white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

The military does zero research on internal engine coatings. It's contracted out to civilian corporations who stand to gain profits via govenment contracts. The Optima batteries are an example of one of these contracts with inflated profits. In reality they are not as good as a standard lead-acid battery, but contracts still exist because leak-proof batteries are required in certain applications because of safety regulations. The argument has been used in the past that because the government or military uses a product that somehow that proves it superior. That's not true and I hate seeing you try to do the same thing with coatings.

I already stated the reliability of what's claimed to be fact is definately in question. Word of mouth from a business or a racing team is absolutely conflict of interest.

There doesn't need to be said hypothesis that they do not work.
If I said you were a witch, then you said "no I'm not. Prove it."
Then following your logic I could say "that's just your hypothesis. Prove you're not".

Like I already said, that's circular and no good can come of it.

Doing proper testing would answer questions in both directions. You are arguing that everyone should just believe unless they can prove otherwise.

It's fine to have a belief, but pushing it as fact is not the best idea.
You obviously trust the manufacturers and racing teams a lot more than I ever would. There's a huge conflict of interest when it comes to racing teams revealing valuable information. There's also the issue of being sponsored by the people who sell coatings.
Words from a racing team is that last thing I would believe without testing it myself.

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

If you know of some valid testing, then please point me to it. It would've saved a lot of typing.
I'm looking for independant tests that confirm that a layer of ceramic coating thin enough to stay attached in a normal running engine has measurable insulating value.

Malihoochie

Doug Kalitta has 8000 horse power worth of proof that keeps his crankshafts alive. The Kalittas pay for their bearings to get coated and they dont sell coating services. Someone else mentioned calling Omar at Dart. Why don't you do that and get a bit of info right from one of the top coaters in the nation?

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

Thermal barrier isn't used on bearings. That's different.

I wouldn't call a biased information source.

This picture should make something very clear about race teams and sponsors.
http://www.prolong.com/Images/prolong_dragster.jpg

ArcticZ28

iTrader: (14)

For God sakes, if you want facts from independent sources why are you posting on here? Clearly no one on here can produce tests that are satisfactory to you. It's a testament to the ls1 community's diligence that people have spent this long trying to help you realize the testing and facts behind these coatings while you've shot down every single attempt. The benefit of this thread to the LS1Tech community has been long deceased.

Dart331Stroker

if a biased information source isnt someone you trust, then who do you propose doing the testing. Obviously those that do this type of work have tested it or we wouldnt be doing it or using it ourselves.

Also on another post you talked about your own test. First off you are testing the theory of why piston top coatings works incorrectly, and second we have already tried the polished piston tops, it doesnt work. Piston top coating in ceramic is the best, if polished piston tops worked we would do it. I have a 4'x4'x4' box of pistons we have used over the last year in NHRA Pro Stock we have tested coatings for along time.

Again we are not trying to sell coatings, we do enough already for Roush's Cup team, Kalitta's race team, Aeromotive Fuel Pumps, Enderle Fuel Pumps, Diamond Pistons, and Wiseco pistons. We have all done our own test, again we dont care if you believe.

Independent test are like flow benchs, and dyno's would you like some bullshit numbers, or would you prefer to see something that works, not because science says it should but rather because in practical application it does work. We have tried things you guys havent even dreamed of trying yet and things that the retail world wont even know about for years to come, but when we offer FREE information that helps people there is always some skeptic who has to ask for the FACTS! Well watch the NHRA on Sundays, and wonder how a 500 ci. engine runs 6.60's and by the end of the year will run 6.50's at 210, how do these things keep getting faster every year without increasing the cubic inches? Inside the engine, things like coatings, technology in the ports, and the chambers. But the biggest thing is coatings, wrist pins, rods, pistons, micro polished springs, coated crank throws, coated rods, all bearings coated... Again this is FREE information that works, we have tested it, am I going to sit here and tell you the molecular structure of this and that has an effect on the fuel and blah blah blah, no do you really care, no you want to know does it work, and will it benefit me?

