Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Read the patent application for the low phos add packs and then call it fear mongering. Ive posted the links before. Do your own research. Dont ask those whom are unqualified to give you an answer - just because thay are members of an oil board - that just builds the "Idiocracy".
from patent 7183241
As is known in the art, additives are used in lubricants to perform numerous functions. For example, some are antioxidants, some are friction modifiers; and some are extreme pressure agents. Indeed some additives perform more than one function. Also as is known in the art, additives will lose their effectiveness if they are improperly combined. Therefore, extreme care must be exercised in combining various additives to assure both compatibility and effectiveness. For example, some frictionmodifiers affect metal surfaces differently than antiwear agents do. When both are present, friction-reducing and antiwear additives may compete for the surface of the metal parts which are subject to lubrication. This competition can produce alubricant that is less effective than is suggested by the individual properties of the additive components.
Accordingly, the components of a gas engine lubricant need to be selected to meet the specified ash level and to provide, among other functions, a high level of oxidation and nitration resistance. Whether selected components and their amountscan be balanced to meet desired specification is not a priori predictable.
Although the patent app may have merit in itself, it seems to generalize and extrapolate without giving any specifics.
Really, it's just asserting theory without a foundation of facts. It's not really relevant to commonplace API spec oils either, whose additives are indeed compatible.
Let's see just one example of additive clash...in the engine, not on paper. A bad UOA from a mixed oil would be a start.
Read the patent application for the low phos add packs and then call it fear mongering. Ive posted the links before. Do your own research. Dont ask those whom are unqualified to give you an answer - just because thay are members of an oil board - that just builds the "Idiocracy".
from patent 7183241
As is known in the art, additives are used in lubricants to perform numerous functions. For example, some are antioxidants, some are friction modifiers; and some are extreme pressure agents. Indeed some additives perform more than one function. Also as is known in the art, additives will lose their effectiveness if they are improperly combined. Therefore, extreme care must be exercised in combining various additives to assure both compatibility and effectiveness. For example, some frictionmodifiers affect metal surfaces differently than antiwear agents do. When both are present, friction-reducing and antiwear additives may compete for the surface of the metal parts which are subject to lubrication. This competition can produce alubricant that is less effective than is suggested by the individual properties of the additive components.
Accordingly, the components of a gas engine lubricant need to be selected to meet the specified ash level and to provide, among other functions, a high level of oxidation and nitration resistance. Whether selected components and their amountscan be balanced to meet desired specification is not a priori predictable.
Although the patent app may have merit in itself, it seems to generalize and extrapolate without giving any specifics.
Really, it's just asserting theory without a foundation of facts. It's not really relevant to commonplace API spec oils either, whose additives are indeed compatible.
Let's see just one example of additive clash...in the engine, not on paper. A bad UOA from a mixed oil would be a start.
