Well, we're not talking about a single shot of oil being squeezed out. We're talking about oil flow. And just because a particular oil has a lower coefficient of friction doesn't mean that the hydrodynamic film is more fragile than one with a higher coefficient. And least I can't see why it would. As you pointed out, it flows easier, which means it's slipperier as to be slippery, means the film will move around easier due to less friction(although I don't agree with synth being that) but using your answers, if it moves easier, which means it flows better, then it would tend to move out of a shear zone easier... My point here is that the esters and mineral compounds in base oils do not protect metal surfaces unless it can maintain hydrodynamic film and there is no difference when it comes to shear zones. Take a bearing on a crank, the oil is pumped in, to create a hydrodynamic wedge, both oils will do the same thing, that is why both oils can do the same job, but if the oils flow is too quick, it can squeeze out faster thus shearing/scuffing or if the oil is too slow, then if a low oil pressure condition exists like when at idle, then when acceleration occurs, the slower flow oil will take longer to flow into the bearing to provide the higher pressure or wedge effect as well again causing scuffing/shearing. Take the timken machine... Yeah, I know many don't think it shows anything, but it is demonstrating the same basic condition as in a crank and bearing is in. It is providing a wedge of base oil to the two surfaces while it is rotating, but when pressure is put on the bearing against the race, such as a piston does against the crank, it shears the hydrodynamic film of ANY oil as the oil is squeezed out around the sides of the bearings just like in a rod bearing against a crank. there is nothing to resist the flow at that point and can do this under certain conditions. Obviously, you don't put as much pressure on a rod bearing as on this machine but again, it makes no difference what base oil is used, the hydrodynamic properties of all oils will shear as they do not provide any kind of barrier protection but uses a wedge of oil between the two surfaces which under many types of conditions this exists. Again, I dis agree with the synth hydrodynamic film strength being better under normal oil change intervals as it is referring to atomic molecular film strength not fluid since we are talking two separate things. It's basic mechanics, fluid flows and shears no matter what, all of which vary from different degrees of flow, so the tighter the bearings, the better the wedge effect on the oil and the higher the pressure is the better the hydrodynamic film holds, but if what you say about synth's flowing easier, then it can also break easier, again, that isn't the case.
You failed to address my points about the barrier additive levels being higher in synth oils as well over mineral counter parts.. what gives, if hydrodynamic properties of synth can protect better, why then is it needed? Can you also explain why harley has had such a problem with synth oils on their roller bearings if my theory is incorrect? can you explain why mineral oils in the same basic oil drain intervals give as good or maybe even better wear #'s as synth's? How is it that we survived as long without synth's if mineral oils couldn't protect as well? yes, mineral oils have to be changed more often than synth's but again this is due to the atomic structure of the molecules of the two and yes this is where the atomic film strength DOES make a difference. Do me a favor and take the time to come up with answer to that before trying to respond to my answers, it just might give you some food for thought as many just assume that it's the base oil doing all the work when in fact why do we have all these additives to assist the base oils? Think on it
Edit: Here's a quote from MolaKule in another thread: "Synthetics offer more slipperiness, higher film strengths,(he and I have come to a difference of opinion on this many times, but he also stated to me one time that just maybe I might have a point here, not conclusive but I honestly think that the two terms are being used as one when in fact there is two seperate ways to look at this.) wider VII, better heat conduction, and higher(molecular) shear strengths, and better thermal and oxidative stability." (totally agree)
[ February 26, 2003, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]