There are a lot of companies making all sorts of claims about what their product(s) will do. 99% of these companies never substantiate their (dubious?) claims. We want to be totally transparent and show you the rigorous testing we have done before we claim results. That is what the following is all about. And, as we continue to test, we will continue to make our results public.
1. Four-Ball Wear Test - Coefficient of Friction
The four-ball wear test is a standard measure of friction, and wear and tear.
This test is basically a large iron press. Four metal balls are pressed down into four concave metal holders. The balls are then spun and pressure is applied. Friction and heat are measured. Next, a product is added to ascertain its effect on reducing friction and heat.
The test indicates what is called the "coefficient of friction (COF)." The lower the COF the better. Zero would be no friction which does not exist in nature.
In the fall of 2011 and winter of 2012, RAND tested its products at Petro-Lube facilities in Lafayette, New Jersey. This test used as a control a popular motor oil. The COF with the motor oil was .082, a very respectable measure and below that of other motor oils. Then, RAND's nano-compound was added. Within one hour, the COF dropped (dramatically) to .017, the lowest measure RAND could find in the scientific literature.
Below is the graph produced by Petro-Lube to show the decrease in COF.
2. Four-Ball Wear Test - Wear Scar
The four-ball wear test can also measure the grooves and scratches caused by metal on metal (wear and tear). The longer the scar (cut or groove) produced during the four-ball test, the more the wear and tear. The wear scar (length of groove) produced during testing of the popular motor oil was .49 millimeters. Once RAND's nano-compound was added, and the test repeated, the wear scar dropped by 25% to .39 millimeters.
3. Electron Photography
We wanted visual proof of what RAND products were doing inside an engine. So, we took apart two (identical) vehicles (with the same mileage) and sent slices of engine metal (from pistons) to IMR Test Labs in Lansing, New York. The below photographs show the edges of the pistons magnified 600 times.
The photo on the left is from the untreated engine. You can clearly see the divots and cavities in the metal that grind and cause friction.
The photo on the right is from the treated engine. As you can see, the metal surface of the piston in this vehicle looks much different from the untreated engine. What you are seeing are the tops of nano-particles that act like roller bearings. As the metal moves, the outer layer of these particles peel (like onion skin) causing almost a friction-free phenomenon.
4. Engine Tests - Automobiles
Over the course of six months, RAND tested its products in engines.
These tests were conducted at ESW America in Montgomeryville, Pennsylvania, a facility that works with all the major engine manufacturers, and the U.S. military.
The tests involved putting vehicles on a dynometer (like a treadmill) and measuring fuel consumption.
(a) 2010 Ford Crown Victoria – over a five-day period – April 25 – April 30, we tested the fuel economy of this vehicle. First a baseline was established. The car was driven in 20-mile increments over several hours. After each segment, carbon emissions were measured to ascertain the fuel consumed. Then mileage was then determined by dividing 20 by the amount of fuel burned.
Next, RAND's product was added to the engine.
The car was then run for 250 miles to allow our nano-particles to penetrate the engine metal.
Then, the car was tested again - for mileage and carbon emissions. As you can see on the below bar graph, the mileage improved from a baseline average of 28.96 MPG to a post-treatment average of 30.46 MPG – an increase of 5.19%. In addition, the carbon emissions dropped from 314 grams per mile (T-101) to 280 grams per mile (T-114). The decrease in carbon emissions from start-up (baseline) to conclusion was 10.8%.
(b) 2000 Dodge Intrepid – on May 14, 15, and 16, we tested our product in this vehicle. The test protocol was the same as for the Crown Victoria above. The bar graph produced at ESW is below. As you can see, the initial MPG was 30.92 (T-119) and the MPG at plateau (after our product was added) was 33.58. This is an 8.6% improvement with a similar reduction of carbon emissions.
NOTE: both of these tests measured fuel consumption by reading carbon emissions from the automobile both at a baseline and after RAND's product was applied.
5. Engine Tests - Trucks/Heavy Vehicles
Daimler Freightliner Cascadia, 15-liter Cummins Engine – On June 13, 14, 15, and 16 ESW tested our product in this diesel truck cab (with low mileage). The test was done by gravimeter, the weighing of a fuel tank outside the cab, measured in 44-mile cycles. As you can see from the below bar graph, the baseline average was 9.01 MPG. Then, our product was added on June 14, and 300 miles were driven to allow our nano-particles to take effect. On June 15 and 16, post-treatment tests were run. Over these two days (June 15-16), the cab was run in 44-miles cycles, after each cycle the gasoline in the gravimeter was measured and a precise MPG was established. As you can see, the MPG jumped to 9.11 (T-155) and increased progressively to 9.31 (T-160) at which time the test was concluded (even though MPG was climbing).
The increase in MPG from start of the test to the last cycle was 3.3%. We believe that over time the MPG will increase to 5% or more. Finally, carbon emissions during the test decreased by about 2%.