MMO, the real deal.
- Thread starter Clubber_Lang
- Start date
- Status
That video is a total crock. That's not a "lab", it's a studio set. I worked in a real industrial lab for many years and I know labs. That's not one. Sticking a periodic table on the front of a cabinet and having a couple laboratory hot plates does not constitute a research lab.
Plus what kind of metal samples are those? Are they representative of actual engine parts or are they samples that would show the same effect with mayonnaise? I suspect the latter.
There's no testing going on in that video.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Garak
As opposed to a non-testable hypothesis?
It's a marketing claim. But based on the Shalvoy / Arch Analytical Services results, I'd say they tested it rather well and proved that it worked - remarkably well tested for a marketing claim.
Go watch the video.
Plus what kind of metal samples are those? Are they representative of actual engine parts or are they samples that would show the same effect with mayonnaise? I suspect the latter.
There's no testing going on in that video.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Garak
As opposed to a non-testable hypothesis?
It's a marketing claim. But based on the Shalvoy / Arch Analytical Services results, I'd say they tested it rather well and proved that it worked - remarkably well tested for a marketing claim.
Go watch the video.
Originally Posted By: 05LGTLtd
Apparently, the FTC could care less wether Zmax diffuses, permeates, or has wild monkey sex with the metals of your engine. They do have an obligation to protect consumers, and if the felt that the mileage claim was unfair to consumers, they were obliged to challenge it. They did and Zmax had to drop it.
Zmax had to remove "percentage improvement" from their claims. That's not unreasonable and Zmax should have done that anyway. Now with FTC approval, they could still claim Zmax improved mileage. Just because Zmax (or any product) gives X% improvement in one vehicle is no assurance it will do the same in another vehicle. There was a suggestion from Molakule (of all people!) that Zmax might work by cleaning deposits inside an engine. Accepting that idea, just for sake of argument, then Zmax would perform differently in a really gummy engine versus an engine which was quite clean inside.
In an earlier message, I noted that Zmax has a following among some serious racing engine builders, and I suggested why this might be so. But surely no one thinks, even for a minute, that an Indy-car or NASCAR racing engine has sludge in it.
Originally Posted By: 05LGTLtd
Choosing not to challenge other claims does not validate them. They are a government agency, with limited resources, they pick their battles to provide the best consumer protection for the resources they have.
The FTC picked the wrong product in the wrong forum. You're right - they have limited resources and they wasted a truck-load of those resources on this case. I wonder how the FTC was going to deal with FAA approval? Or the fact that their own former expert, Maurice LePera, was now supporting Zmax's claims? Or that a recognized testing laboratory had said the stuff does what it claims?
The FTC did not get their attorney's fees paid. While the FTC could monitor Zmax for up to 5 years, that monitoring was at the FTC's own expense. Zmax admitted no wrongs or no faults of any sort. Plus, the FTC had to sign-off on Zmax's ad claims, and they had to do that before the settlement was filed in Court. Talk about humiliation. I'm surprised the Judge in North Carolina did not have the FTC attorneys arrested and tossed in jail for a few nights.
You can sugarcoat this anyway you want, but the FTC lost this case big-time.
Apparently, the FTC could care less wether Zmax diffuses, permeates, or has wild monkey sex with the metals of your engine. They do have an obligation to protect consumers, and if the felt that the mileage claim was unfair to consumers, they were obliged to challenge it. They did and Zmax had to drop it.
Zmax had to remove "percentage improvement" from their claims. That's not unreasonable and Zmax should have done that anyway. Now with FTC approval, they could still claim Zmax improved mileage. Just because Zmax (or any product) gives X% improvement in one vehicle is no assurance it will do the same in another vehicle. There was a suggestion from Molakule (of all people!) that Zmax might work by cleaning deposits inside an engine. Accepting that idea, just for sake of argument, then Zmax would perform differently in a really gummy engine versus an engine which was quite clean inside.
In an earlier message, I noted that Zmax has a following among some serious racing engine builders, and I suggested why this might be so. But surely no one thinks, even for a minute, that an Indy-car or NASCAR racing engine has sludge in it.
Originally Posted By: 05LGTLtd
Choosing not to challenge other claims does not validate them. They are a government agency, with limited resources, they pick their battles to provide the best consumer protection for the resources they have.
