MMO, the real deal.

[kschachn]

Are you postulating that bearings, cylinder walls and rings are porous like that casting?

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I realize that, but the oil still has to be chemically removed, vigorous wiping does nothing to get paint to adhere.

I was reading about porous transmission casings causing leaks. I have to read up on that some more it was very interesting.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Are you postulating that bearings, cylinder walls and rings are porous like that casting?

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I realize that, but the oil still has to be chemically removed, vigorous wiping does nothing to get paint to adhere.

I was reading about porous transmission casings causing leaks. I have to read up on that some more it was very interesting.


It has crossed my mind, especially in blocks and cylinder walls, and maybe bearings [I'll have to read up more on them]. IIRC bronze is porous too, I think bronze [sintered] filters were used in carbs because it was porous. Then reading about engine oil leaks and transmission leaks due to the way they were cast got me thinking. There could be a bit of truth in the claims made by ZMax. In my reading this line caught my eye, "it seems that only the most expensive and finely-cast iron is pore-free. Everything else will have more and more pores as you step down in quality." It makes sense. If you read up on cast iron and aluminum there are claims about it being "porous". If that's the case then those claims might just be true in various parts of our engines since we don't know how finely cast those parts are.

BTW I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just sharing what I've discovered, since this thread peaked my interest. FTR I'm no ZMax fan boy either, I'm the resident MMO shill.

Mods if this link violates some rules please remove it. It was one of many that I found interesting, I think it applies.

http://www.impco-inc.com/technical/porosity-classification

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Oooh, can I be added too?

Why don't you save some time and just block the whole site?

Originally Posted By: rdalek
If YOU continue down this line of posting comments by a person that YOU KNOW I have chosen to ignore, then you will join him. He earned his position. You are very close to earning your position with him as well.


Then he would have no one to argue with? Ah well, at least he isn't whining about "antis".


Thats what you are (anti), why deny it? You are on here with an agenda against a product you have no experience using.


And of course, you can prove that I haven't used it? Since I have used it, and if you bothered to search you would see I have used it, good luck with that.

Don't make claims or accusations you can't back up.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Thats what you are (anti), why deny it? You are on here with an agenda against a product you have no experience using.


I really don't think anyone on here can be labeled an "anti."




He hasn't done his due diligence. If he had, he would see I have used it in the past. But that would take some effort on his part.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Are you postulating that bearings, cylinder walls and rings are porous like that casting?

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I realize that, but the oil still has to be chemically removed, vigorous wiping does nothing to get paint to adhere.

I was reading about porous transmission casings causing leaks. I have to read up on that some more it was very interesting.


Sounds like it.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
My favorite, the "you haven't used it so you can't comment" on the published claims about the product.

They are throwing claims around in public, I can comment on the validity of those claims.

Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang
Thats what you are (anti), why deny it? You are on here with an agenda against a product you have no experience using.


To bad for him that I *have* used it. I can recall one, who describes himself as the resident shill, praised the post where I said that it fixed a lifter tick.

When it turned out that it didn't, and ARX did, he was not happy. To the point where he claimed something else did the job.

Anyone with a background in physics/chemistry/tribology can certainly comment on it. But those who like anecdotes or testimonials or marketing claims resent it.

Probably because they can't defend it using any of the three.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: kschachn
My favorite, the "you haven't used it so you can't comment" on the published claims about the product.

They are throwing claims around in public, I can comment on the validity of those claims.

Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang
Thats what you are (anti), why deny it? You are on here with an agenda against a product you have no experience using.


To bad for him that I *have* used it. I can recall one, who describes himself as the resident shill, praised the post where I said that it fixed a lifter tick.

When it turned out that it didn't, and ARX did, he was not happy. To the point where he claimed something else did the job.


Can you prove otherwise? Or is it you want to believe otherwise? For all you know had you not added the A-Rx the tick might have stopped again, the word coincidence comes to mind. When trying to fix a lifter tick many times the noise comes and goes, then goes away for good. Been there done that. Tough proving otherwise isn't it? Two can play your games. Why not stay on topic? I really was trying to avoid a fight, but once again you went out looking for it.

http://www.impco-inc.com/technical/porosity-classification

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Are you postulating that bearings, cylinder walls and rings are porous like that casting?

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I realize that, but the oil still has to be chemically removed, vigorous wiping does nothing to get paint to adhere.

I was reading about porous transmission casings causing leaks. I have to read up on that some more it was very interesting.


Sounds like it.


Good guess, why not read this link.

http://www.impco-inc.com/technical/porosity-classification

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint


It has crossed my mind, especially in blocks and cylinder walls, and maybe bearings [I'll have to read up more on them]. IIRC bronze is porous too, I think bronze [sintered] filters were used in carbs because it was porous. Then reading about engine oil leaks and transmission leaks due to the way they were cast got me thinking. There could be a bit of truth in the claims made by ZMax.

http://www.impco-inc.com/technical/porosity-classification


There are claims made but no scientific proof.

