Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: dave5358


...Once again, do you think an aircraft maker would approve or permit the use of a product in their airplane which does nothing or has no benefit? Or, that the FAA is busy certifying products that do nothing or have no benefit? Or even that a product maker would apply for FAA approval for a product which did nothing or had no benefit? Seriously? ...


I think you're misunderstanding the language EDHACKETT just posted from the FAA:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC-20-24D.pdf

The FAA does not approve the additive. The aircraft integrator (the manufacturer) has to submit data that shows no harm done by whatever stuff goes into the engine.

Quote:
...or has has no benefit?...


And what are those benefits that can be proven by ASTM tests or actual before and after engine tests?

And please don't give a list of Zmax's tests from their website or whatever.

The train has been over that track before.

 

[Trajan]

The FAA isn't interested in whether Zmax has some perceived benefit or not. They don't want it to lead to engine failure while the plane is in the air.

Lack of harm does not equal proof of benefit.

So, the FAA doesn't have a problem using it due to lack of harm. But there isn't any thing other than marketing that shows proof of benefit. Certainly nothing that uses physics. Or chemistry.

How's that for a retort dave?

BTW, I've used it. I spent a lot of money on it. It didn't kill the Z4's M54B30. (lack of harm.) But it also didn't increase performance, (Like some additive would do better that the BMW engine designers.) It'd didn't increase gas mileage. It didn't keep the injectors clean. (PEA could do that. Cheaper too.) It didn't increase horsepower. Or anything else it claimed. (Thus no proof of benefit.)

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
The FAA does not test the fuels, oils, or additives. It is up to the manufacturer to submit the results of the required testing to the FAA. It is all on the manufactures dime. They only have to submit data to satisfy the FAA on points 1-3 above. Again, no proof of efficacy required.

If an additive (or lubricant, consumable or whatever) is used in the Type Certificate product test and included on the manufacturer's list of included parts, then no further testing is normally done by the FAA. The same is true if a Type Certificate holder gets a supplemental certificate - suitability is determined by the Type Certificate holder (the aircraft maker).

Paragraph 5 of your regional Advistory deals with situations in which a product maker applies directly to the FAA for approval apart from a Type Certificate holder. The FAA does the testing, as described therein, or, more likely, requires the company to have the testing done and submit the results.

One of many things the FAA examines is documentation. If a company claims 50% fuel economy and no sticking lifters in the documentation, the company's own test results, board minutes, testimonials, etc. should support the claims. The FAA's tests should also support the claims, or else the FAA might advise the company to revise their documentation. I suppose a product maker could make no claims ("our product does nothing and has no benefits") but this is unlikely. It might give the FAA engineers a good chuckle.

1985 is not that long ago, but everything in that advisory is still contained somewhere in the CFR. Yes, the word "additives" went out and back in and back out again - merely a formality. As the MARPA folks point out, they are still included (and were always included) as consumables which become part of the Type Certificate aircraft.

Originally Posted By: edhackett
CamGuard does hold certification for use in non-turbocharged engines. The FAA is requiring CamGuard to do the endurance testing on turbocharged engines. It is up to CamGuard to do that testing and submit the data to the FAA to obtain certification for that type of engine.

Engineers do this kind of thing and the FAA can accept the outside test results or not. If the CamGuard folks submit flakey tests, the FAA might turn them down or tell them to get it retested. The testing should support whatever CamGuard claims in its documentation.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I think you're misunderstanding the language EDHACKETT just posted from the FAA:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC-20-24D.pdf

The FAA does not approve the additive. The aircraft integrator (the manufacturer) has to submit data that shows no harm done by whatever stuff goes into the engine.

I understand it quite well. If the aircraft integrator (the Type Certificate holder) includes the product, then they determine its suitability and no further testing is done. That's straight out of the Advisory. The Type Certificate holder does not necessarily submit proof of 'no harm' or proof of anything, except that it was used in the airplane when the Type Certificate was obtained.

Paragraph 5 of the Advisory deals with direct applications for approval. The tests done by or submitted to the FAA have to show contribution to air worthiness. That's in the Advisory and in the CFR. And that's different than 'no harm'.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Lack of harm does not equal proof of benefit.

If repetition would only make it so. 'Lack of harm' will not get you FAA approval.

Originally Posted By: Trajan
So, the FAA doesn't have a problem using it due to lack of harm. But there isn't any thing other than marketing that shows proof of benefit. Certainly nothing that uses physics. Or chemistry.

If a product is submitted for approval by other than the Type Certificate holder, the product maker must submit test results or other evidence to support any claims regarding their product, including its contribution to air worthiness. Did you even bother to read the Advisory or the CFR?

