The Peckish Synapse

Donstar · December 4, 2024

20 hours ago, OnTheReel said:

“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.”

A quote usually used in discussions of religion fits equally well in the discussion of lubrication. The facts of tribology are much easier to prove. But to someone who doesn’t want to hear the truth it’s not any easier than convincing an atheist.

I personally don’t agree with the quote completely because it suggests it’s not even worth it to present an argument. But at least it helps temper my expectations…

My wife and I disagree, on occasion, when to stop an argument. I like to resolve disagreements at the time and she likes to take a break between rounds. Either way, we both strive to end with an explanation of an issue that we both own. We both appreciate that the other has valid reasons for their opinion and we enter into an argument quite prepared to be convinced contrary to our original belief. Of course sometimes there can be some stress releasing fireworks but we are both willing to accept that the other party could be right! Yesterday my wife told me that she and her sister have opposing opinions on who they'd vote for in a federal election. My immediate response was, "Why" ? She said they don't "talk politics". I think this was a lost opportunity to exchange important information. I have known both of these intelligent ladies for over 50 years and one of them has information that could better inform the other! I know some would automatically think their S. I. L. is wrong for having an opposing political opinion but my first concern is what don't I know?

Grumpy Bear · December 4, 2024

On 11/30/2024 at 10:58 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

https://www.stle.org/images/pdf/STLE_ORG/BOK/LS/Additives/Additive

Cliff Note version:

I get the mental Blue Screen reading an article like that. But I slog through it and multiple times until I think I've milked that cow dry. I don't see a single point of disagreement between what I write and what I read. In fact there are several admissions of "We don't know" We don't think" "Cost to much to find out" "We are willing to use the masses to find out". "Wear and efficiency are as different as sunset is to sunrise".

One of the more interesting tidbits was this statement and speaking on Friction Modifiers used for fuel economy:

"....they tend to have a larger effect when boundary lubrication is involved as opposed to hydrodynamic lubrication" pages 13 and 14

This statement was offered in the context of lower viscosity fluids being specified by OEM's. to improve fuel economy.

Put on the thinking cap. These modifiers are most effective when the viscosity is reduced to the point hydrodynamic lubrication is surrendered and with intent! And what happens when parts touch parts in motion? Wear! And how do they combat that? Wear additives doing the work of viscosity. (sound familiar?)And what happens to AW additives? They get used up. And what is the recommendation for OCI? Longer.

Now reconcile lower AW with longer OCI where the add package is sacrificial and there in insufficient viscosity to prevent boundary layer lubrication. Add what little viscosity you did have is compromised to temporary shear losses to below protection limits and this is a "FEATURE". It didn't have enough viscosity to start with!

Proof?

If the FAILED Delo 600 experiment did not convince you that these 'alternate' AW additives have a very short service life and thus ineffective in the current chemistries AND that the blender is happy to experiment on the public, then nothing will convince you and you will suffer the cost that position will demand of you.

Edited December 4, 2024 by Grumpy Bear

customboss · December 4, 2024

8 hours ago, Donstar said:

My wife and I disagree, on occasion, when to stop an argument. I like to resolve disagreements at the time and she likes to take a break between rounds. Either way, we both strive to end with an explanation of an issue that we both own. We both appreciate that the other has valid reasons for their opinion and we enter into an argument quite prepared to be convinced contrary to our original belief. Of course sometimes there can be some stress releasing fireworks but we are both willing to accept that the other party could be right! Yesterday my wife told me that she and her sister have opposing opinions on who they'd vote for in a federal election. My immediate response was, "Why" ? She said they don't "talk politics". I think this was a lost opportunity to exchange important information. I have known both of these intelligent ladies for over 50 years and one of them has information that could better inform the other! I know some would automatically think their S. I. L. is wrong for having an opposing political opinion but my first concern is what don't I know?

Have them come on here we’ll guide the debate. Stan can be on one of the gals side me on other. We’ll slide over to joke thread where Maverick will be the monitor. First question we should pose is if Canada becomes 51 st US State do we absorb Greenland too? Lol.

customboss · December 4, 2024

On 12/2/2024 at 9:39 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

What does it all mean?

Last night I posted to this title a careful distillation of thought on viscosity, preceded by the conclusion for the attention deficit crowd. Then I woke up at 5 AM and erased it to post a different thought.