Oh wait here is a comparison I though of when it comes to anti friction coatings, has anyone seen that Lucas oil counter top display where you turn the crank with one side being regular oil, and one with the Lucas oil that clings to the gears? The regualr oil turns with little resistance, and the Lucas oil puts alot of resistance on the crank wheel, now imagine if you had no oil, there would be no resistance. Therefore no drag, no resistance.

Here is a quote from Richard Maskin ( owner of Dart Machinery and Richard Maskin LLC (NHRA PRO STOCK TEAM) ) " I want to race against the guy who doesnt believe in anti friction coatings "

I couldnt agree with him more in todays really competitive racing environment, it is the difference not between winning and losing, but qualifying and going home.

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

Dart331 you said that I didn't do my test correctly.
I'm willing to re-do the tests. That's no problem.
Please tell me exactly how the test must be done to show that the thermal barrier works.

Arctic, there is no reason to get emotional or talk down to anyone. Evidence and test results mean far more than the loudest voice. If I get better instructions on how to test the TB coating and the tests show positive I have no problem reporting it back here and saying that you were right.

I have talked to some of the coating makers by phone to ask about testing their product. Unfortunately and also suspiciously they told me that I simply cannot do it. They would have me think that unobtainable lab equipment is needed to show positive results, yet it just works with no special environment in a running engine. I hope that's not true. I know of no other effective insulator that needs a special environment and million dollar test equipment in order to measure a simple temperature difference.
Quantifying insulator value is something 5th grade students do for their science projects. I just judged a science fair last week and saw it myself.

ArcticZ28

iTrader: (14)

I just asked a question.

2001CamaroGuy

iTrader: (6)

I don't think anyone has set out to talk down to or make anyone feel stupid......if anything this is one of those threads that just went on a "tad" too long.....

DavidNJ

I'm not sure I understand this thread anymore. Are people questioning coating? I don't think there is much argument that it can be beneficial. And in some cases, exhaust manifolds and turbo housings, it should be virtually required.

However, in a cost conscious engine, you have to ask the question, is it worth the money. That is harder to answer. For me, maybe valve springs and piston skirts. I've had at least one piston manufacturer (one who you would all respect) provide a short lecture on issues with expansion, clearances, and the effects of coatings. Not that they are bad, but that you don't know how it will affect the resultng hot clearances. He recommended, rather strongly, against the thermal barrier for an NA non-nitrous engine.

When the engine cost is high or the racing class allows it and the racing is competitive, I can't see not doing it.

Dart331Stroker

Again I will try to make you understand, we have tested it we test it in the engine, if you want it tested elsewhere in another atmosphere then do it, but when coating engine parts you test the engine. When we coat piston tops in our race engines the EGT's change 50-70 degrees, therefore we have to put more fuel in the motor to cool the EGT's back down. What does that tell you, we raised the EGT's and put in more fuel, HMMMMM we are burning more fuel??? Must mean we are making more horsepower. The coating acts as a reflector of heat, you dont directly put a flame on it to test it, its job is to reflect heat. The way you test it is the same way you guys want to hear test about what head is better, and that is real world in the motor, on the track. We have done that, PolyDyn has done that, other specialty companies have done that, heck everybody in NASCAR is doing it whether in house, or sending them out.

When NASA coats the space shuttle with thermal barrier coatings is that test worthwhile in regards to what you or I would use the coatings for? NO

I agree with the last post by DavidNJ, in a NA street driven car there wouldnt probably be that big of a difference to overuse some of the coatings. However skirt coatings will be beneficial as it is an anti friction coating, and you run the same tolerances you normally would run per the piston maker.
Clearly there must be benefit to this as Speed Pro does this to there cast, and hypereutectic pistons.
Spring coatings help with fatigue, they just keep the heat out of the coil to help the spring live longer.

I personally coated my street cars piston tops, why again to reflect the heat why let the piston absorb the heat my compression is making and let it rob horsepower. Dont believe dont care, line up next to me and get beat... If i can spend a measly $16.00 per piston to have it help me make power then I will do it for sure. You can save yourself the money and let the power your engine already makes be absorbed...