Originally Posted By: Trajan
How's that for a retort dave?

It's what I expected from you.

Originally Posted By: Trajan
BTW, I've used it. I spent a lot of money on it. It didn't kill the Z4's M54B30. (lack of harm.) But it also didn't increase performance, (Like some additive would do better that the BMW engine designers.) It'd didn't increase gas mileage. It didn't keep the injectors clean. (PEA could do that. Cheaper too.) It didn't increase horsepower. Or anything else it claimed. (Thus no proof of benefit.)

It is proof that you didn't like it. It is proof that you didn't read anything I or Ed suggested. So?

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
The FAA does the testing, as described therein, or, more likely, requires the company to have the testing done and submit the results.


When I was with Boeing in the Propulsion Systems division I had quite a bit of interaction with the FAA.

My group was mostly concerned with jet turbine oils, aviation greases, hydraulic fluids, specialty lubes for specific parts, etc.

AT no time did the FAA test any lubricants, additives, etc. They had no laboratory facilities to do so, no Tribologists on board.

Now if there was a crash or a specific issue that involved a fluid or lubricant, that fluid or lubricant might be contracted out by the FAA to SWRI or a similar lab for extensive testing and analysis.

We and our suppliers had to develop documents that showed that the lubricants used on a specific part or system were "suited" for that application in terms of functionality within the operating parameters of the aircraft.

So in our technical service manuals, we specified the lubricant, its supplier, or an alternative "qualified" supplier with few exceptions.

Let's get back to "Airworthiness" for a moment. Here is the FAA's definition:

FAA on Airworthiness

Quote:
The aircraft must conform to its Type Certificate (TC). Conformity to type design is considered attained when the aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the drawings, specifications, and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental type certificates (STC) and field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft.

2. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation.


So that is the crux of what the FAA thinks is "Airworthiness."

Airworthiness = Conformity to its TC and proper conditions for safety of flight.

If one uses an additive in an oil of an engine, then the aircraft manufacturer has to "vouch" for that additive and that additive must be listed as a component in the TC.

I know in one case Cessna specified the use of an additive in the engine oil of Lycomings (a Lycoming part number additive) due to cold temp startup wear problems, and they (Cessna) had to obtain a modified or Supplemental TC (STC) for that additive.

Again, I ask, does Z-max hold a special type certification with or for any recip engine manufacturer?

 

[MolaKule]

I hestitate to bring this up again, but will someone please explain how Z-max soaks into metals, which is a major Z-max claim?

Quote:
zMAX soaks into metal
. What is the physical/chemical theory and instrumental proof that this occurs?

Quote:
zMAX reduces friction
. All lubricants reduce friction but in a relative sense.

Quote:
zMAX increases horsepower.
By how much and by what standard?

Quote:
zMAX dissipates engine heat
. All lubricants have a thermodynamic conduction coefficient which allows heat to be conducted via thermo-fluid interactions. What makes this product different?

Quote:
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.


We'll give them by virtue of reducing engine deposits if they can unequivocally prove it.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
The FAA does the testing, as described therein, or, more likely, requires the company to have the testing done and submit the results.


When I was with Boeing in the Propulsion Systems division I had quite a bit of interaction with the FAA. My group was mostly concerned with jet turbine oils, aviation greases, hydraulic fluids, specialty lubes for specific parts, etc. AT no time did the FAA test any lubricants, additives, etc. They had no laboratory facilities to do so, no Tribologists on board.

Now if there was a crash or a specific issue that involved a fluid or lubricant, that fluid or lubricant might be contracted out by the FAA to SWRI or a similar lab for extensive testing and analysis.

We and our suppliers had to develop documents that showed that the lubricants used on a specific part or system were "suited" for that application in terms of functionality within the operating parameters of the aircraft. So in our technical service manuals, we specified the lubricant, its supplier, or an alternative "qualified" supplier with few exceptions.

Okay, but what is your point? The FAA may require the applicant company to submit results of tests or other documentation with an application for approval.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Let's get back to "Airworthiness" for a moment. Here is the FAA's definition:

FAA on Airworthiness

Quote:
The aircraft must conform to its Type Certificate (TC). Conformity to type design is considered attained when the aircraft configuration and the components installed are consistent with the drawings, specifications, and other data that are part of the TC, which includes any supplemental type certificates (STC) and field approved alterations incorporated into the aircraft.

2. The aircraft must be in a condition for safe operation.


So that is the crux of what the FAA thinks is "Airworthiness."

Airworthiness = Conformity to its TC and proper conditions for safety of flight.

If one uses an additive in an oil of an engine, then the aircraft manufacturer has to "vouch" for that additive and that additive must be listed as a component in the TC.