The FTC picked the wrong product in the wrong forum. You're right - they have limited resources and they wasted a truck-load of those resources on this case. I wonder how the FTC was going to deal with FAA approval? Or the fact that their own former expert, Maurice LePera, was now supporting Zmax's claims? Or that a recognized testing laboratory had said the stuff does what it claims?
The FTC did not get their attorney's fees paid. While the FTC could monitor Zmax for up to 5 years, that monitoring was at the FTC's own expense. Zmax admitted no wrongs or no faults of any sort. Plus, the FTC had to sign-off on Zmax's ad claims, and they had to do that before the settlement was filed in Court. Talk about humiliation. I'm surprised the Judge in North Carolina did not have the FTC attorneys arrested and tossed in jail for a few nights.
You can sugarcoat this anyway you want, but the FTC lost this case big-time.
You and the other guy are wrong. It's staggering just how wrong you and rdalek are.
And you don't even know how wrong you are.
The FTC does *not* endorse a product. They do not have the necessary staff to *test* the product. (You claim they do, so name them.)
They *assumed* what they were being told was true. But they didn't *test* it.
Using a hired gun who gets paid by the company to say it works does not *prove* it works.
There is no proof backed by science that the product covered in *this* thread can surpass current oil additives as far as cleaning goes. (Really, if there was, the big oil companies would be using it. And this "blending it to a price point" that pops up from time to time is ridiculous. Being that if it was true they would use it.)
There is no proof backed by science that this product will diffuse into solid metal. That video is a dog and pony show.)
And you don't even know how wrong you are.
The FTC does *not* endorse a product. They do not have the necessary staff to *test* the product. (You claim they do, so name them.)
They *assumed* what they were being told was true. But they didn't *test* it.
Using a hired gun who gets paid by the company to say it works does not *prove* it works.
There is no proof backed by science that the product covered in *this* thread can surpass current oil additives as far as cleaning goes. (Really, if there was, the big oil companies would be using it. And this "blending it to a price point" that pops up from time to time is ridiculous. Being that if it was true they would use it.)
There is no proof backed by science that this product will diffuse into solid metal. That video is a dog and pony show.)
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: kschachn
That video is a total crock. That's not a "lab", it's a studio set.
Who said it was a lab? It looks like a studio with a couple of Youtube bozo actors hamming it up. So what? Why would the visual result be any different if it were staged in Sandia National Laboratory or Argonne National Laboratory? Why would the visual result be different if the guy doing the pouring was Richard Shalvoy PhD, or Norman Foster Ramsey Jr?
If a company claimed that their product would soak into a sponge, how about a video of... pouring the product onto a sponge? Zmax claimed it "soaks into metal". How about a video of... pouring Zmax onto metal?
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Plus what kind of metal samples are those?
It is probably Super Oilite or Super Oilite 16 (that's what I would have chosen). But, does it really matter? There are only two questions which need answering...
- Is it metal? Please answer yes or no.
- Did Zmax soak into this metal? Please answer yes or no.
Go watch the video. The Zmax folks could have put on this same nifty little demo right in the North Carolina courtroom... right in front of the jury. That's why the FTC bailed.
Oh yes, I would have had a magnet handy, and stuck it onto the metal block when the demo was about finished.
That video is a total crock. That's not a "lab", it's a studio set.
Who said it was a lab? It looks like a studio with a couple of Youtube bozo actors hamming it up. So what? Why would the visual result be any different if it were staged in Sandia National Laboratory or Argonne National Laboratory? Why would the visual result be different if the guy doing the pouring was Richard Shalvoy PhD, or Norman Foster Ramsey Jr?
If a company claimed that their product would soak into a sponge, how about a video of... pouring the product onto a sponge? Zmax claimed it "soaks into metal". How about a video of... pouring Zmax onto metal?
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Plus what kind of metal samples are those?
It is probably Super Oilite or Super Oilite 16 (that's what I would have chosen). But, does it really matter? There are only two questions which need answering...
- Is it metal? Please answer yes or no.
- Did Zmax soak into this metal? Please answer yes or no.
Go watch the video. The Zmax folks could have put on this same nifty little demo right in the North Carolina courtroom... right in front of the jury. That's why the FTC bailed.
