All things equal...Mobil 1 versus pennzoil

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
While it's only two tests, the combined results of these two tests mean that the base oil has a very linear and pure molecular structure.

We've been over this before...they are not "linear"...for the benefit of the casual observer, here's the "linearity" of PAO

Yes, we have. It's linear in the sense that the monomers making up the PAO polymers are linear. By the way, most PAO have only dimers and/or trimers, not the pentamers you pictured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_alpha_olefin

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
By the way, most PAO have only dimers and/or trimers, not the pentamers you pictured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_alpha_olefin


I'll see your wiki and raise you Exxon Mobil...IIRC, they make a fair amount of oils with high BOQI...
http://utsrus.com/documents/seminary_doklady/exxon_mobil_pao.pdf

dimers and trimers AREN'T linear either, are they ???

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
dimers and trimers AREN'T linear either, are they ???

You're being argumentative. PAO dimers and trimers are quasilinear. So, what?

You see in that presentation of yours that they sell the ultra PAO by saying that it's more quasilinear/uniform than the regular PAO (no random short branches and no variations in monomer lengths).

 

[Hammehead]

Isn´t the branched structure what makes a groupII better in dispersancy, than groupIII (and plus)? That´s why GroupII copes better with lead sludge in aviation gas engines, way better than PAO. M1 aero fiasco showed that. Also why that rinse phase of some product is better using a group II. Although they never said that...

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan

You're being argumentative. PAO dimers and trimers are quasilinear. So, what?


You started using the word linear some time ago, WRT to base oils...I countered that with the facts.

You continue to use it, and made up other technical sounding terms to try to paint a picture that doesn't exist, but sounds accurate to the gullible non technical...

If you want to sound technical and precise, be technical and precise.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan

You're being argumentative. PAO dimers and trimers are quasilinear. So, what?
You started using the word linear some time ago, WRT to base oils...I countered that with the facts.

You continue to use it, and made up other technical sounding terms to try to paint a picture that doesn't exist, but sounds accurate to the gullible non technical...

If you want to sound technical and precise, be technical and precise.
If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bovine scatology, which seems to be the standard MO here.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
You're being argumentative. PAO dimers and trimers are quasilinear. So, what?

You started using the word linear some time ago, WRT to base oils...I countered that with the facts.
You continue to use it, and made up other technical sounding terms to try to paint a picture that doesn't exist, but sounds accurate to the gullible non technical...

If you want to sound technical and precise, be technical and precise.

Oh, I see, it's all mumbo jumbo, hey?

Your argument then is that linearity/quasilinearity of oil molecules has nothing to do with the oil's performance. In fact, perhaps you think the less linear, the better are the properties?

Perhaps macroscopic behavior of oils has nothing to do with their microscopic structure?

 

[PWMDMD]

I’m left thinking, “Know your audience”.

Gokhan, what’s your background? Have you ever taken an organic chemistry course? This stuff isn’t really “intuitive” if you don’t have a back ground in it. [censored]...I helped teach organic chemistry but without reviewing the whole of organic chemistry with respect to lubricants it’s just out of my league. I can follow those who know what they are talking about but wouldn’t have an original thought about it.

If you’re not doing this stuff for a living everyday it’s difficult stuff.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Your argument then is that linearity/quasilinearity of oil molecules has nothing to do with the oil's performance. In fact, perhaps you think the less linear, the better are the properties?


There you go with that strawman again...I'm not even taking that bait.

I understand about double, triple bonds, isomerisation, etc. etc.

 

[1JZ_E46]

Stop feeding the troll guys. You cannot win.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Your argument then is that linearity/quasilinearity of oil molecules has nothing to do with the oil's performance. In fact, perhaps you think the less linear, the better are the properties?

There you go with that strawman again...I'm not even taking that bait.

I understand about double, triple bonds, isomerisation, etc. etc.

It was sarcasm. The point is that linearity is referenced in many articles but you still reject it. It's even more of a straw man for one to reject a claim without any base, not to mention that you don't make any effort to understand it even though your background is only mechanical engineering.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
even though your background is only mechanical engineering.


OK, back to the playground...what are your SPECIFIC tribological training and experience ?

I've given mine in the past...now for you.

 

[Gokhan]

We both know each other's backgrounds. The current discussion is organic chemistry, not tribology. Here is one reference, in which they show that the viscosity index (VI) is inversely proportional to the branching number.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpi/48/6/48_6_365/_pdf/-char/en

By the way, it looks like I'm not the only one coming up with indexes. They "introduced a new index" ~ (carbon #)^2/(branching #) to calculate the VI from the carbon number and branching number "regardless of the feed stock," which is similar in philosophy to my base-oil-quality index BOQI ~ 1/(CCS*NOACK), which works regardless of the base stock. (See the abstract.)

 

[Shannow]

Ooohhhh-Kaaaaayyy.

Someone develops in "index" for a completely different parameter, using two completely different properties, and it somehow validates your BOQI ?

Laughable..

(Note to potential BOQI believers...BOQI gives wildly different results for the same family of PAO basestocks, indicating that it doesn't even work for it's claimed application)

And no, the glycemic index doesn't validate BOQI either.

 

[edhackett]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Ooohhhh-Kaaaaayyy.


Look at the bright side, Shannow. With Gokhan around, we have a large part of the warp drive hardware problem solved. Strap him onto the front of a star ship and not even a black hole would be able to stand up to his deflection skills.

Ed

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Ooohhhh-Kaaaaayyy.

Someone develops in "index" for a completely different parameter, using two completely different properties, and it somehow validates your BOQI ?

Laughable..

(Note to potential BOQI believers...BOQI gives wildly different results for the same family of PAO basestocks, indicating that it doesn't even work for it's claimed application)

And no, the glycemic index doesn't validate BOQI either.
Let us not overlook the fact the "index" is 13 years old so when he says "new", I suppose that is relative and, of course, nothing has changed in 13 years related to motor oil.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Ooohhhh-Kaaaaayyy.
Look at the bright side, Shannow. With Gokhan around, we have a large part of the warp drive hardware problem solved. Strap him onto the front of a star ship and not even a black hole would be able to stand up to his deflection skills.

 

[Gokhan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Someone develops in "index" for a completely different parameter, using two completely different properties, and it somehow validates your BOQI ?

You were asking how the linearity and molecular structure affected tribological properties. The reference I posted is great because they actually study the tribological properties as a function of the average carbon number and average branching number.

Here the average branching number (number of methyl branches) is one form of deviation from linearity, and it's shown that the viscosity index (VI) is inversely proportional to it, despite your claims that branches and linearity have nothing to do with the tribological properties or vice versa.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Gokhan
You were asking how the linearity and molecular structure affected tribological properties.


No I wasn't...as I told you, I understand isomers and their behaviours, and what makes a base-stock "better".



Originally Posted By: Gokhan
despite your claims that branches and linearity have nothing to do with the tribological properties or vice versa.


Can you stop making stuff up ?
This is getting ridiculous...

 

[SilverFusion2010]

Shannow, don’t feed the troll. They thrive on attention. Just block him and his bad science