Molyslip and Ceramic Oil

[IVIUSTANG]

Yes, I have lived in the Arctic as well. It is very cold. Your face stings when you step outside and taking a shower feels like your skin is distinctively uncomfortable. And Volvo's are designed in Sweden, which lies primarily above the Arctic circle. Where I currently live isn't important in this argument and really is a form of ad hominem attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Your machines do not start with bare metal to metal contact. There is always a bit of oil hanging around on the surface.

Oil filters have a valve that prevents reverse flow. This leaves plenty of oil ready to jump out of the oil galleys and lube away. If anything the cold would keep the oil gooey and stuck around the contact surfaces.

You should know this

In regards to your pour test, we have a saying in science:
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

That is, the experience of one does not provide proof. It takes many, many experiments to make a strong case. And even then you must prove that your idea stands up against critiques. Otherwise it is just a testimonial.

Wikipedia does have an interesting article oil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_oil

I didn't know that "W" stands for winter pour rate, not weight. It's a test in which a certain amount of oil will pour through a certain sized hole at a certain temperature with "X" amount of pressure.

And yes, there is a section on synthetics but no citation was given. That makes it a testimony of an editor.

Again, if synthetics were all that you would find them mandated for all cars. They would be required by warranty. But they aren't. It's the same way oil companies still say that you should change your oil every 3,000 miles. That's definitely no longer true. But they like it, it makes them loads of cash.

And your cars are not starting for other reasons. A car completely devoid of oil will happily jump to life and seize up in a minute or so. The "Cash for Clunkers" was a great example. When a car was traded in it had to be destroyed. This was done by draining the oil and then pouring in a thin oil full of ceramic particles (think quartz sand). It took around 2-5 minutes for each car/truck to give up its ghost.

I hold no objection to where you live, but you don't experience a proper winter there and thus it was a reasonable assumption to say that you haven't experienced the need for synthetic, this is not Ad Hominen.

Science gets proven based on repeatable anecdotal evidence, look around and you will see 1000's of cases attesting to the improved cold flow characteristics of synthetics. No I don't have to waste my time collecting this for you(I have done it for myself as well as tested it unlike you). If you want to discredit me by essentially saying "that's only your personal non scientific experience," then by all means go ahead. Keep in mind the truth isn't always what we think it is, an unproven concept could still be more true than a scientifically evaluated "fact." Given that you seem to know a little bit about failures in argument etc, then you may also have read Platos Analogy of the Cave, I urge you to consider it.

By the way where did you live in the Arctic Circle?

- Jesse

[IVIUSTANG]

Here is some data for you done by regulated industry tests, all oils are the exact same weight(10w30) some synthetic and some dino, in any case this shows a difference in cold temperature viscosity, WHICH CAN GO BEYOND THE INDUSTRY TESTING OF THE "W" oil rating. Not every equal grade oil has the same viscosity at extreme temperatures, simple.

[bright]

As long as I am concerned, synthetic oil can last forever, there can be no modification of its structure..
The only problem is the oil filter that gets clogged and needs replacement.

That's an interesting point, but all good things must come to an end. There are plenty of originally intended (that's the best English I could find) molecules of oil. This is both in the case of synthetic and traditional.

But they do break down. And they also carry goo from combustion as well.

What you can do is actually re-refine them. That is basically to go through the refining process with your older oil. Believe it or not, what comes out of your engine is far, far, far cleaner than what comes out of the ground (oil from the wells actually looks like tar.)

The benefits of using older car oil in the refining process is that you skip a LOT of the energy intensive and expensive steps. You also conserve oil, which is a neat by product. Everyone wins.

I've read that Mercedes Benz ships their cars out with this sort of oil. It's good stuff.

Chemistry is amazing. A carbon atom is a carbon atom. It doesn't matter how it got into a particular arrangement. It just cares that it is there.

