And the true synthetics are....

Status
Not open for further replies.
I live in a black and white Aircraft World where there are no grey areas except in battle conditions.
It seems to me when it comes to Chemistry that area is much the same.It either is or is not.

Now I do not want to type myself into a corner here but it is agreed not on this board but by the oil makers a PAO fluid is not only manufactured differently it acts different when put to use as a lubricant in any application it is needed. As good as a Group III might be it is not a true synlube base oil period. Just because it was ruled by some Marketers to be a synthetic the guys who know there stuff believe and know different,,Molakule is one of those guys in being a Physicist and a Tribologist these oil issues/additives seem to come easy for him.

Simply put,a Pao fluid and a Group III base oil are two entirely different animals.This topic can be talked about till the cows come home but thats the bottom line.

Hope this helps
 
quote:
Originally posted by dragboat:
I live in a black and white Aircraft World where there are no grey areas except in battle conditions.
It seems to me when it comes to Chemistry that area is much the same.It either is or is not.
Click to expand...
There is never anything black and white, even in the world of science. Paradigm shifts and "thinking outside the box" are what moves science forward.

Molakule wants to hold to the paradigm that only an oil produced from polymerization (BIG oil molecules are built up from little gas molecules) is truly a synthetic. That's fine. I happen to disagree and I've explained why ad nauseum.

My argument is not that all Group III oils should be considered synthetics. I don't believe that is the case at all. I do believe that any base oil that is produced from a feedstock other than distilled crude can legitimately be called a "synthetic." PAO's feedstock is ethlyene gas. Shell's XHVI's feedstock is slack wax.

PAO may be the result of polymerization, but unless I'm way off base, the polymerization is still the result of a catalytic process involving hydrogen, pressure, and heat. XHVI is produced by a catalytic process involving hydrogen, pressure, and heat. The end result of both processes is base oil, but oil is not what the process started with.
 
And you hold that only Shell's VHVI is the true Group III synthetic while denying that Chevron's Group III is a synthetic????

In the world of science, paradigms only shift when there is sufficient reason and good cause not to believe the old paradigm. In your case, XVHI, your wanting a paradigm shift is based on marketing and faulty science.
nono.gif


[ December 04, 2002, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
 
quote:
Originally posted by MolaKule:
And you hold that only Shell's VHVI is the true Group III synthetic while denying that Chevron's Group III is a synthetic????

In the world of science, paradigms only shift when there is sufficient reason and good cause not to believe the the old paradigm. In your case, XVHI, your wanting a paradigm shift is based on marketing and faulty science.
nono.gif

Click to expand...
I don't want a paradign shift. I really don't care what other people believe is or isn't a "true synthetic." For me, if oil is the end result of a process that didn't start with oil, then that oil is "synthetic." This has nothing to do with marketing or faulty science. It has everything to do with deductive reasoning.

Marketing would have you believe all Group III oils are synthetics. Deductive reasoning would show that isn't the case. You create oil from gas, the oil is synthetic. You create oil from wax, the oil is synthetic. You create oil from dog poop, the oil is synthetic. You create oil from oil (the typical Group III), the oil isn't synthetic.
 
XHVI,

"I don't want a paradign shift...."

Sure you want a paradigm shift, because it changes the way people will view the distinctions between true synthetics and fake synthetics.

"I really don't care what other people believe is or isn't a "true synthetic." "

And that is definately showing in your responses, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary, and from that which is found in the majority of chemical and lubrication papers.

What I find interesting is the fact that I've only found three major papers in the technical literature wanting to change the definition of synthetic and those were written by people from Shell and Chevron.
 
quote:
Originally posted by MolaKule:
XHVI,

"I don't want a paradign shift...."

Sure you want a paradigm shift, because it changes the way people will view the distinctions between true synthetics and fake synthetics.

"I really don't care what other people believe is or isn't a "true synthetic." "

And that is definately showing in your responses, in spite of scientific evidence to the contrary, and from that which is found in the majority of chemical and lubrication papers.

What I find interesting is the fact that I've only found three major papers in the technical literature wanting to change the definition of synthetic and those were written by people from Shell and Chevron.
Click to expand...
And what I find interesting is your failure to address my reasoning for holding that a base oil is synthetic if it was made from a non-oil feedstock. What are your reasons for believing that only a polymerized base oil is synthetic?
 
synthesis- Chemical defintion;" Formation of a compound from simpler compounds or elements."

synthetic- ;"Of or produced by synthesis. Not natural or genuine;artificial. A synthetic chemical compound. "

Quotations from - American Heritage dictionary

Terry Dyson's tribilogical understanding;

Synthetic lubricants are made by polymerization ,( the process of changing compounds of low molecular weight, and simple chemical structures into a polymer composed of extremely large or specifically engineered molecules).

I'm really enjoying this debate and please more chemistry/tribilogical minds weigh in.
Reads like a STLE meeting among lubricant engineers!

Disclaimer, I ain't no chemist !
 
The definition that Molecule provided is the industry accepted one. FWIW, I've worked with polymer and composite materials for twenty years ....

If the industry could pass off Group II oils as synthetics they would do so. Witness the Chevron labeling of their Group II basestocks as "ISOSYN" - whatever that means. They certainly want to give the customer the impression they are buying the good stuff and not just a more refined petroleum product.
 