Distribution of useful information is being called 'chest thumping' and 'a waste of time'.

I think @diyer2 is half right. It has turned out to be a waste of time. My time.

Chest thumping?

It's been said that with knowledge comes responsibility.

“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked” (Luke 12:48).

This has nothing to do with Spiderman nor Uncle Ben nor Western Culture. These are Jesus words about knowledge of the sacred pronouncements of God. Thing is, people believe a fictional person before Christ and in so doing show the nature of man. He doesn't care about the truth or the source of the lies he believes, and as such cannot benefit from it. And man will give credit to whomever he pleases. Really, Uncle Ben gets credit for Christ words?

I'll leave the "Why" to the shrinks and prophets.

But at this point, I fail to see how I benefit from others knowing what I know. If I did, in fact benefit, then diyer2 would be right. Chest Thumping. He challenges my motivations. Wow, there's nothing new.

Let's see. Do I:

1.) Get a kickback from any blender or refiner? No.

2.) Does my equipment benefit from someone else's beliefs? No.

3.) Do I get advertising dollars from a third party such as YouTube? No.

4.) Is praise for the effort heaped upon me? No.

5.) Do the 363K plus member come to the defense of accurate knowledge? No.

6.) Positive ego stroking attention? Hardly

Chest thumping? I think not. But yea, a waste of time. But...mine to waste. So,

Bugger Off!

PS. Know who benefits from knowing the truth? Me, and a slim minority of those who have privately sought it.

Jesus of Nazareth was a tribologist? News to me but if you can change water to wine on the fly I’d say he’s off to a good start !

customboss · December 5, 2024

On 12/2/2024 at 9:04 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

Viscosity...is the most significant parameter of a PCMO/HDMO

Games are played with it; in the way it is framed, explained, measured and marketed. All of that is built on a foundation of sand. A foundation that shifts with time, intentions and the needs of everything and everyone but the machine and the lubricant that protects it. It's a machine and it's a lubricant. Period. Machines change, Lubricants change but they are still what they are; something needing lubrication and something that is lubricant. K.I.S.S. Viscosity is the most significant parameter in that relationship.

Man can build and produce both but they can NOT do so outside the boundaries of physics and chemistry. Mobil nor GM can create new laws of physics or laws of chemistry. That is God's job. What they know is what they have discovered, not created. They can chose to use them to their fullest advantage OR to their greatest profit. Which do you think is true?

Da Vinci believed that every invention of man is an inferior copy of the creators original works and the best man can do, is combine a few in a unique way nature has not. I agree. In fact sanity requires it. Rationality requires it and any intelligent discussion of physical matters requires it. The conversation needs BEDROCK not sand to build upon.

Marketing is the art of the lie told in a way that frames and promotes the agenda of the liar. I haven't any use for lies or liars or those that promote lies or liars. Nor those that use them to distract the conversation away from its goals. The truth.

What the public needs is an explanation, not a snow job. But it isn't always what they want. Almost never what is available. And when there is the slightest attempt to supply, there is no shortage of assault laid upon the truth.

Heres a thought if I may.........

HTHS is a test not an actual condition inside ANY engine. Its an approximation not a condition as you continue to blather on about.

Also if someone challenges you you call them a liar, all HAT and no CATTLE response.... When someone reacts that way its a sign of ignorance and insecurity.

HTHS is a test for MULTI VISCOSITY oils. Rest assured if a modern engine oil meets API specs that are up to date it won't harm your engine as Grumpy drones on about. I appreciate his interest but his training and experience is lacking again so don't be needlessly scared that the world is ending and you must upgrade to a fluid that almost acting like a straight grade lubricant. Causing needless drag at ring cylinder interface.

Good discussion by a German scientist whos pretty sharp and good looking!

https://addinol.de/en/products/lubricants-for-the-automotive-sector/engine-oil/hths/

Amsoil treatise of using more viscous lubricants in passenger car engines....

https://blog.amsoil.com/what-happens-if-i-use-the-wrong-weight-viscosity-of-oil/

General viscosity discussion : https://blog.amsoil.com/understanding-oil-viscosity/

Grumpy Bear · December 5, 2024

Be USEFUL not DISTRUCTIVE.