Claims do not automatically mean there is any scientific proof to support those claims.

There is a lot of confusion between porosity, and permeation or diffusion.

As explained at length in another thread, inter-granular (between individual grains) in a poor casting is not the same as inter-atomic (between atoms).

Porosity is allowing oil to get into those inter-granular spaces because there are voids that it can migrate into.

Diffusion is the process where a high concentration of individual atoms or molecules are able get into the inter-atomic spaces of the crystal lattice of iron or steel.

True, castings come in various quality levels, but a porous casting for an engine block or transmission case should be rejected and remelted.

 

[MolaKule]

Let's review some definitions again:

Soak implies prolonged immersion in a fluid. I can immerse a piece of steel in a fluid, but that does not mean the fluid penetrated into the atomic structure of the steel. Immersion is from the Greek meaning to "completly cover" (over).

Saturate is a resulting effect of complete absorption of a liquid until no more liquid can be held, as in a sponge saturated with water. The porous cells of the sponge can take up only as much water as the individual cells have space.

But solid metals are not sponges and are not porous.

A sintered bearing IS porous and can hold oil, but is not a solid like cast iron or steel. You cannot equate a solid metal to a sintered material.

You cannot expect to immerse (soak) an engine block or any other solid metal in fluid and expect that fluid to permeate the atomic structure of that metal.

BTW, Permeate means to, "to diffuse through or penetrate something."

Here is an experiment to prove the point:

Take an engine block or transmission case (or even say a 1" square chunk or specimen of the metal cutoff from either) and immerse it in transmission fluid for a year with the fluid heated to 100C.

Then after a year take it out and let the oil drain off the specimen. Wipe the outside of the 1" cube. Then cut it in half with a carbide saw.


I.E., what do you think you will see on the two inner surfaces of the cut specimen and why?

 

[Clubber_Lang]

M

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule


Diffusion is the process where a high concentration of individual atoms or molecules are able get into the inter-atomic spaces of the crystal lattice of iron or steel.

True, castings come in various quality levels, but a porous casting for an engine block or transmission case should be rejected and remelted.


Ok so I think in some twisted way we almost agree. How the oil permeates into the surface really doesn't matter does it? The point is it got into the surface, be it by porosity, permeation, diffusion, penetration, or whatever anyone else decides to call it, it got there.

We also agree that in some instances porous castings should be rejected, but are they always rejected? It appears not. According to what I posted they exist, and in various degrees. Neither one of us are automotive engineers, and have no idea what is deemed acceptable to an engine mfg. Obviously castings that leak due to being porous should have been rejected. Slightly porous, for lack of a better term might be desirable.


In the link I provided they actually went so far as to post Porosity Types, and Classifications. It caught my eye.

Notice no name calling from me? The only name calling I've done was to give myself the title of the Resident Shill. LOL This topic is actually very interesting, and why I'm participating. It could also be why some companies can make these claims and get away with it.

 

[Trav]

http://www.josephkinnebrew.com/sculpture/cast_iron/cast_iron_pgs/castiron_homepg.html

http://www.fullchisel.com/blog/?p=1157

https://fantes.com/manuals/lodge-cast-iron-use-care.pdf

When Zmax was first produced most engines were cast iron and iron is subjected to heat so cast iron cookware is relevant.
Even today most engines use an iron liner so its applicable. I don't have any answers but it does seem iron has some absorption properties.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Are you postulating that bearings, cylinder walls and rings are porous like that casting?

Not a postulation. It was demonstrated rather convincingly by Dr. Shalvoy / Maurice LePera / Arch Analytical Services in the FTC vs Zmax matter. That was the basis for their technical support of Zmax's 'soaks into metal' claim. Along the way, they demonstrated that this applied to regular motor oil (Exxon Super Flo 5w-30 was what they were using) and probably any liquid. There was so much soaking into the aluminum sample that they couldn't measure it.

In an earlier message, I challenged Molakule to provide a 'scientific definition' of 'soaks into metal'. He didn't... and can't. Not surprising, since this was never a scientific claim in the first place. The tests above simply showed that Zmax (and motor oil and probably Rislone, Molakule's favorite) penetrated the surface. Molakule and his co-horts are about the only folks still not on-board with this simple concept. Don't be misled when someone starts discussing "diffuse" or "permeates" - they are different terms, and neither Zmax nor Rislone has ever made such a claim.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: demarpaint


It has crossed my mind, especially in blocks and cylinder walls, and maybe bearings [I'll have to read up more on them]. IIRC bronze is porous too, I think bronze [sintered] filters were used in carbs because it was porous. Then reading about engine oil leaks and transmission leaks due to the way they were cast got me thinking. There could be a bit of truth in the claims made by ZMax.

http://www.impco-inc.com/technical/porosity-classification


There are claims made but no scientific proof.