And, does it really matter? If magnetized peanut butter gave my engine better protection, I'd be happy with that. Engine protection, drain interval, etc., etc. are all that count.

Ken
 
Yeah it does Ken2 . ( And personally I agree with the peanut butter analogy, been working on veg based lubes a long time).

The consumer is lead to believe that "synthetic" implies better lubrication. Costing more but getting more value. When industry shifted the definition based on a Kangaroo court decision and quietly replaced higher quality base stocks with a notch lower for the same high price, implying better quality, the consumer was duped. Purely because of consumer/end user ignorance and misleading marketing.

Noria and this board have started to change that I hope.
 
quote:
Originally posted by TooSlick:
Witness the Chevron labeling of their Group II basestocks as "ISOSYN" - whatever that means.
Click to expand...
I believe Isosyn is Chevron's trademark name for iso-dewaxing.

The intention of calling Group III basestocks "synthetic" is bait & switch. Stop any 10 adults on the street and ask them if they have heard the term "synthetic oil" and 10 out of 10 will say yes. Nine out of 10 can tell you that synthetic is better than conventional. It takes a great deal of promoting (time and money) to reach that level of public knowlege of your product.

In the Castrol vs Mobil case, if Castrol had put "Group III Hydrocracked" instead of "synthetic" on the label of Syntec, a blizzard of legal writs could have been avoided. But then Castrol would have had to promote, advertise, and educate the public about the merits of G III vs conventional oils. Hijacking the term "synthetic" was dishonest, and the result has been consumer confusion and the true synthetic basestocks disappearing from the store shelves.

[ December 04, 2002, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
 
If I combine CO2 and water through a process into cellulose have I created synthetic cellulose?

If I burn cellulose in my fire place, am I creating synthetic CO2 and water?

It's a rhetorical question. No need to reply.
 
My thoughts and I could be wrong is because Chevron came up with this iso-dewaxing first they proudly put it on their labels.

Much like the Mobil 1 being the first to produce a PAO lube for the masses as in a affordable OTC PCMO available near everywhere they take pride in their product,,,while making lotsa money
smile.gif
 
Here is some Valvoline DoubleSpeak Disinformation
mad.gif


I asked them if the primary ingredient in the base oil was Group III or IV. As you can see they have deception down to a science. (I think the answer is Group III)

"Synpower uses a proprietary combination of various types of synthetic base oils to obtain optimum performance. All of the base fluids
used in SynPower are synthetic.

Some synthetic fluids are produced through a synthesis process that takes very small molecules and assemble them into larger designer molecules
with premium lubricating properties. Others may be produced through a synthesis process that takes very large molecules, breaks them apart
and re-arranges them to produce designer molecules with premium lubricating properties.
In either case the end products are base fluids with extremely good lubricating properties. However, all of them also carry with them
certain inherent disadvantages.

By carefully selecting the right combination of synthetic fluids and the right combination of premium chemical additives, Valvoline is able to
take advantage of all the benefits of the different components and their combinations while overcoming any inherent disadvantages that a specific component may have. The end result is full synthetic motor oil second to none.
rolleyes.gif
 
quote:
Originally posted by Al:
Some synthetic fluids are produced through a synthesis process that takes very small molecules and assemble them into larger designer molecules
with premium lubricating properties. Others may be produced through a synthesis process that takes very large molecules, breaks them apart
and re-arranges them to produce designer molecules with premium lubricating properties.
Click to expand...
What they have described here is how PAO (Group IV) and Group III base oils are made. Perhaps SynPower uses a blend of both.
 
"""synthesis- Chemical defintion;" Formation of a compound from simpler compounds or elements."

synthetic- ;"Of or produced by synthesis. Not natural or genuine;artificial. A synthetic chemical compound. """

The above defintion is good, here is another one, rephrasing it:

Assembling a molecule from smaller ones.

There is no grey area, this is what synthesis means.

Hyrdoisomerization is not a synthesis, but an isomerization process.

Very different thing.

Also look up the meaning of the greek wordstem of "synthesis".

Fred...
smile.gif


PS: whether a catalyst is employed or not, has nothing to do with the nature of a reaction, it doesn't make it fancier or even different, all a caralyst does, is speed up a rxn that would happen the same way anyway (sometimes considerably faster).
Catalysts are used for all sorts of rxns synthetic and otherwise.

[ December 06, 2002, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: palmerwmd ]
 
Lubrizol offers a definition of synthetic basestock similar to yours, palmerwmd:

quote:
A product prepared by chemical reaction of lower molecular weight materials to produce a fluid of higher molecular weight designed to provide certain predictable properties.
Click to expand...


[ December 06, 2002, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Z
  • Locked
What makes Mobil EP clean sludge,ingredients?
Replies
16
Views
3K
dnewton3
H
VR1 conventional. Good as synthetic?
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
ARCOgraphite
Yuk
Are new oils always better?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Propflux01
Z
  • Locked
When did Mobil 1 stop being a true synthetic?
Replies
14
Views
3K
MolaKule
Corneileous
Oil for 2018 Ram 1500 Hemi
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
4K
Corneileous
Back
Top