Oh yes, I would have had a magnet handy, and stuck it onto the metal block when the demo was about finished.
Originally Posted By: expat
It should be easy to prove if anything 'soaks' into (say) a piston.
If I were to take an accurately weighed piston and soak it, then carefully wipe clean the outside and weigh it again, we could see how much 'stuff' soaked in to the metal.
The question is how would you wipe it out? Suppose you dropped some oil on your tile floor in the kitchen. Do you believe you could wipe it off completely without using any solvent/cleaner? If not, why do you believe you would be in a position to wipe it off from metal?
It should be easy to prove if anything 'soaks' into (say) a piston.
If I were to take an accurately weighed piston and soak it, then carefully wipe clean the outside and weigh it again, we could see how much 'stuff' soaked in to the metal.
The question is how would you wipe it out? Suppose you dropped some oil on your tile floor in the kitchen. Do you believe you could wipe it off completely without using any solvent/cleaner? If not, why do you believe you would be in a position to wipe it off from metal?
Originally Posted By: kschachn
That video is a total crock. That's not a "lab", it's a studio set. I worked in a real industrial lab for many years and I know labs. That's not one. Sticking a periodic table on the front of a cabinet and having a couple laboratory hot plates does not constitute a research lab.
Would of been more convincing with a pair of Bunsen burners
That video is a total crock. That's not a "lab", it's a studio set. I worked in a real industrial lab for many years and I know labs. That's not one. Sticking a periodic table on the front of a cabinet and having a couple laboratory hot plates does not constitute a research lab.
Would of been more convincing with a pair of Bunsen burners
They said it was the lab.
Is it metal? It looks like metal yes. Did it soak into the metal? No of course not. It looks like some sort of porous sintered metal sample. It soaked into the porosity of the metal sample, not into metal. Surely you aren't that blinded by your quest, are you? You can't be serious that that piece of metal is necessarily representative of the types of metals used in an engine?
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Who said it was a lab? It looks like a studio with a couple of Youtube bozo actors hamming it up. So what? Why would the visual result be any different if it were staged in Sandia National Laboratory or Argonne National Laboratory? Why would the visual result be different if the guy doing the pouring was Richard Shalvoy PhD, or Norman Foster Ramsey Jr?
If a company claimed that their product would soak into a sponge, how about a video of... pouring the product onto a sponge? Zmax claimed it "soaks into metal". How about a video of... pouring Zmax onto metal?
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Plus what kind of metal samples are those?
It is probably Super Oilite or Super Oilite 16 (that's what I would have chosen). But, does it really matter? There are only two questions which need answering...
- Is it metal? Please answer yes or no.
- Did Zmax soak into this metal? Please answer yes or no.
Go watch the video. The Zmax folks could have put on this same nifty little demo right in the North Carolina courtroom... right in front of the jury. That's why the FTC bailed.
Oh yes, I would have had a magnet handy, and stuck it onto the metal block when the demo was about finished.
Is it metal? It looks like metal yes. Did it soak into the metal? No of course not. It looks like some sort of porous sintered metal sample. It soaked into the porosity of the metal sample, not into metal. Surely you aren't that blinded by your quest, are you? You can't be serious that that piece of metal is necessarily representative of the types of metals used in an engine?
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Who said it was a lab? It looks like a studio with a couple of Youtube bozo actors hamming it up. So what? Why would the visual result be any different if it were staged in Sandia National Laboratory or Argonne National Laboratory? Why would the visual result be different if the guy doing the pouring was Richard Shalvoy PhD, or Norman Foster Ramsey Jr?
If a company claimed that their product would soak into a sponge, how about a video of... pouring the product onto a sponge? Zmax claimed it "soaks into metal". How about a video of... pouring Zmax onto metal?
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Plus what kind of metal samples are those?
It is probably Super Oilite or Super Oilite 16 (that's what I would have chosen). But, does it really matter? There are only two questions which need answering...
- Is it metal? Please answer yes or no.
- Did Zmax soak into this metal? Please answer yes or no.
Go watch the video. The Zmax folks could have put on this same nifty little demo right in the North Carolina courtroom... right in front of the jury. That's why the FTC bailed.
Oh yes, I would have had a magnet handy, and stuck it onto the metal block when the demo was about finished.