As for your picture post of Prolong on the side of a Super Comp Dragster, thats called a sponsor, i dont really think that Castrol GTX that I buy is the same thing used in John Forces car, I dont think Little E's car runs on Bud, and that Jimmie Johnson's team builds his cars with tool or parts bought at Lowes. They are called sponsors, they are on the side of the cars to promote their products, some are good and some are bad.

If you believe Prolong, and Slick 50 and all those things are used in them cars and that they even work, then they did their job, but I am sure you know like everyone else thats not the case.

Here is another example of why friciton coatings work, we run a 0W oil in our race motor, yes ZERO weight, no parasitic drag, all the parts are coated, rod bearings, main bearings, piston skirts, so we need just a little lubrication, but we dont want the drag in the engine.

So I am really unsure what test you think will prove to people (you) that engine coatings are beneficial.

DOW has spents Millions of dollars developing these coatings, maybe they are the ones you need to contact with your disbelief of their claims. They spent millions and millions of dollars developing and using barrier coatings for NASA, and the aerospace industry over 20 years ago, like Nitrous is took awhile to hit the racing industry. The airplanes you fly in use coatings throughout their running gear, and throughout the turbine engines, to prevent bearing failures from high temperatures.

I have officially spoke my last breath on this subject, if anyone out there has good questions about coatings, please pm me our email me at dart.

Thanks

KVU

iTrader: (1)

Did you ever consider another reason for the EGT increase? Why didn't you mention coolant temp and AFR? From what I understand EGTs increase the RICHER you go(unless there is a lean condition under extreme load for a long period of time). Seems like *something* changed the burn rate. Load, timing, chamber volume, etc. How did you rule out all those possibilities?




How fast could a 335 stroker be anyways? Lining up to him would not be wise. Not only would you lose, but it would disprove thermal coatings work on piston tops (according to you). Lets hear the science behind how it works. Telling folks that you are adding fuel AND that means coatings create HP is nothing more than pure conjecture.


BTW, I'm not talking about friction coatings..

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

All I'm saying is show us the data.
Obviously you'd have to list out all other variables (dozens in your case) that could possibly affect EGT's and systematically show proof to eliminate them in your tests. This is much more work than simply testing the insulating characteristics of the coating as applied to the piston, and but one of the reasons why measuring minute power differences with a running engine hardly counts as conclusive proof.

This is what I was afraid of. This may become one of those unaswerable questions where you either believe or you don't.
Even basic experience with measuring EGTs would show this measurement by itself proves little if nothing without very thorough qualification.
It would require the removal of the TB coating and the control re-run with maximum effort on controlling all over variables.
I seriously doubt this has been done by anyone unless it has become a university student project sometime in the past.
For those involved so far, completing the testing process after one has the opportunity to conclude positive results is definately in conflict of interest.

At least when I did my testing I was keeping it down to one variable and running consecutive trials by removal and re-application of the TB coating.
The validity of my data shows in that it was a repeatable zero change in temperature each time. My data doesn't require anyone to have faith in the product or be intimidated by the said millions of dollars supposedly invested in research to develop it.
Keep in mind that thermal barrier working was not in question, but if it works in thin applications that will survive inside a running engine was in question.

So far I've seen everything but conclusive evidence, or valid test data. If it is fact that friction coatings work, or that you supposedly have a fast car, has no bearing at all on the question at hand.

I'm not doubting that thicker ceramics are effective in industrial applications for certain types of heat.
What is needed is a test to show a realistic application for automotive use is effective at insulating from the most significant type of heat in question.

Complete test data would show a break-down of each type of heat the surface of a combustion chamber is exposed to by % and graphed over the time of a complete cycle.
It would also show the effectiveness of a TB coating for each type of heat listed.
Running it in an engine would be considered just a practical test to help verify the actual valid test data... not the other way around.

You don't run a test like that to verify what you want to be true and then stop the testing as soon as you see what you want. That's complete garbage.

I should've bet my paycheck that no valid test data would get posted.

Dart331Stroker

ArcticZ28

iTrader: (14)

See, it's things like that that caused me to question why you even posted in here. If you were so sure you weren't going to get the information you desired, why did you continue posting in here? I just don't get what your whole plan was in the first place. You've shot down every single attempt at every imagineable entity from people in the ls1 community to direct manufacturer's and testers of these coatings and then you say you "should've bet your paycheck..."