Again, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You have simply described how the FAA operates regarding aircraft manufacturer approved additives

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I know in one case Cessna specified the use of an additive in the engine oil of Lycomings (a Lycoming part number additive) due to cold temp startup wear problems, and they (Cessna) had to obtain a modified or Supplemental TC (STC) for that additive.

Right. That's out of the Advisory, or the CFR, or the MARPA summary.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Again, I ask, does Z-max hold a special type certification with or for any reciprocating engine manufacturer?

It doesn't, to the best of my knowledge. I never said that it did. Avblend claims to be FAA approved, and is also supposed to be the identical product to Z-Max. I think Avblend came first - Z-Max was the later or "automotive version". You really should ask Trajan about that. He really likes Z-Max, "used it, spent a lot of money on it."

You forget how this sub-thread started. In a discussion of Z-Max, Trajan jumped in with his endlessly repeated comment that FAA certification meant nothing - only that the product was harmless. He is simply wrong.

In some parallel universe where companies apply for FAA approval of a product that has no benefits or purpose, he might be right?

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I hestitate to bring this up again, but will someone please explain how Z-max soaks into metals, which is a major Z-max claim?



We'll give them by virtue of reducing engine deposits if they can unequivocally prove it.

Note that the Avblend folks, who make all of these same claims, were able to convince the FAA.

Note also that the Z-max folks, when challenged by the FTC. were permitted to continue making this same claim (soaks into metal). They agreed to stop making claims about fuel economy improvement, but the FTC's position on this latter point was that Z-Max's test results did not support their claim. Mileage improvements, if any, are likely to be small and difficult to measure, and there is significant controversy over the government's automobile fuel economy measurement standards.

But, as for Z-Max, Trajan should respond to this. He said he liked Z-Max, used it, spent a lot of money on it.

I do not recommend Z-Max, have never used Z-Max, have never spent a dime on it and have no plans to do so in the immediate future. I am clearly curious about the Z-Max product and Avblend. The latter has a rather loyal following among piston-aircraft pilots.

My response was directed to the Trajan's endlessly repeated 'FAA approval means nothing" and "it does not follow that lack of harm equals proof of benefit" blah blah. He repeats it in every thread he joins. And, to the extent Trajan uncouples his 'lack of harm' comment from 'FAA approval', then 'lack of harm' devolves into a Microsoft-ism.

---

A helicopter was flying around above Seattle when an electrical malfunction disabled all of the aircraft's electronic navigation and communications equipment. Due to the clouds and haze, the pilot could not determine the helicopter's position and course to fly to the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, drew a handwritten sign, and held it in the helicopter's window. The pilot's sign said "WHERE AM I?" in large letters.

People in the tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign and held it in a building window. Their sign read: "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER."

The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his map, determined the course to steer to SEATAC airport, and landed safely.

After they were on the ground, the co-pilot asked the pilot how the "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position.

The pilot responded "From their sign, I knew that had to be the Microsoft building. Like their technical support, online help and product documentation, the response they gave me was technically correct, but completely useless."

 

[demarpaint]

I have no dog in this fight, tried Z-Max which was given to me and it had no noticeable benefits at all. Having said that I find it odd that the FAA would get involved or approve a product that is totally useless, and has no benefits at all. They have better things to do, don't they?

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I have no dog in this fight, tried Z-Max which was given to me and it had no noticeable benefits at all. Having said that I find it odd that the FAA would get involved or approve a product that is totally useless, and has no benefits at all. They have better things to do, don't they?

So it would seem. But, it's unlikely the Avblend manufacturer would submit a totally useless product with no benefits for FAA approval.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: dave5358

So it would seem. But, it's unlikely the Avblend manufacturer would submit a totally useless product with no benefits for FAA approval.


It would take one big set to submit something that is totally useless wouldn't it? LOL

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: MolaKule


And you know that how and what proof that Z-max did in fact do that?



Unless we want to call arctic a liar his videos provide a reasonable amount of evidence.


I don't think he's a liar and I never used that term, you did.

I think Artic appears to be a nice guy that I would want to have a coffee and donut with, but his videos prove nothing.


I'm not sure why you are being so confrontational in this thread. You are a smart guy and you know full well calling something evidence is far from saying something is proven.

Having said that, Arctic's videos show how oil came out of his engine before Zmax and it was normal. After running Zmax, the oil came out thick and sludgy. As you have noted Zmax is going to thin oil, not thicken it, because of its low viscosity. So Zmax must be loosening or thinning something else.

Let us use some logic, reasoning and adult minds to discuss what this could be instead of throwing "prove it" and other non productive accusatory phrases.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave5358

You really should ask Trajan about that. He really likes Z-Max, "used it, spent a lot of money on it."