I would use it, but it's hard to find in retail stores. Mostly fleets use the stuff (think buses, garbage trucks, etc.) Consumers see the words recycled and scrunch up their noses. They tried to rebrand it re-refined (which is actually is) but the damage was done.

[bright]

I hold no objection to where you live, but you don't experience a proper winter there and thus it was a reasonable assumption to say that you haven't experienced the need for synthetic, this is not Ad Hominen.

It was, and is, an ad hominem affront.

Science gets proven based on repeatable anecdotal evidence, look around and you will see 1000's of cases attesting to the improved cold flow characteristics of synthetics.

No, theories are proven by rigorous tests that are based on the scientific method. I highly recommend howstuffworks.com

It's a very cool site about, well, how stuff works. It'll give you the low down on the scientific method and how things are proven. Check out this article:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/scientific-method.htm

"that's only your personal non scientific experience," then by all means go ahead. Keep in mind the truth isn't always what we think it is, an unproven concept could still be more true than a scientifically evaluated "fact."

Seriously? That sounds like a quote from "The 'X' Files"

By the way where did you live in the Arctic Circle?

OK, we'll both put our weenies back in our pants. We would get frostbite wherever we lived.

One last word on industry. I simply don't trust companies. I've worked for them and they have a habit of pushing the truth around when it suits them. I was at one firm (I am a chemist) and became uncomfortable as to how they “thought” my research should turn out.

Information can be manipulated. I am not disparaging the good folks at any of the listed companies on the spiffy bar chart. But they might not be reporting what matters the most.

A great example is whenever an oil ad says “Blankz-Oil will last twice as long as Prancing Horse Oil.”

What does twice as long mean? And is twice as long in that particular situation matter? Are we talking on the order of seconds longer over a years' worth of performance?

Don't become so personally invested in these debates. In the end you'll use whatever you want and I'll continue to use whatever I want:

But I'll have money left over to buy my girl roses.

And that's all I have to say about that...Bright

[instarx]

Interestingly I was curious about what a 0.5 micron particle would be, apparently it's as small as most infectious bacteria:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_0.5_mi ... lean_rooms

So yeah, I'd definitely say it's safe as far as passing through your filter... another reason why I'd assume Molyslip is the price that it is

I've spent much of my career evaluating clean rooms and I can tell you that a 5 micron particle is huge in terms of filters. It's practically a boulder in air filtration. Good air filters typically remove 99.5% of particles greater than 0.03 microns. Oil filters are different because of the viscosity of the oil and the larger pore size needed, but from what limited Googling I have done some oil filters remove down to 3 microns while most are rated at 10 um.

But the specs can be deceiving. Filters are rated at a particle size only when they remove almost all of the particles in one pass (95-99.9%). This does not mean they don't remove any smaller particles, and a filter rated at 10 um may remove 10% of 5 um particles (this is because pore size is not the only factor in particle filtration). If a filter removes 10% of the 5 um particles each pass it will only take 10 passes to remove them all. Even a 1% filter will only take 100 passes. In addition all filters get more efficient at removing small particles as they get dirty.

So I would not assume that 5 um particles are going to pass through your oil filter unrestricted. I do not know for a fact, but I suspect they are removed fairly quickly.

[instarx]

The weight of an oil is the weight of an oil.

Its viscosity describes the oil flow rate between temperature ranges.

It is not dependent on synthetic versus non-synthetic.

Technically your words are correct, but in reality it isn't so simple. Oil weights are calculated using specific defined temperatures. They do not take into consideration other temperatures. So a synthetic oil may flow much more freely and have a lower viscosity at very cold temperatures than a dino oil of the exact same weight. And that's important.

Nothing to do with your post, but I got a big chuckle out of that ebay seller complaining that people thought his company was "an armature out fit".

