Dr. Hass theories into practice

[friendly_jacek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by b_rubenstein:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Good reading...but don't be fooled. He mixes simulations with real world data,...

---

I worked in a research lab for 20 years.

Design is based on theory and mathematical models and then validated in testing. When lab results don't match well with predictions models resarch has to be done to determine what phenomena is not properly accounted for in the model.

I will concede that many of Taylor’s papers are beyond the academic background of some of the folks here.

---

I have to admit that both of your posts are offending.
First, 427 started with belittling the author of the paper and then rubenstein insulted the BITOG members.

This paper was discussed on BITOG before. I first learned about it in 2005 here on BITOG. It's a good reading indeed but it's just a review paper and not a scientitic breakthrough. I have enought academic background (outside engineering) to know how to write and read scientific papers. This review provides good info but it's filtered through the prism of fuel efficiency and mostly written to prove the author's opinion. If you look at the durability chapters, the statements are generalized, poorly referenced and based on anegdotal cases. This paper is not well balanced.

 

[toocrazy2yoo]

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

Originally posted by friendly_jacek:
I have to admit that both of your posts are offending.
First, 427 started with belittling the author of the paper...

---

I did not intend to belittle the author in my post. My intent was to warn neophytes of certain people who cherry pick his data and/or take it out of context.

 

[b_rubenstein]

So lets see, we have Ian Taylor with the following bio (http://www.iantaylor.org.uk/papers/AsiaFL2002.pdf):

Ian is currently a Senior Scientist in the Automotive Lubricants Group at Shell Global Solutions UK, where he is mainly responsible for the future product development of passenger car motor oils. He has worked for Shell since 1991. He graduated from Cambridge University with a First Class Honours Degree in Theoretical Physics in 1984, and received a PhD in Applied Physics and Electronics from Durham University in 1987. He
has published many papers in the area of engine tribology and specifically in the area of fuel economy lubricants.

And lists 57 articles/presentation/papers here: http://www.iantaylor.org.uk/papers.htm

... or someone with the forum handle of "friendly_jacek". Gee, I wonder which source has more credibility???

 

[Gary Allan]

While I still can...

 

[toocrazy2yoo]

Well, while I still can, G..

Sorry, B_Rubin, I'll buy Jacek's version:

quote:

---

This paper was discussed on BITOG before. I first learned about it in 2005 here on BITOG. It's a good reading indeed but it's just a review paper and not a scientific breakthrough. I have enough academic background (outside engineering) to know how to write and read scientific papers. This review provides good info but it's filtered through the prism of fuel efficiency and mostly written to prove the author's opinion. If you look at the durability chapters, the statements are generalized, poorly referenced and based on anecdotal cases. This paper is not well balanced.

---

Your man Taylor is a corporate engineer with commercial axes to grind. I'll readily admit to complete idiot status on these subjects, a status you obviously consider most here to be in possession of, but I know a corporate mope with commercial interests when one backs up in my drain, and Mr. Taylor, advanced degrees and all, is of that ilk.

Besides, Jacek has a member # of around 1400, he's been here awhile longer than you or I, and while I don't know what his professional background is in all this, his readings have been far broader, I'd wager, than Mr. Taylor's writings. Between Mr. Dyson, Mr. Allen, folks here from BlackStone, MolaKule, Dr. Haas, and any of dozen or so others who are self-taught on the subject, I'd not trade Mr. Taylor's corporate positions on this science for any of those residing right here.

No disrespect intended toward you or Mr. Taylor.

[ July 21, 2006, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: toocrazy2yoo ]

 

[friendly_jacek]

rubenstein,
are you saying that the handle "rubenstein" is superior to "jacek"?
Or is it "friendly" that you have a problem with?
BTW, thanks for you insulting posts.

Edit: BTW, I autored more than 57 articles/presentation/papers in my field and I'm younger than Taylor. Yet, I don't boast about it.

 

[Thatwouldbegreat]

and now back to thin oil....and whether Dr Haas is right or oversimplifying the case for thin oils.

 

[toocrazy2yoo]

Nah, Jacek, he means educational comparison. The degrees, Doctorates, and the corporate affiliations, and papers published of which Mr. Taylor is possessed add up to a little more credibility in Ruben's book than yours, or anyone else's. It's nice he gets published, he HAS to publish, he's PAID to get published, or surely he will perish..

*I* of course, have no credibility, so I'll shut up now.

 

[b_rubenstein]

quote:

---

Originally posted by friendly_jacek:
BTW, I autored [sic] more than 57 articles/presentation/papers in my field [/QB]

---

Don’t be so modest. Any references or citations?

 

[Bio-T]

Way to personal, time to say goodby.

 

[JAG]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sxg6:
Bold statement to make considering you've only been a member here for a month.

---

Time spent here is completely irrelevant as to the person's knowledge. Cool thread BTW.

 

[Quest]

(*silently sit back and watch....*)

Q.

 

[b_rubenstein]

If I were doing this, I would start with finding out what oil was originally specified, because that would give some indication of the original engineering assumptions. Since this engine appears to date back to the early 70's, it was proably spec'd with something like a API SE oil. An oil like that would share down over its service life to something a weigth or two thinner: the engineers who spece'd the viscosity would know that. Since current API spec oils share down much less, one could probably start with new oil that was the same viscosity that came out the engine after being used. This only addresses the viscosity; with the much better, current oil additives there is better lubrication with the newer oils.

One of the unknowns here is how does the present condition of the engine compare to a "good health" example of the engine. If the rotating bearing clearances have significantly opened up then, or the oil pump is worn, adequate pressure may not be possible with a thinner oil. Depending on the wear patterns on the rings and cylinders oil consumption may go up. Valve train parts may be nicely bedded in and the valve springs may have sagged a bit so there is less load. Who knows?

I doubt that the engine originally called for 15w-40. If it called for a 10w-30 I would start with that and monitor how the engine ran, oil pressure and consumption. A UOA would be most useful if you get one done to establish some sort of baseline with the current oil. Dr. Hass's first order approximation of 10 psi for every 1000 rpm (at operating temp) is a reasonable starting point.