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Originally Posted By: expat
It should be easy to prove if anything 'soaks' into (say) a piston.
If I were to take an accurately weighed piston and soak it, then carefully wipe clean the outside and weigh it again, we could see how much 'stuff' soaked in to the metal.
The question is how would you wipe it out? Suppose you dropped some oil on your tile floor in the kitchen. Do you believe you could wipe it off completely without using any solvent/cleaner? If not, why do you believe you would be in a position to wipe it off from metal?
Trust me I've tried to wipe it off wrought iron as an experiment to see if paint would adhere without the use of chemical cleaners. The only way to get it off was to chemically remove it. Which nicely coincides with what Molakule and Shannow said in this thread. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...quo#Post3449571. I have a feeling if you could get a scale accurate enough you'd be able to detect an increase in weight. What I've gathered is "porosity" is either intentional, or from defects in the mfg. process of some metals.
Originally Posted By: expat
It should be easy to prove if anything 'soaks' into (say) a piston.
If I were to take an accurately weighed piston and soak it, then carefully wipe clean the outside and weigh it again, we could see how much 'stuff' soaked in to the metal.
The question is how would you wipe it out? Suppose you dropped some oil on your tile floor in the kitchen. Do you believe you could wipe it off completely without using any solvent/cleaner? If not, why do you believe you would be in a position to wipe it off from metal?
Trust me I've tried to wipe it off wrought iron as an experiment to see if paint would adhere without the use of chemical cleaners. The only way to get it off was to chemically remove it. Which nicely coincides with what Molakule and Shannow said in this thread. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubb...quo#Post3449571. I have a feeling if you could get a scale accurate enough you'd be able to detect an increase in weight. What I've gathered is "porosity" is either intentional, or from defects in the mfg. process of some metals.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You can't be serious that that piece of metal is necessarily representative of the types of metals used in an engine?
What do you think your valve seats are made of? And, if not yours, then your neighbors.
You can't be serious that that piece of metal is necessarily representative of the types of metals used in an engine?
What do you think your valve seats are made of? And, if not yours, then your neighbors.
Not that metal, all day long.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You can't be serious that that piece of metal is necessarily representative of the types of metals used in an engine?
What do you think your valve seats are made of? And, if not yours, then your neighbors.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You can't be serious that that piece of metal is necessarily representative of the types of metals used in an engine?
What do you think your valve seats are made of? And, if not yours, then your neighbors.
Originally Posted By: expat
It should be easy to prove if anything 'soaks' into (say) a piston. If I were to take an accurately weighed piston and soak it, then carefully wipe clean the outside and weigh it again, we could see how much 'stuff' soaked in to the metal.
This is certainly a straight forward approach, but not the one used by Dr Shalvoy / Arch Analytical Services. I suspect the problem was this:
- First, you carefully weigh the metal sample.
- Then soak it in Zmax (they actually had a whole protocol - heating and cooling while soaking).
- Next you remove the sample from the Zmax and clean the surface carefully.
- Then re-weigh it. It should weigh more.
The simple argument against this is 'you did not clean the surface properly after soaking'.
The test actually used depth profiling of carbon left behind by Zmax in the sample.
Originally Posted By: Dr Richard Shalvoy / Arch Analytical Services
The amount of Carbon detected below the specimen’s surface (i.e. detected by depth profiling) displayed a significant increase in the level of Carbon over that measured for the control specimen.
This test went right to the issue - traces of Zmax left behind below the surface. The only people who argue about this are here on BITOG. Go figure.
It should be easy to prove if anything 'soaks' into (say) a piston. If I were to take an accurately weighed piston and soak it, then carefully wipe clean the outside and weigh it again, we could see how much 'stuff' soaked in to the metal.
This is certainly a straight forward approach, but not the one used by Dr Shalvoy / Arch Analytical Services. I suspect the problem was this:
- First, you carefully weigh the metal sample.
- Then soak it in Zmax (they actually had a whole protocol - heating and cooling while soaking).
- Next you remove the sample from the Zmax and clean the surface carefully.
- Then re-weigh it. It should weigh more.
The simple argument against this is 'you did not clean the surface properly after soaking'.
The test actually used depth profiling of carbon left behind by Zmax in the sample.