BTW, this isn't "talking down to you". It's stating facts, you know, like the ones Dart keeps giving you.

2001CamaroGuy

iTrader: (6)

.......some people just don't want to listen.......

Dart331Stroker

First off lets get something straight, Dick Maskin knows what variables have what cause and effect on an engine, he has built more engines, and tried more things that you guys will ever dream of trying. I would never in a million years think of questioning him, Warren Johnson, Stevie Johns, Nick Ferry, Steve Schmidt, or David Reher for that matter on whether or not they were sure that the engine coatings worked for them. Our we the designers of said chemicals, no, do we do it here yes, do we run it on our own stuff, do thousands of racers use it, sure. Does that mean we have to prove something to you, no. Prove to us we are wrong. Its like this even if someone in the automotive field decided to waste thousand of dollars doing scientific experiments would is convince you, it wouldnt convince us. Often things that work on paper or that some engineer develops doesnt always work in the engine, but looks good on paper. Real world testing in this case it the best method.

Here is a classic example if I made a set of heads that flowed 330 and 220 and a set of heads that were the exact same heads but with different intake port shapes but same chambers and same runner sizes, and the second set flowed 290 and 205, you would say the first set makes more horsepower right??? Wrong, not necessarily the case, so my point is simple, you want scientific proof, there is none, it just works. You think Smokey Yunick, Jack Roush, Dick Maskin, Grumpy Jenkins, you think they are scientist, no they arent even engineerings, they understand the real dynamics of what works in an engine, and have tried things you couldnt even imagine.

I offer again FREE information, that comes from testing in the real world not in some f'n lab somewhere, but rather proof that this has been used by Roush's Cup teams, and after a 500 mile race it is still there, proof that in our own car what benefits we have seen. We have used coatings now for over 8 years. The turbo guys have used this for ever. Heck even Wheel 2 Wheel uses alot of coatings, and we didnt have to supply scientific evidence, its just a known fact.

And if you questions DOW and their development of it and the cost they have incurred, well than thats another story, and really amazes me.

As for Tech Line coatings, the coating application process is easy for the most part, however thickness, correct processing of the parts for cleaning is very critical, and if you followed this post throughout you will see that I have given the correct cleaning procedures more than once. Maybe thats the problem with peoples coating not living up to their expectations, leave it to the experts and it will do what it is suppose to do.

Calico coatings estimates internal engine coatings to be worth an average of 5-8 horsepower, that is an average. Depending on what is coated and what the motor is thats just the beginning.

AS for my car, I happen to own 9, and the 331 FORD is a daily driver, and just my name on here. Thats just an eleven second pump gas driver. Nothing special at all. Now we can talk about others, but really I am not here for that, my point was you and I build the same exact motors, all the same parts, except I can coat all my parts and you coat none, I will beat you all day!!

This is not rocket science people stop turning it into a damn class experiment, science doesnt work here, these are motors. Not scientific theories.

JUST DONT BUY IT!! NOBODY IS MAKING YOU, DONT USE IT!!!!

SIMPLE

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

That's what I'm saying too.

You say that it's me shooting you down when I'm just the messenger. It's the scientific method that's shooting you down. I just happen to be the one bringing it to your attention.
If it makes any difference take the "facts" you've got to a reputable physics professor at a universty near you and see if it passes the B.S. test.

white2001s10

iTrader: (4)

A good scientist lives to get questioned, and I don't mind doing it.
If you cannot get past the intimidation factor then this is hopeless.
Just because someone builds X number of engines and has tried X number of things doesn't mean they perform truly competent tests. That's false logic.
Please stop listing out big names and show the data.

ArcticZ28

iTrader: (14)

You never answered my question about why you keep posting. You already alluded to the fact that you knew you weren't going to get valid test data. I mean let's think logically about this, your original intent was to get valid test data -> you knew you weren't going to get it -> you keep posting and not getting valid test data -> you keep posting... how long is this going to go on? I'm really curious.