Lube Control Oil Additive

Status
Not open for further replies.
I did a really stupid experiment this weekend (I had some me time).

I took my clothes iron and put it on its highest setting. Then I took an IR thermometer and checked its temp (370F). I then put a drop of LC on it to see what would happen. To my surprise nothing happened. I let it sit there for 5 minutes and I did not notice any change in its size. I did notice some smoke come up but that’s about it.

Does that show anything about its flash point?
 
Flash is much higher than indicated above IMO.

Zmoz, what other add that is available is less than .20c a ounce and is used in low quantities like LC. Shipping does impact your cost but the product can't be blamed for that. Buying in larger quantities would limit that impact.

Terry
 
quote:

Originally posted by satterfi:

quote:

Originally posted by wrangler:

Does that show anything about its flash point?


No, because you need an ignition source like a spark or flame.


I thought flash point was that temperature at which it would light on fire on it's own without an external ignition source???
 
The flash point is where you see a flash of flame with an ignition source but it is quickly extinguished by the vapor pressure.

Fire point is the temperature at which the fluid will burn without extinguishing and without further heat.
 
I got a response from Lube Control:

quote:

Manny,

We attached an MSDS from the early 90's that shows a flash over 300 degrees F. In regards to the Blackstone Lab report we cannot see how they got 180F when 2 independent test we have had done show over 300F.

The product has not changed either so we would have to question how the flash point was determined by the lab that has it at 180F as we feel that is way to low and is not consistent with various other reports done.

Jeff

By the way I tried the same stupid experiment that I mentioned above and at 370F I used a lighter to try to ignite the small amount of LC but same result... Nothing happened.
 
quote:

I don't see drops in oxidation, nitration,insolubles using Rislone as an add like I do with LC and FP. If I did I would recommed Rislone's use to my customers.

Lots of folks post and hoot here but they don't back it up with testing normal

I would enjoy reading that data. Where is it Terry?
dunno.gif
 
" I would enjoy reading that data. Where is it Terry? "

In my proprietary analysis data base.

I share snippets here periodically.

For the low cost alternative take a gander/search the oil analysis results posted here using Rislone vs. LC and compare the physical properties of the oils listed for oxidation,nitration,soot/solids or insolubles.
 
I'll throw in my speculation. I'd guess that broadly thinking, at least two different things are going on. First, there are operative ingredients that don't show up in a traditional, basic VOA/UOA, some of which probably persist, some of which "fall victim" to the low flash. Second, as to the flash question, a good bit of this stuff may disappear into the CCV system, but it would still being leaving behind some variation of a Z/P type anti-wear compound, which as we all know, has been tremendously successful as a basic oil add in its own right. Thus, I surmise that LC is supplementing, enhancing, or both, the add pack already in the basic oil.

Intriguing stuff, and smells good too. I'm not so inclined, but if I were a huffer, this is the stuff I'd huff. . .
tongue.gif
cheers.gif
 
I'm not sure why people would expect to see a whole bunch of stuff in a VOA of LC. It is a light oil carrier with some AW adds and an antioxidant. An antioxidant prevents oxidation because it itself is oxidized in preference to that which you are trying to protect.
The only example I can think of right now would be a race car (nascar, formula 1, doesn't matter). The car is designed to protect the driver in the event of a crash. The car breaks up and is destroyed, therby saving the driver. The same with LC. It's antioxidant is designed to be consumed by oxidizers coming from the combustion process, therby protecting the motor oil from being oxidized.
The LC is consumed and therefore needs to be replenished by adding more every 1000 miles or so. It's not magical, it is just a good application of basic chemistry.

BTW it makes a fantastic penetrating oil when mixed with ATF.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Clement:
I'm not sure why people would expect to see a whole bunch of stuff in a VOA of LC. {snip}

BTW it makes a fantastic penetrating oil when mixed with ATF.


Actually, I'm surprised we can see as much as we do in this VOA. The Z/P combo sticking out like that speaks volumes.

Neat idea for a penetrating oil. I've got a little project for the weekend, and that might just be the answer.
cheers.gif
 
My guess is that the added Z/P is simply to keep from diluting the oils current additives. The gear oil study on the main page shows what happens when the additive package is diluted.

This and the small amount used may be one thing that separates LubeControl from most oil additives/supplements.
 
Kinda' funny watching the lap dog response here. I.e., the professional always backing a particular neophyte. One wonders.
 
Again, a VOA shows only what the Spectro can uncover during its elemental analysis from the burning or ionization of the sample.

A typical $35 VOA cannot show Friction modifiers, VII's, base oils, or any other organic component.
 
ZMOZ, 1 gallon of Lube Control will last most people 90,000 miles when used as Terry and Molakule recomend. If you extrapolte that cost by millage and number of applications you will see how cheap it is!