Originally Posted By: Dr Richard Shalvoy / Arch Analytical Services
The amount of Carbon detected below the specimen’s surface (i.e. detected by depth profiling) displayed a significant increase in the level of Carbon over that measured for the control specimen.
This test went right to the issue - traces of Zmax left behind below the surface. The only people who argue about this are here on BITOG. Go figure.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You can't be serious that that piece of metal is necessarily representative of the types of metals used in an engine?
What do you think your valve seats are made of? And, if not yours, then your neighbors.
Not that metal, all day long.
You're welcome to believe whatever you choose about your valve seats. In the real world, they are frequently made of sintered metal because of it's porous nature. Entrained oil in the valve seat prevents 'micro-welds' forming with the exhaust valve, which shortens the life of the valve assembly.
From Federal Mogul's webpage:
"Sintered materials are inherently porous. We use a technique known as infiltration to fill porous spaces in the valve seat with copper. The copper improves the thermal properties of the component, and improves the machineability of the material."
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You can't be serious that that piece of metal is necessarily representative of the types of metals used in an engine?
What do you think your valve seats are made of? And, if not yours, then your neighbors.
Not that metal, all day long.
You're welcome to believe whatever you choose about your valve seats. In the real world, they are frequently made of sintered metal because of it's porous nature. Entrained oil in the valve seat prevents 'micro-welds' forming with the exhaust valve, which shortens the life of the valve assembly.
From Federal Mogul's webpage:
"Sintered materials are inherently porous. We use a technique known as infiltration to fill porous spaces in the valve seat with copper. The copper improves the thermal properties of the component, and improves the machineability of the material."
Oh come on, your own link shows that can't be the metal then. If they fill in the inter-granular voids with copper that effectively seals them off, doesn't it?
Really you're the one welcome to believe whatever you chose about your valve seats, in that you think that block of metal on the marketing video is the same as valve seat material.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
You're welcome to believe whatever you choose about your valve seats. In the real world, they are frequently made of sintered metal because of it's porous nature. Entrained oil in the valve seat prevents 'micro-welds' forming with the exhaust valve, which shortens the life of the valve assembly.
From Federal Mogul's webpage:
"Sintered materials are inherently porous. We use a technique known as infiltration to fill porous spaces in the valve seat with copper. The copper improves the thermal properties of the component, and improves the machineability of the material."
Really you're the one welcome to believe whatever you chose about your valve seats, in that you think that block of metal on the marketing video is the same as valve seat material.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
You're welcome to believe whatever you choose about your valve seats. In the real world, they are frequently made of sintered metal because of it's porous nature. Entrained oil in the valve seat prevents 'micro-welds' forming with the exhaust valve, which shortens the life of the valve assembly.
From Federal Mogul's webpage:
"Sintered materials are inherently porous. We use a technique known as infiltration to fill porous spaces in the valve seat with copper. The copper improves the thermal properties of the component, and improves the machineability of the material."
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Oh come on, your own link shows that can't be the metal
You must be absolutely right. You're engine valve seats could not possibly be metal. The people at Federal-Mogul are crazy (or worse) and their valve seats are really not metal either. Maybe the stuff in the video just looks like metal... but it's really not. And, it just looks like the Zmax is soaking into the mystery material... but it's really not. Maybe Super Oilite bushings look like metal and attract a magnet like they are metal... but they're really something else. Maybe Chrysler Corporation built the Amplex factory to produce this material and related parts as part of a gigantic hoax... which lasted for years and fooled absolutely everyone. And man never walked on the moon. Be careful you don't fall off the edge of the earth.
Oh come on, your own link shows that can't be the metal
You must be absolutely right. You're engine valve seats could not possibly be metal. The people at Federal-Mogul are crazy (or worse) and their valve seats are really not metal either. Maybe the stuff in the video just looks like metal... but it's really not. And, it just looks like the Zmax is soaking into the mystery material... but it's really not. Maybe Super Oilite bushings look like metal and attract a magnet like they are metal... but they're really something else. Maybe Chrysler Corporation built the Amplex factory to produce this material and related parts as part of a gigantic hoax... which lasted for years and fooled absolutely everyone. And man never walked on the moon. Be careful you don't fall off the edge of the earth.
The seats are probably Stellite or Talonite if they are used on aluminum heads, iron head seats are usually done by induction hardening the castings seat area.