I have to question your ability to comprehend. Trying something does not equal "liking" something. Guess you missed the part where I said it did not do what it claimed.

Originally Posted By: dave5358


You forget how this sub-thread started. In a discussion of Z-Max, Trajan jumped in with his endlessly repeated comment that FAA certification meant nothing - only that the product was harmless. He is simply wrong.


Again, the question of your comprehension. I really doubt that you did read Ed's links. Because if you had, you would of read the following:

"The Microlon story is a good example of why FAA acceptance of oil additives is pretty meaningless

FAA acceptance says nothing about whether or not the additive has any tangible benefit; it is limited to evaluation as to whether the additive can do harm..."

I fail to see why that is so hard to comprehend.....

Again, lack of harm does not provide proof of benefit. The FAA has no interest in any perceived benefit. You can use it in your piston engine a/c secure in the knowledge the motor won't die or be damaged.

The hole you're in is deep enough. I'll send you some bubble wrap.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Note that the Avblend folks, who make all of these same claims, were able to convince the FAA.

Note also that the Z-max folks, when challenged by the FTC. were permitted to continue making this same claim (soaks into metal).


Since you and others were the one's that appeared to be supporting these claims made by Oil-Chem, I thought maybe you had some new information on the molecular kinetics and thermodynamics of the how, but I see that your using the same old argument that if some non-technical government agency fell for inuendos and pseudo-scientific claims, then you have no new background information that would support these claims, or shed light on the efficacy of this material.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: badtlc


Let us use some logic, reasoning and adult minds to discuss what this could be instead of throwing "prove it" and other non productive accusatory phrases.


How about we use the scientific method to falsify or verify claims instead of emotions:

http://chemistry-sets-review.toptenreviews.com/chemistry-sets-teaching-the-scientific-method.html

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I have no dog in this fight, tried Z-Max which was given to me and it had no noticeable benefits at all. Having said that I find it odd that the FAA would get involved or approve a product that is totally useless, and has no benefits at all. They have better things to do, don't they?

So it would seem. But, it's unlikely the Avblend manufacturer would submit a totally useless product with no benefits for FAA approval.


Airworthiness is the measure of an aircraft's suitability for safe flight. Certification of airworthiness is initially conferred by a certificate of airworthiness.

Appropriate to a purpose or an occasion.

Suitability does not equal improved.

I have made two mistakes in my life. The first I have not written and sold complicated conspiracy theories that have no substance thus they are complicated.
The second is development and market additives that do no harm. The placebo effect is strong in a lot of people.
The reasons I have not done either is. The guilt I would feel for taking other peoples money. The second I can not sell anything I do not believe.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: badtlc


Let us use some logic, reasoning and adult minds to discuss what this could be instead of throwing "prove it" and other non productive accusatory phrases.


How about we use the scientific method to falsify or verify claims instead of emotions:

http://chemistry-sets-review.toptenreviews.com/chemistry-sets-teaching-the-scientific-method.html


The option of controlled, scientific experiments in this environment is not realistic nor worthwhile. Why can't we just discuss what happened in Arctic's videos? Something is going on there and I'd like to discuss what that is.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I have no dog in this fight, tried Z-Max which was given to me and it had no noticeable benefits at all. Having said that I find it odd that the FAA would get involved or approve a product that is totally useless, and has no benefits at all. They have better things to do, don't they?

So it would seem. But, it's unlikely the Avblend manufacturer would submit a totally useless product with no benefits for FAA approval.




Airworthiness is the measure of an aircraft's suitability for safe flight. Certification of airworthiness is initially conferred by a certificate of airworthiness.

Appropriate to a purpose or an occasion.

Suitability does not equal improved.

I have made two mistakes in my life. The first I have not written and sold complicated conspiracy theories that have no substance thus they are complicated.
The second is development and market additives that do no harm. The placebo effect is strong in a lot of people.
The reasons I have not done either is. The guilt I would feel for taking other peoples money. The second I can not sell anything I do not believe.


BTW as I said I tried it, a free sample, it did nothing and I won't be using it again. I'm not defending it, or advocating its use. I just would love to have an answer, not someone's opinion: My question is why would the FAA even entertain this stuff? Certainly someone at the FAA had to consider it just to be looked at. If not wouldn't every fuel additive company seek their approval, even if it means nothing?

 

[dave1251]

To answer your question. Since the manufacture has to fund the entire process for certification it is a calculated risk. If the certification allows the manufacture to sell more product then the certificate is worth the investment.

To answer why more companies do not seek FAA certification would the process benefit sales and revenue. The answer is for each individual business to decide.