Baseline MPG. Charger RT.

[demarpaint]

^^Nice work Injured. Lots of good info in those links. I missed the blow-by thread we had here, but my experiences have echoed what was written there. I believe moly fills voids and reduces oil consumption depending on just how bad those voids are.

Ceratec is very interesting as well, it would be nice to have more info about that product too.

Nice job!

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Injured_Again


User "wag123" wrote this in another thread:

For those of you who have not done this, our host has provided reading material on this website about what MoS2 does and how it works (including electron microscope images of how MoS2 bonds to the wear parts inside an engine). Also, note in your reading that our host endorses the use of Mos2.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly-basics/
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/applications-for-lubrication/
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/what-is-blow-by/


BITOG does not "endorse" using MoS2 - there are articles put up as FYIs and to help people learn.

I agree with demarpaint's assessment that the particles may well fill voids and reduce consumption, but they still are particles. And particles, even at 100nm, are HUGE compared to a molecular MoS2. Plus, DLVO and other forces will prevent them from staying that small.

None of this means that there is MoS2 CHEMICALLY ADSORBED onto the surface. Fine particles may sit on the surface, and they may break into finer particles under shear (though suspended particles often shear thicken) in the tight contact areas. But I am convinced the MoS2 on the surface is due to physical pressure forcing particles into a rough surface (think chalk on a concrete sidewalk), not any sort of chemical bonding.

The comment that ceratec will somehow attach to the surface once the MoS2 has worn away is just not consistent with the surface science of this stuff as I understand it. There is no competitive adsorption of any of this stuff chemically to the surface, because there isnt a practical atomic interaction, IMO (this is why we have other soluble molys in oils, not particulate MoS2 - because they have functional groups that will interact with the surface). Going back to the chalk on the sidewalk concept, think pebbles on the sidewalk. If you rub a pebble on the sidewalk, some will scuff off (fine dust), and the pebbles (big particles analog) will still sit there. Neither the dust nor the pebbles will be attached chemically to the sidewalk. Blow either off and its gone. Similarly, take a second pebble, different color and different kind of rock, and it too will mix in as a stripe on the sidewalk. The dust that comes off may be a different particle size or something, but it neither chemically displaces or chemically alters the concrete surface. If you rub pebble #2 on the stripe you drew with pebble #1, youll have a mix of both dusts in there (and anything displaced would be due to physical "pushing" of it). No chemical reaction = no formal displacement of what is affixed to the surface (because nothing is strongly affixed).

Thus what youll get from the first instant is a mix of the two materials, which may or may not be compatible, and the bigger particles will carry the load and the smaller ones will sit interstitially. One particle may be better than the other for some reason like ability to stabilize in solution, inertness, particle size, etc., but the bigger particle "fines" in the nooks and crannies will always be the first to provide boundary lubrication.

Again, its a nitpick, but as Ive defined it is more appropriate to the surface science as I understand it.

 

[Trajan]

Well, as far as doing anything for a base line MPG, it hasn't done anything in my usage. (MoS2.)

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Well, as far as doing anything for a base line MPG, it hasn't done anything in my usage. (MoS2.)


Im sorry, with gasoline sold to three decimal points, I have a hard time believing that the values are EXACTLY the same two decimal places out...

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Well, as far as doing anything for a base line MPG, it hasn't done anything in my usage. (MoS2.)


Im sorry, with gasoline sold to three decimal points, I have a hard time believing that the values are EXACTLY the same two decimal places out...


LOL

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Well, as far as doing anything for a base line MPG, it hasn't done anything in my usage. (MoS2.)


Im sorry, with gasoline sold to three decimal points, I have a hard time believing that the values are EXACTLY the same two decimal places out...


They are. But what purpose would it be to run this:

4.761904761904762 vs 4.761904761904763?

4.76 is good enough. Could round it up to 4.77, but it doesn't change the statement any. LM MoS2 did nothing for MPG.

And 14.712 gallons vs 14.711 doesn't mean much either.

If it's good enough for the EPA, it's good enough for me.

Odometers don't measure in anything less than 10ths of a mile either. So how does one know if looking at the odometer that reads 93714.8 isn't 93714.82?

As long as we want to get technical

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Well, as far as doing anything for a base line MPG, it hasn't done anything in my usage. (MoS2.)