OK, you just got crazy.
I'm done with this thread, I thought it was a rational discussion.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Oh come on, your own link shows that can't be the metal
You must be absolutely right. You're engine valve seats could not possibly be metal. The people at Federal-Mogul are crazy (or worse) and their valve seats are really not metal either. Maybe the stuff in the video just looks like metal... but it's really not. And, it just looks like the Zmax is soaking into the mystery material... but it's really not. Maybe Super Oilite bushings look like metal and attract a magnet like they are metal... but they're really something else. Maybe Chrysler Corporation built the Amplex factory to produce this material and related parts as part of a gigantic hoax... which lasted for years and fooled absolutely everyone. And man never walked on the moon. Be careful you don't fall off the edge of the earth.
I'm done with this thread, I thought it was a rational discussion.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Oh come on, your own link shows that can't be the metal
You must be absolutely right. You're engine valve seats could not possibly be metal. The people at Federal-Mogul are crazy (or worse) and their valve seats are really not metal either. Maybe the stuff in the video just looks like metal... but it's really not. And, it just looks like the Zmax is soaking into the mystery material... but it's really not. Maybe Super Oilite bushings look like metal and attract a magnet like they are metal... but they're really something else. Maybe Chrysler Corporation built the Amplex factory to produce this material and related parts as part of a gigantic hoax... which lasted for years and fooled absolutely everyone. And man never walked on the moon. Be careful you don't fall off the edge of the earth.
Bought over from the other thread:
-------------------------------------
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Those sintered metal bushings have closely controlled porosity such that the oil can be trapped within spaces between the metal particles. No problem there, but even in this case the oil is not "soaking" into the metal. It is being displaced into the inter-granular space between the sintered metal particles. You can look at the bushing under an SEM and see those spaces all day long. The oil is not going between the metal atoms.
As an aside I have never seen any large molecule such as a hydrocarbon diffuse nor "soak" into a metal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Kschachn has it right. And it's such that it is easy to understand.
-------------------------------------
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Those sintered metal bushings have closely controlled porosity such that the oil can be trapped within spaces between the metal particles. No problem there, but even in this case the oil is not "soaking" into the metal. It is being displaced into the inter-granular space between the sintered metal particles. You can look at the bushing under an SEM and see those spaces all day long. The oil is not going between the metal atoms.
As an aside I have never seen any large molecule such as a hydrocarbon diffuse nor "soak" into a metal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Kschachn has it right. And it's such that it is easy to understand.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Oh come on, your own link shows that can't be the metal then. If they fill in the inter-granular voids with copper that effectively seals them off, doesn't it?
Really you're the one welcome to believe whatever you chose about your valve seats, in that you think that block of metal on the marketing video is the same as valve seat material.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
You're welcome to believe whatever you choose about your valve seats. In the real world, they are frequently made of sintered metal because of it's porous nature. Entrained oil in the valve seat prevents 'micro-welds' forming with the exhaust valve, which shortens the life of the valve assembly.
From Federal Mogul's webpage:
"Sintered materials are inherently porous. We use a technique known as infiltration to fill porous spaces in the valve seat with copper. The copper improves the thermal properties of the component, and improves the machineability of the material."
He does know that copper is not motor oil? That now that the porous spaces are filled with it, they are no longer porous? That improving the machinability does not mean that oil can diffuse into it?
You're right, he isn't rational.
Oh come on, your own link shows that can't be the metal then. If they fill in the inter-granular voids with copper that effectively seals them off, doesn't it?
Really you're the one welcome to believe whatever you chose about your valve seats, in that you think that block of metal on the marketing video is the same as valve seat material.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
You're welcome to believe whatever you choose about your valve seats. In the real world, they are frequently made of sintered metal because of it's porous nature. Entrained oil in the valve seat prevents 'micro-welds' forming with the exhaust valve, which shortens the life of the valve assembly.
From Federal Mogul's webpage:
"Sintered materials are inherently porous. We use a technique known as infiltration to fill porous spaces in the valve seat with copper. The copper improves the thermal properties of the component, and improves the machineability of the material."
He does know that copper is not motor oil? That now that the porous spaces are filled with it, they are no longer porous? That improving the machinability does not mean that oil can diffuse into it?
You're right, he isn't rational.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked