Ceratec and Mos2 Discussion

[/quote]
I recall discussion from way back when about that article. IIRC the moly they're referring to in the article is not MoS2. The vast majority of oil manufacturers are not using MoS2 for moly in oil formulation. In any event there is better suited moly for it, that stays in suspension. Perhaps one of our residents can weigh in on the moly used in engine oil.[/quote]

The article at https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/moly-basics/ is SPECIFICALLY about Mos2 or Molybdenum Disulfide. It Does not discuss tri-nuclear molybdenum and it does not discuss Molybdenum Dithiocarbamate - Its is only talking about MOS2.


The first bit of text from the article is copied and pasted here;

"Molybdenum is a very hard metal with a number of industrial uses.
It is combined with chromium in steel to make the steel harder and more resistant to bending. Most of the bicycle frames produced today use chromium and molybdenum steel. Because the steel is so much harder, the manufacturers can use less, thereby making the frame lighter.

Molybdenum Disulfide (Moly) has been used for decades in lubricating pastes and greases because it is slippery and forms a protective coating on metal parts.

Moly exists as microscopic hexagonal crystal platelets Several molecules make up one of these platelets. A single molecule of Moly contains two sulfur atoms and one molybdenum atom. Moly platelets are attracted to metal surfaces. This attraction and the force of moving engine parts rubbing across one another provide the necessary thermochemical reaction necessary for Moly to form an overlapping protective coating like armor on all of your engine parts. This protective armor coating has a number of properties that are very beneficial for your engine."


If the 'Moly Basics' article is wrong it should be taken down. If the 'Moly Basics' article is right then some information contained within threads on the board is wrong.
Anybody willing to place a bet on which outcome is correct?
 
^^^
Not a bad idea. The article should be corrected and/or updated. That was discussed too about that section of the site some years ago.
 
Originally Posted by demarpaint
the moly they're referring to in the article is not MoS2.
Negative. Did you actually read the article demarpaint?
As Olas has stated, the Moly referred-to in the article IS MoS2 (which is the molecular name for Molybdenum Disulfide). Directly from the article... A single molecule of Moly contains two sulfur atoms and one molybdenum atom.
And, in the article there is this... Engineers have developed a process that keeps Moly in suspension.

Originally Posted by Olas
If the 'Moly Basics' article is wrong it should be taken down. If the 'Moly Basics' article is right then some information contained within threads on the board is wrong.
Anybody willing to place a bet on which outcome is correct?
The article has been on BITOG since the beginning and for all the years it has been here, it's content has never been disputed by any knowledgeable chemists/engineers/scientists that I am aware of, so, some information contained within threads on the board is wrong. I wish that they still had the electron microscope pictures in the article.
It is a proven fact that MoS2 does what they say it does. The people who have tried it in manual transmissions and motorcycles with wet clutches can attest to that.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Trav
You may as well open the window and throw the money out into the wind, same effect. Lighter wallet nothing more.


Electron microscope photographs show moly plating - this is measurably and observably MORE than nothing.
 
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by demarpaint
the moly they're referring to in the article is not MoS2.
Negative. Did you actually read the article demarpaint?
The Moly referred-to in the article IS MoS2 (which is the molecular name for Molybdenum Disulfide). Directly from the article... A single molecule of Moly contains two sulfur atoms and one molybdenum atom.
And, in the article there is this... Engineers have developed a process that keeps Moly in suspension.

Originally Posted by Olas
If the 'Moly Basics' article is wrong it should be taken down. If the 'Moly Basics' article is right then some information contained within threads on the board is wrong.
Anybody willing to place a bet on which outcome is correct?
The article has been on BITOG since the beginning and for all the years it has been here, it's content has never been disputed by any knowledgeable chemists/engineers/scientists that I am aware of, so, some information contained within threads on the board is wrong. I wish that they still had the electron microscope pictures in the article.
It is a proven fact that MoS2 does what they say it does. The people who have tried it in manual transmissions and motorcycles with wet clutches can attest to that.

I read the article, that doesn't mean it is correct. Why not call an MoS2 supplier and ask them about it staying in suspension in oil, and why it is not used more frequently. I did, and was told it falls out of suspension. The majors aren't using MoS2, why? They know better. Yes the "engineers" have a moly that stays in suspension, and it isn't MoS2.
 
Originally Posted by Olas
Originally Posted by Trav
You may as well open the window and throw the money out into the wind, same effect. Lighter wallet nothing more.


Electron microscope photographs show moly plating - this is measurably and observably MORE than nothing.


Then why does Liqui Moly the largest supplier of this product no longer uses it in their own oils instead they use a tri nuclear moly.
Nuff said IMO.
 
Originally Posted by Trav
Originally Posted by Olas
Originally Posted by Trav
You may as well open the window and throw the money out into the wind, same effect. Lighter wallet nothing more.


Electron microscope photographs show moly plating - this is measurably and observably MORE than nothing.


Then why does Liqui Moly the largest supplier of this product no longer uses it in their own oils
Yes, they do.
 
[/quote]If the 'Moly Basics' article is wrong it should be taken down. If the 'Moly Basics' article is right then some information contained within threads on the board is wrong.
Anybody willing to place a bet on which outcome is correct?[/quote]
Lots of info is wrong. Just like most internet chat sites.
 
Mola would be the expert here. But I was under the understanding that the tri-nuclear moly produced/converted to mos2 at the friction surface when boundary lubrication came into play.
 
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Trav
Originally Posted by Olas
Originally Posted by Trav
You may as well open the window and throw the money out into the wind, same effect. Lighter wallet nothing more.