@customboss here's a thought. You ignore every piece of information you don't agree with, that isn't headed toward some 'good ole boy club' goal you've fallen in line with; become frustrated and revert to some pretty base behaviors when you don't get the you hoped for, what you demand. Rude and dismissive and not for some greater good. Makes you hard to be around and worse to have a serous discussion with. And for whatever reason, I still like you. Something wrong with me, I know.

10 hours ago, customboss said:

Its an approximation not a condition as you continue to blather on about.

This ain't that hard. I need to open a can of worms but my can opener is being hidden from me. A hammer and chisel is what is in the drawer. I'm opening that can of worms. I still get the worms. Hardly blather. Resourceful.

How many times have you read me, "The conditions in the engine is what the oil reacts to, not the bench test". Look, I can measure the length of a piston with a tape measure or micrometer and get roughly the same result that will give me all the the 'practical' knowledge I need and I can't use either in an assembled running motors but that doesn't make me loose confidence in my tape measure or it's results. This IS the purpose 'approximation' testing and you know that. Your business is based on that and yet you make dismiss it when used. UOA's are the foundation of measuring on the bench what you cannot in the running machine. You witness against yourself.

10 hours ago, customboss said:

Amsoil treatise of using more viscous lubricants in passenger car engines....

https://blog.amsoil.com/what-happens-if-i-use-the-wrong-weight-viscosity-of-oil/

Seriously. Your source are the rats holding the cheese? This is why I don't take you seriously. You are headed in a direction and damn the truth. What is this mentality that says ignore it if it does promote your goal. What kind of science is that?

I gave you link of the four additive producers and their inputs. ALL FOUR agree that what is happening to oil is in response to REGULATION and not to machine durability. They admit that there isn't even a test to correlate ZDDP to the rate of Cat efficiency decay and yet regulation is driving it anyway based on back of the envelope chemistry math and worst case scenario estimations. The ALL FOUR agree that reducing ZDDP AND reducing viscosity WILL have an impact on wear and as a result they, as Infineum's Evans notes, are "ATTEMPTING to seek a balance between wear and COMPLIANCE.

Listen carefully. I don't care about that struggle. I don't care about their profits. I care about my machine, my wallet and the TRUTH. And I'm not getting any of that from people with goals not CENTERED on WEAR. Wear is an afterthought in the industry. These people believe the carbon foot print is better when we make ten of something rather than one that last. A five year old has more wisdom. He just isn't as GREEDY ...yet. He needs to be educated for that (groomed).

EVERYONE IN THE BUISNESS KNOWS the importance of HTHS and KRL testing and it's correlation to wear. It's just being ignored, best case, and discredited, not with facts but with will power and shear force, worst case.

Good for you. You are doing you part to be as disruptive as possible to follow the heard. Great science.

Edited December 5, 2024 by Grumpy Bear

customboss · December 5, 2024

31 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

good ole boy club' goal you've fallen in line with;

You’ve met me! You know I have a personality like you. I’m in no club except the one where everyone wants to kick my ass.

Edited December 5, 2024 by customboss

customboss · December 5, 2024

31 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

And for whatever reason, I still like you. Something wrong with me, I know.

Love you too brother.

customboss · December 5, 2024

33 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

They admit that there isn't even a test to correlate ZDDP to the rate of Cat efficiency decay and yet regulation is driving it anyway based on back of the envelope chemistry math and worst case scenario estimations.

Oh precious, you got that from me! About 4 years ago I told you that in my own catalytic testing 12 years ago we did that work for the API and additive companies.

customboss · December 5, 2024

35 minutes ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Be USEFUL not DISTRUCTIVE.

@customboss here's a thought. You ignore every piece of information you don't agree with, that isn't headed toward some 'good ole boy club' goal you've fallen in line with; become frustrated and revert to some pretty base behaviors when you don't get the you hoped for, what you demand. Rude and dismissive and not for some greater good. Makes you hard to be around and worse to have a serous discussion with. And for whatever reason, I still like you. Something wrong with me, I know.

This ain't that hard. I need to open a can of worms but my can opener is being hidden from me. A hammer and chisel is what is in the drawer. I'm opening that can of worms. I still get the worms. Hardly blather. Resourceful.