Im sorry, with gasoline sold to three decimal points, I have a hard time believing that the values are EXACTLY the same two decimal places out...


LOL


OK. Take this: 300.1 (is it 300.12/3/4/5? Who can say.)

Divide by 14.111 (Since we want to get technical, why stop at 3 numbers though)

Take that number, the entire number. Which of course is limited by the calculator.

Divide into 1.

Multiply by 100.

Tell me that MoS2 increased my G/100 rating.

 

[JHZR2]

Apparently you're missing the point. We buy gas with gallons reported to three decimal places. Our trip odometers measure to one decimal place. I can't say that I've ever when logged the exact same MPGs, to the second decimal place (and I do every tank, every car) on any two tanks, let alone multiple. Rounding is a convenient argument, and im glad if you're truly seeing the exact same MPGs, to the second decimal,place, consistemtly over multiple tanks.

IMO changes in temperature, traffic patterns, etc create enough of an effect for that to not be the case.

I could see it being fairly consistent to one decimal place, but not two.

 

[panthermike]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Well, as far as doing anything for a base line MPG, it hasn't done anything in my usage. (MoS2.)


Im sorry, with gasoline sold to three decimal points, I have a hard time believing that the values are EXACTLY the same two decimal places out...


LOL


OK. Take this: 300.1 (is it 300.12/3/4/5? Who can say.)

Divide by 14.111 (Since we want to get technical, why stop at 3 numbers though)

Take that number, the entire number. Which of course is limited by the calculator.

Divide into 1.

Multiply by 100.

Tell me that MoS2 increased my G/100 rating.


I don't think the math is the problem here. The fact that your pre/post numbers are identical at 4.76 is quite interesting.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Apparently you're missing the point. We buy gas with gallons reported to three decimal places. Our trip odometers measure to one decimal place. I can't say that I've ever when logged the exact same MPGs, to the second decimal place (and I do every tank, every car) on any two tanks, let alone multiple. Rounding is a convenient argument, and im glad if you're truly seeing the exact same MPGs, to the second decimal,place, consistemtly over multiple tanks.

IMO changes in temperature, traffic patterns, etc create enough of an effect for that to not be the case.

I could see it being fairly consistent to one decimal place, but not two.


I just wanted to use two x.xx rather than x.x. I could round it up to 4.8, but I wanted to go with something just a smidge more accurate.

My last tank, going with .xx was 4.78. I just figure that if I round it up to 4.8, it would be more significant than I thought it should be. (Going from .76 to .78 instead of .7 to .8)

I wish it could be more exact. Just too many variables. Not just the ones you mention, but other things too. (Like shift the Ford recommended way, or the "let's rip it" way.)

Perhaps, if I changed the way I do it? (Not the G/100 method, which is the same as Liters/100 kilometers, and we're supposed to see on window stickers soon, but do the mpg math instead of using the car computer?)

 

[Injured_Again]

The thing that is impossible to believe is that your results are SO consistent. This means that if you drove the same routes every day, that the weather was the same, the traffic was the same speed, you caught and missed the same lights, and that a trip that takes one hour or 3600 seconds, if it varied by 1% as your consumption figures are purported to, would vary by less than 36 seconds day by day?

You could not repeat a drive that consistently if the roads were entirely empty and you had them all to yourself. Otherwise, you'd be the champion of every timed-speed rally you'd choose to participate in.

I'm skeptical by nature, but I tried MoS2 and it provided measurable benefits for me (with about a 5% spread), as well as subjective benefits. I had read other supporting and non-supporting evidence and it either passed the smell test and was regarded, or didn't pass the smell test and was disregarded. I have to say that variances of the type you describe, do not pass the smell test.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Injured_Again
The thing that is impossible to believe is that your results are SO consistent.


They are only consistent because I left it off after two digits.


How about this. Forget the numbers, forget even your smell test. (Which doesn't apply as you do not, and can not, know the routes I travel, the conditions, the temps, or anything else for that matter.)

Claims that are unsupported by any data are the norm here in this particular forum. There are people in this very thread who do not take kindly to having their claims questioned.

What does that mean? Having asked for data in support of these claims, and getting nothing but grief, I throw up my hands and surrender. (We won't get into the ever shifting standards of proof....)

So in short, I state that my observation is that LM MoS2 does nothing for miles per gallon. I don't have to prove it, as that is the way here.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
I throw up my hands and surrender. (We won't get into the ever shifting standards of proof....)