[Volgrrr]

Interestingly I was curious about what a 0.5 micron particle would be, apparently it's as small as most infectious bacteria:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_0.5_mi ... lean_rooms

So yeah, I'd definitely say it's safe as far as passing through your filter... another reason why I'd assume Molyslip is the price that it is

I've spent much of my career evaluating clean rooms and I can tell you that a 5 micron particle is huge in terms of filters. It's practically a boulder in air filtration. Good air filters typically remove 99.5% of particles greater than 0.03 microns. Oil filters are different because of the viscosity of the oil and the larger pore size needed, but from what limited Googling I have done some oil filters remove down to 3 microns while most are rated at 10 um.

But the specs can be deceiving. Filters are rated at a particle size only when they remove almost all of the particles in one pass (95-99.9%). This does not mean they don't remove any smaller particles, and a filter rated at 10 um may remove 10% of 5 um particles (this is because pore size is not the only factor in particle filtration). If a filter removes 10% of the 5 um particles each pass it will only take 10 passes to remove them all. Even a 1% filter will only take 100 passes. In addition all filters get more efficient at removing small particles as they get dirty.

So I would not assume that 5 um particles are going to pass through your oil filter unrestricted. I do not know for a fact, but I suspect they are removed fairly quickly.

Instarx, you have read Jamesross530's post incorrectly as he refers to a 0.5mu particle - not a 5 mu particle.

To my mind, a 5mu particle would be 10 times larger in diameter than a 0.5mu particle.

[instarx]

Instarx, you have read Jamesross530's post incorrectly as he refers to a 0.5mu particle - not a 5 mu particle.

Ah, you are quite right. I need to either read slower or think faster.

[wheelsup]

In my old 1986 Escort however I used a product called Molyslip, a mixture of molybdenum and oil. It greatly helped with dry starting, no top end rattles etc.

Molybdenum is already added to some oils. Here is an analysis I just did on Valvoline High Mileage 10w30. As you can see it has it added. You can buy this off the shelf for relatively little $$ in comparison to full synthetic oils.

[bright]

INSTRAX Read Me!

The weight of an oil is the weight of an oil.

Its viscosity describes the oil flow rate between temperature ranges.

It is not dependent on synthetic versus non-synthetic.

Technically your words are correct, but in reality it isn't so simple. Oil weights are calculated using specific defined temperatures. They do not take into consideration other temperatures. So a synthetic oil may flow much more freely and have a lower viscosity at very cold temperatures than a dino oil of the exact same weight. And that's important.

[/quote]

This is the definition I found on How Stuff Works http://www.howstuffworks.com, which usually does a nice job.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-effi ... ion164.htm
"Viscosity is ordinarily expressed in terms of the time required for a st­andard quantity of the fluid at a certain temperature to flow through a standard orifice. The higher the value, the more viscous the fluid. Since viscosity varies inversely with temperature, its value is meaningless unless accompanied by the temperature at which it is determined. With petroleum oils, viscosity is now commonly reported in centistokes (cSt), measured at either 40°C or 100 °C (ASTM Method D445 - Kinematic Viscosity). "

It's on page 2. It discuses what a multi-viscosity oil is. In this case, you can have your cake and eat it too. You have low viscosity at low temps and higher viscosity at higher temps.

You can design an oil to behave with a lower viscosity number in the above test and then make it behave differently in the same test. The only change would be in the temperature used.

IVIUSTANG and I have been going around and around about the merits of synthetic versus traditional oils. His observation is that since he can take a bottles of synth and a bottle of traditional in low temps and pour them. He can also see that they empty at different speeds. But molecules flowing over themselves at will is a very different effect than forced flow under pressure. There is laminar vs non-laminar flow effects, as well as how a polymer reacts under compression.

My general statement is that additives are not worth the cash, and in some cases cause a great deal of harm (see the poor soul in the latest round of seafoam discussions.) Most of it's perceived improvement is due to the placebo effect.

My whole point in posting in these discussions is to act as a foil for anyone who might read these posts.

Save your money and so something better with it.

Nothing to do with your post, but I got a big chuckle out of that ebay seller complaining that people thought his company was "an armature out fit".

I missed that too. They should read correspondence a bit more carefully.