oil slips right off of these parts. The skirt coatings acts as its own oil or lubricant therefore not needing alot of oil.

I have offered alot of free advice that is obtained from the data we have accumilated during hundreds of thousands of hours testing, as well as millions of dollars trying and developing, those that choose to hear it and listen great, those that want to skeptics, keep on...



John

Dart Machinery Ltd.
Technical Department Manager
New Product Engineer

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

Are you willing to have any of your parts independantly tested?
To my knowledge so far no one has.
That would be a sure fire way to pass the B.S. test.

Dart331Stroker

We independently test them every weekend, I am not here to sell coatings, you dont have to have them done by Dart. But if professionals use it, who are we or the magazine people to argue. Also if you read the magazines you will see the winners of the engine masters challenges use coatings, hmmm if it dont work I guess all these people must be wasting their money. We will keep wasting, and you keep wondering or questioning??

2001CamaroGuy

iTrader: (6)

J-Rod and Dart331Stroker hit it on the head........


arguing for coatings being useless is just plain stupid.......give it up.......now if "YOU" personally don't feel the benefits are worth the cost, then by all means, DONT USE IT (I don't think Ti Valves are worth the money for MY uses......so I don't use them.....does not mean I sit around telling people they are worthless and don't do any good....)......

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

The way science works is that you have to prove something works, not the other way around.

It's like you saying so and so is a witch and we are to prove otherwise. Fortunately that's not accepted argument.

I have seen reputable people claim thermal coating to work, but no real test data presented and no claimed result of any significance as of yet.
Coating virtually everything in an engine and getting a 2% power increase hardly falls outside of testing error considering the engine had to be completely disassembled to apply the coatings. Without another disassembly to remove the coatings and re-run the control, I would throw that data out myself.
I have coated pistons myself and I also have some professionally coated pistons, and I have always been hopeful of seeing a benefit. So far my testing has been disappointing. I would like to see a truly non-biased party run a meaningful set of tests.

ArcticZ28

iTrader: (14)

Prove to who, you? Why don't you prove to us that it doesn't work? It's a two-way street that you're preaching.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for intelligent skepticism, but there's nothing intelligent about your doubts just b/c Poly Dyn hasn't come to your house and shown you.

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

I think you're confused about science. It doesn't work like that as I said above. The burden is to prove something is fact, not that it's not fact.

Independant testing of products doesn't mean they come to "your" house to show you.
If there was a valid test that I could perform to prove it works then I'd be willing to do it. It would be much better however if more qualified scientists performed the test. By that I mean much more qualified than the folks presently claiming that it works, bias parties excluded.

I already mentioned that some testing was done that was sucessful, but it was a thickness that has proved to be unreliable in normal operation. Why do I have to repeat myself so much?

This coating business is starting to sound like a cult the way you guys approach the subject. The way it gets defended and the arguments used makes one think it would be a great idea to invest in a company that does coatings even if it does nothing.

Science is self correcting. If you use a reasonable approach, then the truth will come out no matter which way it goes.

So far this isn't personal at all. If there is more than just somebodys word or belief that is actually a valid proof, then I'd love to see it. I have been wondering for a while why the testing that I've read about and performed myself hasn't produced any positive results. Maybe the tests were done wrong. I would like to know.

LS_RX-7

Actually, burdon of proof refers to validation or invalidation of a statement. That statement could be related to anything. It is not constrained merely to statements that assign an identity of 'true' to something.

In other words, 'the way science works' is that someone must prove their statement, or hypothesis, whatever it is. Your statement that coatings are ineffective and not worth their value, etc. puts a burdon of proof on you. Just because your statement is a negative, doesn't automatically assign burdon of proof to others.

'Science just doesn't work like that' I'm afraid.

2001CamaroGuy

iTrader: (6)

LMAO

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

You're exactly wrong on that one. Reversing the question to prove a non-fact is invalid. Science looks for facts. Your word juggling doesn't change that.
As I stated in a post above, that's like saying prove you're not a witch.
Otherwise you get burned at the stake.

2001CamaroGuy

iTrader: (6)

exactly, looks for FACTS......there are plenty of FACTS out there that show ceramic coatings work and work very well in engines....starting with the government and military research and moving on through OEMs and into racing teams.......

YOU on the other hand have a hypothesis that they do not work...that it is all some big conspiracy.......so who don't YOU come up with some FACTS to prove everyone wrong..........

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

I can see this is non-science is getting circular.
I'll try an example to better show where the burden actually lies.

Say you invent the tornado device that you think will improve power and fuel economy. Are people to just buy it and accept that they must prove that it doesn't work?
Are you more willing to let them keep buying your product, or would you voluntarily submit to independant tests that may show your product to be a fraud?
You could say the customer has to do the leg work to disprove the device, but if there was never any proof offered from the start to prove that it works, then why should anyone bother working on trying to disprove it? As of that point it's not established scientific fact, so there's nothing to disprove.

I can't think of a better way to explain it, so it may be time to give up for me. Maybe someone else would like to take a stab.

You may also be judging me wrong. I would actually like for the stuff to work. It's just smarter to follow logic more than my own desires.

2001CamaroGuy

iTrader: (6)

YES....and everyone would agree that some off the wall product that has never been tested and stands purely on the word of the salesmen is not worth the material it is made of (hell...perfect example....the POS HPP3 BS.....that thing has been proven time and time again to be a total waste of money.....)........

BUT...we are not talking about a product that has never been tested......we are talking about ceramic coatings that have been used for years in everything from aircraft engines, rocket motors, and military vehicles, all the way down through professional racing and has now found its way into OEM production........

IT HAS BEEN TESTED....IT WORKS........just because the military or coating companies have not sent YOU all their research or you are skeptical does not make it a big conspiracy.......

what everyone is saying is "hey.....if you don't think it is any good, then go do some testing yourself and prove that it does not work......get us some FACTS.....but be prepared to spend loads of money and in the end come up with exactly what everyone has come up with....the stuff works......."