Great, does that mean we won't be hearing from you in this thread anymore?

 

[Garak]

In these comparisons, we need a lesson in significant figures. Additionally, it would be helpful to determine the size of the error bars, which I bet are pretty large.

Trip odometers usually read to one decimal place. Fine. Is the odometer actually correct to within 1/10 of a mile (or 100 m in Canada)? Is it, say, (151.5 +/- 0.1) miles or is the error larger than that?

When it comes to the pump, they list plenty of decimal places, even up here in Canada where we use litres, which are much smaller than gallons. I guarantee you, however, that a fillup of 55.003 L as listed on the pump isn't (55.003 +/0 0.001) litres. It's not going to be +/- 0.001% over 100 litres. That's not even plausible. It's difficult enough in a lab to measure (1.000 +/- 0.001) litres, let alone at a gas station. The government mandated maximum error is significantly larger than that in both our countries.

We also use different pumps on occasion; sometimes the car is more level than other times. We fill in different weather conditions. We fill to different levels at different times, based on our rounding and "click" preference.

Throw in switches to and from winter fuel and conditions such as headwinds and tailwinds and traffic jams, and we get a pretty significant error bar. I'd even have trouble believing consistency to one decimal place.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Garak


Throw in switches to and from winter fuel and conditions such as headwinds and tailwinds and traffic jams, and we get a pretty significant error bar. I'd even have trouble believing consistency to one decimal place.


Exactly. So many variables that exact same values to the second decimal place, or even to the first, is questionable tank to tank. If it was within +/- say, 0.3 mpg, I'd say the results were still statistically the same, but it would be a lot more believable.

 

[Garak]

Yep, and that's why automakers can afford to worry about CAFE credits. They can run all kinds of little tests in controlled environments that will eek out tiny fuel economy improvements. Of course, we do reap the benefits of those, but we certainly would never notice them.

 

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted By: Garak
In these comparisons, we need a lesson in significant figures. Additionally, it would be helpful to determine the size of the error bars, which I bet are pretty large.

Trip odometers usually read to one decimal place. Fine. Is the odometer actually correct to within 1/10 of a mile (or 100 m in Canada)? Is it, say, (151.5 +/- 0.1) miles or is the error larger than that?

When it comes to the pump, they list plenty of decimal places, even up here in Canada where we use litres, which are much smaller than gallons. I guarantee you, however, that a fillup of 55.003 L as listed on the pump isn't (55.003 +/0 0.001) litres. It's not going to be +/- 0.001% over 100 litres. That's not even plausible. It's difficult enough in a lab to measure (1.000 +/- 0.001) litres, let alone at a gas station. The government mandated maximum error is significantly larger than that in both our countries.

We also use different pumps on occasion; sometimes the car is more level than other times. We fill in different weather conditions. We fill to different levels at different times, based on our rounding and "click" preference.

Throw in switches to and from winter fuel and conditions such as headwinds and tailwinds and traffic jams, and we get a pretty significant error bar. I'd even have trouble believing consistency to one decimal place.


The probability of the mpg from a second tank being identical to the previous tank is the same probability as many other numbers. All those variables could result in any number including a perfect canceling each other out.

Only controlled testing can objectively prove anything one way or the other.

 

[Garak]

Or, the variables can stack and create a larger error. That's why we call them error bars.

As for controlled testing, of course that's all that can prove anything. Controlled testing will also be using mathematics properly. And trying additives at home and measuring fuel consumption doesn't count as a controlled test or a use of mathematical rigour.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Trajan
I throw up my hands and surrender. (We won't get into the ever shifting standards of proof....)



Great, does that mean we won't be hearing from you in this thread anymore?


Obviously not. I'm using your rules now, which you would know if you bothered reading the entire post.

You should not only be thrilled, but apply those same rules to anyone, not just me, who raises questions. Or are they also ever shifting standards?

 

[TrevorS]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: Trajan
So far, I have no indication that MoS2 does anything for mpg. Didn't really expect any....


Pollute someone else's thread. Your opinion is worthless so don't bother wasting your time or mine.



I've been away for a while so may have missed something but is personal testimony no longer valued when it comes to oil additives?

Or is it only the personal testimony of those with opposing personal testimonies?