If you like go to any local machine shop or recyleing center and ask them if you can have some old sludged up seal. They will give them to you free right out of the trash bin! Remove any surface deposts that will come off easily. Put in a glass jar with Risolene come back in a week and see what you see. Then do the same thing with LC!

Better yet take a sludged up engine and try to clean it with Risolene! You will not get the engine clean! A quart of Kerosine will do more for you then Risolene ever will!

Some things works and some are just a waste of money. No amount of UOA is ever going to show anything of promise in AUto-RX but we know it works. The same thing can be said for B-12 chemtool! I know it will clean some stuff out of an engine but UOA is not going to show anything special init!

Some thing have to be learned over time. Molakule and Terry amoung others actual test products and in some cases help develop products. They see thousands of results a year. Terry does not even sell anything other then his service so what does he have to gain by misleading you.

People get upset with some of this stuff out of frustration. When someone with 12-40 year of hands on experince as a chemist,tribologist,tech./mechanic,machinest etc...gives out advice for free that can save you time and money and increse durability of your vechile it can be frustrateing to see the same old wives tales I am sure!

Now I can understand some doubts when the information is comeing from someone with something to sell! If in doubt buy it, try it and test!
 
The Blackstone data should have the FP as +180C - only the Brits still use English Units. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

A temp of 150C is 302F, and you'd then multiply (30C)(9/5) and get an additional +54F....

So Blackstone has the FP as +356F, which correlates to the previous testing....

Geez... I'd have to flunk y'all (including Dyson and 'Kule), if I was still teaching materials science at G.T. in Atlanta;))

TS (for this bunch,anyway)
 
quote:

So Blackstone has the FP as +356F, which correlates to the previous testing....

Geez... I'd have to flunk y'all (including Dyson and 'Kule), if I was still teaching materials science at G.T. in Atlanta;))

I'd guess I'd have to flunk you for misreading that this was LC not FP.

We were taking Mikeyoilnut's data at face value.

I think the flash point was about 325 F for FP and more like 385 F for LC. Schaeffer's Neutra was about 302 F.
 
There's some issues that need to be sorted out a bit more.

For my last oil change I used all 30 wt, some Mobil 5000 10W30, instead of the dino/Mobil 1 T&S blend that I've been using, and the higher than it should be oil consumption really went up. Out of desperation for a quick fix I used a qt of Rislone to top off the oil, and by the time the whole qt was in oil consumption dropped a lot. It's evidently not some 'seal swell/pack stuff around the rings' product, instead it seems to be solvent in light oil. My guess is that it freed up a sticking oil control ring.

I ran across an article by an aircraft mechanic on his observations of MMO and sticking valves, and he noted that MMO appeared to allow valves to keep operating with reduced clearances compared to no MMO, the clearances reduced due carbon/varnish, as opposed to MMO removing all of the carbon around the valves. Perhaps Rislone is merely doing the same thing, I dunno. I don't recall Rislone advertising that it reduces oxidation and such, rather it seems to be used as an oil additive, as opposed to a flush, that can be left in the oil, for cleaning sludge and such, including unsticking rings.

LC seems to be an oil additive that can remove varnish and allow oil to be used for longer periods, but it doesn't seem to be recommended in place of AutoRx for unsticking rings and removing sludge. Thus, LC doesn't like a replacement for Rislone, regardless of how well Rislone may or may not work. Note that soaking dirty parts in such a product for testing should also probably be accompanied by heat and agitation similar to what one would find in an engine.

AutoRx seems to be recommended for removing sludge and unsticking rings, although it seems to have problems with 'hard sludge' and doesn't appear to remove varnish that LC will. Since ring sticking is usually due to 'hard stuff', and AutoRx seems to have a hard time removing 'hard sluge' and varnish, is AutoRx acting similar to MMO and valves as described above, where it 'lubes' the rings, allows them to move and thus mechanically increase some clearances, or does it somehow remove the carbon around rings that it seems to have a hard time removing elsewhere ?

Seafoam is another 'ring unsticking' solvent that is advertised, and can also be left in the oil. Maybe it's good to cocktail the chemical treatments so that they complement one another, as one might be removing stuff that the others aren't. That would be more fruitful than saying that Rislone and other old products don't work, when it's obvious that they do regardless of mechanism or level of effectivenes.

I'm not trying to bust anyone's party here, as I'm considering buying three or four bottles of AutoRx as it appears to be good stuff.
 
I think the important elements shown in this VOA are the levels of Calcium, Phosphorous, and Zinc. I think the prescence of these elements are in line with common antioxidant compounds such as Zinc dithiophosphates, sulfur/phosphate compounds, and phenates and salicylates of magnesium or calcium--all common antioxidant compounds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom