Please thank the CLS for posting! Very Good.
"The API and SAE were unable to resolve the debate and eliminated the word, 'synthetics' from its terminology, books, and guides.'
Wow, if this isn't sticking your head in the sand, I don't know what is. It is not surprising that
the API would do this, but the SAE? I know the API is in the backpocket of the petro companies,
and the SAE has a weak set of internals. This is why I dropped my membership to the SAE.
> "The argument was made that VHVI's are created by chemically converting the molecules of a selected feedstock to a different set of molecules, predominately through chemical rearrangement or decomposition of the structure feed material."
Which is what I said, conversion and synthesis are two different processes and definitions.
> "PAOs are derived from a chemical process that combines small molecules to make larger complex molecules of a desired type."
As are Group V's, which has been the WORKING definition of synthetics since the German's, Standard Oil, and Union Carbide did their synthesis work in the '30's.
I still believe this should be decided in a court where expert witnesses like organic chemists
could testify. When a case is brought before a marketing/business group, one that has no expertise in chemistry, on what basis do you think they will decide the case -
Marketing language or Technical definitions?????