Claims do not automatically mean there is any scientific proof to support those claims.

There is a lot of confusion between porosity, and permeation or diffusion.

Blah, blah. The only confusion exists in the mind of Molakule. It would be easier to kill Count Dracula than keeping the vampires "diffusion" and "permeation" in their coffins.

No "scientific proof"? Start reading here. The credentials and publication lists of the persons doing this research are publicly available. We are still waiting for that list of Molakule's publications. Surely you have published something outside of BITOG?

Instead, all Molakule can do is attack the messenger. I guess we can add to the list of wrong headed folks: Dr. Richard Shalvoy, Brown University faculty member and consultant to the National Bureau of Standards; Maurice LePera, a nationally recognized expert in the field, Chief of Fuels and Lubricants for the US Army, served on the National Research Council, a jointly administered agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. And then there's the FAA, FTC, the Federal Court. Completely wrong each and all.

This same pattern has been repeated over and over on this forum. Molakule's idea of "science" is to reach a conclusion and then twist every fact or fiction to support that conclusion. By that system, he can never be wrong. Couple this with an insulting attack on anyone who disagrees with his bizarre world view. Sadly, his system is also an insult to a lot of decent folks who work in scientific fields, understand that science is not a cheap hustle and keep an open mind in their work.

Dear readers: the words I posted are from experts in the field - not mine. You are welcome to ignore my comments, which are clearly separated.

Dear Molakule: can you suggest a single thing you have published outside of BITOG or a single scientific accomplishment?

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
And so is Rislone Engine Additive, one that never claims to permeate into non-porous metals.

If you are referring to Rislone, you are simply wrong. You did not check the facts. Or did you ignore the facts because they disagreed with your conclusion?

From Rislone's web page "The unique Rislone formula is designed to penetrate into valve seats, bearing surfaces, piston rings and ring grooves, where sludge and varnish is likely to form." Note the word "penetrate" - not permeate or diffuse.

In this simple exchange is crux of this debate (and a lot of other debates on BITOG). Molakule is constantly rattling on with his scientific jargon and misplaced definitions. He also disparages anyone who disagrees with him. Neither the facts nor the science are on his side - even such a simple fact as the advertising claim of a product which he likes and promotes.

If he can't get the simple stuff right, are we expected to blindly agree with matters of more significance? Agree with his position, in the face of public, uncontroverted tests and public written evidence to the contrary from recognized authorities in their field?

Molakule and his co-horts can criticize me and call me names, if that somehow makes his case, or makes him feel better. Most of us quit doing that sort of thing in high school or earlier. Yet, that's what Molakule has done with the FAA, FTC, Federal Judge, Dr. Richard Shalvoy, Maurice LePera. It's an honor to be included in such company.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: dave5358

"The unique Rislone formula is designed to penetrate into valve seats, bearing surfaces, piston rings and ring grooves, where sludge and varnish is likely to form." Note the word "penetrate" - not permeate or diffuse.



Interesting. Honestly in layman's terms any of those words pretty much mean the same thing in the above example. Unless we want to split hairs, even so it means the same thing to me. It looks like Rislone is getting away with it too.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Are you postulating that bearings, cylinder walls and rings are porous like that casting?

Not a postulation. It was demonstrated rather convincingly by Dr. Shalvoy / Maurice LePera / Arch Analytical Services in the FTC vs Zmax matter.


No it wasn't. If you understood the physics, you would understand why.

It might convince those who are impressed by big words and technobabble, being that it's geared to sell to those people.

But not those who actually understand why the claim is invalid.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Are you postulating that bearings, cylinder walls and rings are porous like that casting?

Not a postulation. It was demonstrated rather convincingly by Dr. Shalvoy / Maurice LePera / Arch Analytical Services in the FTC vs Zmax matter.


No it wasn't. If you understood the physics, you would understand why.

It might convince those who are impressed by big words and technobabble, being that it's geared to sell to those people.

But not those who actually understand why the claim is invalid.


I do wish you or MoleKule would go provide that information to the FTC. If the claims being made are so scientifically false and you can even just start the process, I'd like to see it proven wrong. I don't want to go to a store and buy something that claims to do something that it clearly can not. I don't care if it is oil, a oil additive or a can of beans that doesn't have the nutrition it claims to have.

If either of you two ever actually steps up to the plate and files that complaint, do post what happens as it happens. I'm interested in that process. I seriously doubt that either of you will or even can but one can wish.

 

[Trav]

Maybe you can shed some light on this.. TIA

https://www.jim.or.jp/journal/e/pdf3/47/09/2259.pdf

They go into engine cylinders and talk about things like this.
Quote:
therefore, the seizure resistance of porous cast iron is superior to that of the non-
porous cast iron


I can see where Zmax could get into the pores of some casted metals but so could oil for that matter, it seems doubtful it could "soak" into something like steel or chrome.
I have no idea but it makes interesting reading.