How many times have you read me, "The conditions in the engine is what the oil reacts to, not the bench test". Look, I can measure the length of a piston with a tape measure or micrometer and get roughly the same result that will give me all the the 'practical' knowledge I need and I can't use either in an assembled running motors but that doesn't make me loose confidence in my tape measure or it's results. This IS the purpose 'approximation' testing and you know that. Your business is based on that and yet you make dismiss it when used. UOA's are the foundation of measuring on the bench what you cannot in the running machine. You witness against yourself.

Seriously. Your source are the rats holding the cheese? This is why I don't take you seriously. You are headed in a direction and damn the truth. What is this mentality that says ignore it if it does promote your goal. What kind of science is that?

I gave you link of the four additive producers and their inputs. ALL FOUR agree that what is happening to oil is in response to REGULATION and not to machine durability. They admit that there isn't even a test to correlate ZDDP to the rate of Cat efficiency decay and yet regulation is driving it anyway based on back of the envelope chemistry math and worst case scenario estimations. The ALL FOUR agree that reducing ZDDP AND reducing viscosity WILL have an impact on wear and as a result they, as Infineum's Evans notes, are "ATTEMPTING to seek a balance between wear and COMPLIANCE.

Listen carefully. I don't care about that struggle. I don't care about their profits. I care about my machine, my wallet and the TRUTH. And I'm not getting any of that from people with goals not CENTERED on WEAR. Wear is an afterthought in the industry. These people believe the carbon foot print is better when we make ten of something rather than one that last. A five year old has more wisdom. He just isn't as GREEDY ...yet. He needs to be educated for that (groomed).

EVERYONE IN THE BUISNESS KNOWS the importance of HTHS and KRL testing and it's correlation to wear. It's just being ignored, best case, and discredited, not with facts but with will power and shear force, worst case.

Good for you. You are doing you part to be as disruptive as possible to follow the heard. Great science.

Once again.
1) HTHS is a test A TEST not a condition in our engines that our off the shelf oils can’t handle.
2) you are mixing up additives discussions with viscosity. Viscosity won’t stop wear if it’s too viscous. It might even generate more wear from heat holding.
3) CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION

4) love you brother. Really do. In light of that stop scaring people here. I’ll be leaving this site soon. I don’t want you misinforming again like you were before I showed up.

diyer2 · December 5, 2024

I don't think people want to kick my ass but they have a hard time dealing with me because I speak my mind, no sugar coating. People can't take it.

Grumpy Bear · December 5, 2024

1 hour ago, customboss said:

Once again.
1) HTHS is a test A TEST not a condition in our engines that our off the shelf oils can’t handle.
2) you are mixing up additives discussions with viscosity. Viscosity won’t stop wear if it’s too viscous. It might even generate more wear from heat holding.
3) CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION

4) love you brother. Really do. In light of that stop scaring people here. I’ll be leaving this site soon. I don’t want you misinforming again like you were before I showed up.

I'm missing nothing and you know what else I'm not doing? Taking extreme positions to make a case that will not stand on it's own. Quote ["Viscosity won’t stop wear if it’s too viscous. It might even generate more wear from heat holding".]

No one is running a ISO 600 on the street and no street motor is loaded enough to need one. Stop this extreme crap.

You are trying to tell people that the very bedrock of Tribology is not true. Problem is, you are only one saying it.

Idemitsu has a 5W20 "Energy Conserving" oil that has the minimum 2.6 cP HTHS viscosity You can buy any Big Box Major label Dexos1Gen2 or 3 oil with that value.

Evolves' EvoSyn 5W20 mid SAPS Euro oil comes in at 3.36 cP. Vicious enough for any SAE 30 and even 0 & 5W40.

You are advising using such an oil is a danger to wear? Worse that it has zero impact?

2 hours ago, customboss said:

HTHS is a test A TEST not a condition in our engines that our off the shelf oils can’t handle.

And yet the benchmark standard for wear STUDY for Porsche, Benz, Dexos2 Audi, Volkswagen.

Actually the conditions in the ring area can be worse. :wtf: Even GM advises track day to use a more viscous oil. Are the trying to burn down my motor? Wear is out with heat holding?

I don't mind you telling me there is a new method in calculating a math problem. I take issue with you telling me the numbering system that is the bedrock it stands on is WRONG and ONLY YOU know the truth. I laugh because you are the only one standing in the street screaming it.