Electron microscope photographs show moly plating - this is measurably and observably MORE than nothing.


Then why does Liqui Moly the largest supplier of this product no longer uses it in their own oils
Yes, they do.


In one only to satisfy old timers still stuck on using this crap. 10w40 IIRC.
This product had its place a long time ago when oils did a poor job of controlling wear, cylinder ridges were the norm as was slow cranking in hot weather on a hot engine due to dry cylinders, the oil just burned off.

Today we don't see any of this stuff on a properly maintained engine, moly is still used but not in the solid form.
 
Originally Posted by CT8
[/quote]If the 'Moly Basics' article is wrong it should be taken down. If the 'Moly Basics' article is right then some information contained within threads on the board is wrong.
Anybody willing to place a bet on which outcome is correct?
Lots of info is wrong. Just like most internet chat sites.

Yes, and yet there are people who treat things they read on the Internet as Gospel.
 
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by CT8
If the 'Moly Basics' article is wrong it should be taken down. If the 'Moly Basics' article is right then some information contained within threads on the board is wrong.
Anybody willing to place a bet on which outcome is correct?
Lots of info is wrong. Just like most internet chat sites.

Yes, and yet there are people who treat things they read on the Internet as Gospel.[/quote]

When faced with two conflicting pieces of information, we have to determine which one is correct and which one is not.
Evidence is helpful in making these decisions, where anecdotes are not.
 
Originally Posted by Olas
Originally Posted by demarpaint
Originally Posted by CT8
If the 'Moly Basics' article is wrong it should be taken down. If the 'Moly Basics' article is right then some information contained within threads on the board is wrong.
Anybody willing to place a bet on which outcome is correct?
Lots of info is wrong. Just like most internet chat sites.

Yes, and yet there are people who treat things they read on the Internet as Gospel.


Originally Posted by Olas
When faced with two conflicting pieces of information, we have to determine which one is correct and which one is not.
Evidence is helpful in making these decisions, where anecdotes are not.

+1 That's why doing your own homework is important, and discussing things with experts. Which is exactly what I did in the case of MoS2. Regarding evidence, Trav's pictures, and the pictures of others [evidence] of it settled in the bottom of his oil pan reinforced what Rosemill Industries told me about adding it to oil. They said it was not a good oil additive, which is why the major oil makers aren't using it.
 
Originally Posted by Trav
In one only to satisfy old timers still stuck on using this crap. 10w40 IIRC.
No, it is not the only one.
 
Originally Posted by wag123
Originally Posted by Trav
In one only to satisfy old timers still stuck on using this crap. 10w40 IIRC.
No, it is not the only one.


I think it's old time assumptions about bad formulas from the past. In fact, I'm surprised there is not a popular 10w40 HDEO on the shelf … don't we have another "how low can we go" 15w40 thread going on now ?
The 10w30 HDEO's are not at the same price point … and 5w40 is just too expensive for large volume users.
 
What 20w50? This one doesn't use it.

https://www.amazon.com/Liqui-Moly-2...d=1583535147&s=automotive&sr=1-2

This one doesn't either.

https://www.pelicanparts.com/More_Info/LQM20262.htm?pn=LQM-20262

And neither does this one.

https://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/liqui-moly-hd-synth-20w50-street-engine-oil

Ceratec is the same crap in the regard it also falls out of suspension and brings little or nothing of value. I don't see them using that in any of their own product either.
The snake oil market is one huge profit maker. I wonder if they still sell pills you drop down the plug holes for an instant engine rebuild.
 
Originally Posted by Trav
What 20w50? This one doesn't use it.

https://www.amazon.com/Liqui-Moly-2...d=1583535147&s=automotive&sr=1-2

This one doesn't either.

https://www.pelicanparts.com/More_Info/LQM20262.htm?pn=LQM-20262

And neither does this one.

https://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/liqui-moly-hd-synth-20w50-street-engine-oil

Ceratec is the same crap in the regard it also falls out of suspension and brings little or nothing of value. I don't see them using that in any of their own product either.
The snake oil market is one huge profit maker. I wonder if they still sell pills you drop down the plug holes for an instant engine rebuild.


And you beloved "oil is the only thing you need, from manufacturer cause they know best" seems to fall out of suspension as well. But let me guess, that's totally acceptable.
 
Originally Posted by domer10
Originally Posted by Trav
What 20w50? This one doesn't use it.

https://www.amazon.com/Liqui-Moly-2...d=1583535147&s=automotive&sr=1-2

This one doesn't either.

https://www.pelicanparts.com/More_Info/LQM20262.htm?pn=LQM-20262

And neither does this one.

https://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/liqui-moly-hd-synth-20w50-street-engine-oil

Ceratec is the same crap in the regard it also falls out of suspension and brings little or nothing of value. I don't see them using that in any of their own product either.
The snake oil market is one huge profit maker. I wonder if they still sell pills you drop down the plug holes for an instant engine rebuild.


And you beloved "oil is the only thing you need, from manufacturer cause they know best" seems to fall out of suspension as well. But let me guess, that's totally acceptable.

There is a bit of additive fallout with oil, it has been discussed numerous times here. It is certainly not to the degree that MoS2 or Ceratec falls out of suspension, and it doesn't stay clumped up in the oil pan, in vehicles that aren't driven every day. Just search for the pictures of MoS2 falling out of suspension, they're here on the site. If you want to boost moly with an additive there are much better choices, such as Lubegard Biotech Engine Protectant. That doesn't suffer from the fall out issues that MoS2 or Ceratec does.
 
Back
Top