Yeah but if the molecules realign, giving a more dense/stronger product (seems possible), why would the item remain the exact same size/shape? Just to give you an idea, the titanium con rod of an F-1 engine at 19,000 rpm stretches 1 mm on each revolution. metal is not a crystal, more if a plastic in behaviouyr really.
So I ask again, how do we know that the dimensions themselves don't alter, if the material itself changes density?
Also, this would be a losing prospect in the battle of diminshing returns, if the engine does not require a teardown to begin with.
I can appreciate your concern; but respectfully, as stated eariler, I am by no means the expert. Additionally, I may need to mention that cryo was an idea that was brought up to me in my first post. Presently, I'm just learning more about this process. If you would like more information, than you can either visit the cyro website that is listed up top, or you can call them at the phone number listed on their site. That's what I did, and I can tell you that they were quite helpful & informative.
On a seperated note, if your were intent on using cryo to maximize fuel efficiency, then yes, I would agree that it would be a battle of diminshing returns. At present, their isn't any research that would substantiate any gains in MPG...just durability and HP gains.
However, if you'd like an engine that will stand-up more to abuse, or more so, longterm wear and tear, then cryo would be the way to go. In spite of best efforts to maintain your vehical, some parts inevitably wear down faster than others. From a cost/benefit analysis, it would perhaps be far cheaper in the long run to have your engine or transmission cyro'd for $425.00 & $125.00, then to pay over $1000.00 to have either rebuilt.
Any process that results in more overall HP can be used to get more FE instead of more power/acceleration by simply changing to a taller gearing. Only limitation I can think of is it might be hard to get better FE out of a power improvement if the taller gearing moves the engine to a less efficient rpm.
PTFE: That's what the "busted" ideas behind Duralube, Slick 50, etc are all about. So, process means everything? EMC's method gets the most out of teflon, while the teflon oil additives result in little to no real change?
I wonder if these companies have results from genuinely independent labs to back their claims.
Ok will check again with my brother since he is involved with high performance motorcycle repair all the time - ones that go over 150mph turbo charged etc on the ceramic coatings from Hartford.
The EMC Teflon impregnation is a process where the parts cleaned of any oils then are heated in a high pressure teflon gas chamber and the teflon penetrates into the pores of the metal. Parts of the metal surface can be masked for no treatment. Crank journals - pistons rings and skirts below the ring grooves - wrist pins - gears and shafts - shifter forks - valve stems and steel valve guides (not brass guides I don't think) - cams and lifters all can be treated. Also any shaft that is rubbing upon an oil seal greatly reduces the friction and wear on the seal. They used to do gun barrels for weather protection for miltary purposes also - not sure if they still do it. They refuse to do bullets however so don't ask. Different metals with different heat treatment / hardness get heated to different temps and pressures. Buildup is possible on parts if you want it but it can be easily removed i.e. piston wrist pin holes. Like I said it makes the parts incredibly slippery - even being aware of how slippery the wrist pin was ahead of time I still dropped it. This is the transmission and rear end treatment that I used on my BMW motorcycle that brought it up to 60mpg from 50mpg and performance increased as well from the reduction of friction in the drive train allowing the bike with a roll on starting at 60mph to reach redline in a few seconds in top gear - speedo indicating 120mph.
As far as the additives in the oil I also use them but they tend to take longer to show results as they have to be burnished into the metal surfaces and as to if they work or not the recent addition of slick50 gear treatment to my xB transmission showed that even a 20 year old can of the stuff can still work.
Think about it for a second - oil is mostly providing a film to keep the metal surfaces apart so the only time the PTFE particles actually get rubbed into the metal is when metal to metal contact is occuring - heavy loads or low RPMs with reduced oil flow/pressure or in the case of the rings at TDC and BDC when the velocity of the piston is zero for a split second and at startup and low lugging speeds.
I used to be an engineer at a company which makes cryogenic pumps for pumping liquefied natural gas, nitrogen, etc. We would cryo cycle our pump shafts because if they were not cycled a few times and then straightened, they would be bent when cold. The idea is the cryo cycling would "stabilize" the material in terms of geometric shape. I was not aware that it increased strength but there are a lot of things I don't know about so not saying it's not true.
One thing I do know is in order to cryo cycle an engine block, every steel part that was pressed in or otherwise attached (studs, etc) would have to be removed first. Aluminum shrinks much more than steel at low temperatures and it will likely crack the weaker structure. This is the tricky part about cryo machine desing, getting it to stay together at both ambient and operating temperature.
I have seen people cryo treat the shafts of their transmissions in lsx powered gm cars to make them hold up a bit better. The cars are usually on the edge of breaking the 4l60e transmissions so everyone thinks that will make it hold up better. Overall I have seen people report a slight improvement in life by having them cryo treated. But as far as making anything more efficient I really can't see that working out unless the part is so weak it flexes under the very light loads someone would be putting on it trying to get good economy. At best it might give 3-5% improvement in strength from what I can tell from messing with ls1 cars. For a car on the edge of breaking a stock part with no stronger aftermarket parts available it might be worthwhile but I really don't see the benefit of doing it for economy.