What I have said has nothing to do with mixing anything with anything. But you have a big shovel and like the crap pile method of discussion. Lord man, you disagree with Watt, Newton, Hersey, Stribeck. Get your head on straight and argue the TRUTH not the party line. I can read the back of the bottle for your type of advise.

customboss · December 5, 2024

What is the function of engine oil in a combustion engine?

What is engine oil used for?

The main tasks of engine oil in a combustion engine are:

Cooling: The friction of the moving parts in the engine is reduced and even heat distribution is ensured.
Cleaning: Engine oil binds the smallest impurities such as metal parts in the engine and carries them away to the oil filter. This prevents deposits from forming in the engine.
Wear protection: Engine oil separates the moving components from each other. This reduces wear in the engine and ensures a long service life.
Corrosion protection: The metal surfaces in the engine are covered with a thin protective film by the oil, which reduces the effects of air or acids from the combustion process.
Fuel saving: The efficiency of the engine increases through optimal lubrication, which reduces fuel consumption. Modern engine oils also actively contribute to emission reduction and environmental protection.

Oil protects and lubricates the moving parts in the engine

Composition of engine oils

Each engine oil is individual and adapted to specific requirements in different combustion engines. Therefore, always use only the oil that is prescribed in the manufacturer's specifications for your vehicle. In doing so, you must ensure that the oil specifications are met. A look at our Oilfinder is all it takes. If you use the wrong oil, irreparable engine damage can occur.

To ensure that the engine oils meet the requirements in a modern combustion engine, high-quality synthetic oils are mostly used as a basis for production. These are stable to ageing and temperature resistant. In order to cope with the constant load of an engine in operation, the base oils alone are not sufficient to protect the system adequately. Additives must be mixed into the base oil for it to work effectively. The proportion of additives in the base oil can be up to 20%. Additives are oil-soluble components that give the oil additional properties that it did not have before.

Additives for engine oils can be divided into groups:

Group	Additive	Property
Surface-effective	Wear protection additive	Protects friction partners from contact and wear and tear
Surface-effective	Anti-corrosion additive	Protects metals from corrosion with a water-repellent layer
Surface-effective	Detergent/Dispersant	Binds deposits/dirt and guides them to the filter
Oil-protective	Anti-ageing additive	Protects engine oil from oxygen storage and decelerates deterioration
Oil-protective	Metal deactivator	Protects engine oil from catalytic processes due to abrasion of metals
Oil-protective	Antifoam additive	Reduces the formation of foam in the engine oil and the oxygen ingress
Oil-improving	Viscosity improver	Optimises viscosity in the range of limit temperatures (cold, heat)
Oil-improving	Pourpoint improver	Provides good lubricating properties in cold conditions
Oil-improving	Elastomer improver	Protects engine components with elastomers from decomposition

Contact

Mayka Nehrkorn

Product Manager Automotives

Contact

Share this post

/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/addinol-logo.svg

ADDINOL Lube Oil GmbH
Am Haupttor
D-06237 Leuna

Telephone + 49 (0) 3461 845-0
Fax + 49 (0) 3461 845-555
E-mail [email protected]

customboss · December 5, 2024

On 12/4/2024 at 9:31 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

If the FAILED Delo 600 experiment did not convince you that these 'alternate' AW additives have a very short service life and thus ineffective in the current chemistries AND that the blender is happy to experiment on the public, then nothing will convince you and you will suffer the cost that position will demand of you.

FAILED??????? I tested a L3B with a 0 ZDDP engine oil THAT WAS HEAVIER GRADE LIKE YOU SWEAR EVERYONE MOST LIKELY COULD BENEFIT FROM............so a 10W30 (also a NON SYN GRPII CHEVRON formulation) VS 5W30 GM recommended SYNTHETIC..........SO MR GENIUS it allowed slightly higher iron wear but well within L3B limits most here accept BLINDLY ACCEPT using OEM LUBES. You really take the cake MR GRUMPY BEAR. I'M so glad my brain is working well enough to engage you ESPECIALLY since I paid for all these analyses myself vs your copy and paste bench testing.

REMINDER of what I did. LOOK AT RESULTS OF DELO 600 NON SYN 10w30 results vs all the 5w30 synthetic results.