MMO, the real deal.

[MolaKule]

Quote:
OK, you just got crazy.

I'm done with this thread, I thought it was a rational discussion.OK, you just got crazy.


Don't expect rationality from those who are blinded by the windmills not turning.

AS Trav pointed out, the materials in question for valve seats are powdered metal, specifically, metal carbides. The basic process is you take a metal carbide "dust" and squeeze it into to the shape you want. Some manuf. may heat treat it afterwards. The metal carbide dust may be carbides of special steel alloys, cobalts, etc.

Oilite bearings are manf. in a similar, but not the same manner.

Copper particles are infused to increase heat conduction of the seats so the heat is conducted more efficiently to the head.

Whether it be sintered Oilite bearings or specially processed carbide valve seats, they are both porous materials.


The only way to really show that any liquid can penetrate below the surface of a steel material (as explained in a previous thread), is to take something like 4140 tool steel and pour the liquid on the surface or submerse it in the fluid, then dry it off and cut the specimen in half.

Then take a micro photograph of the sliced specimen at high magnification, showing the surface and the material underneath the surface.

Pouring any thin oil on a porous material and watching it migrate is cool. It is called "wicking."

Showing this effect and then saying that it penetrates solid metal or solid metals particles is a ruse.

Maybe Dave and Dale would like to engage in Q&A sessions here:


https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/forums/21/1/Question_of_the_Day

 

[rdalek]

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.

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.


Actually, since the FTC is the one that filed the lawsuit, they must have wanted proof and Zmax provided that to the court and the FTC accepted it. While the claims were changed, they did prove the current claims including "soaks into metal".

Originally Posted By: Garak

And what does an unchallenged claim prove? Also nothing. In any event, it's a product I don't need, even if it did what it claims.


The reason it is unchallenged is because it proves what Zmax does. In order to challenge something, you have to have facts. That is something the FTC came up short of and what people here are short on too.

Originally Posted By: Trajan
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.)


I have never said that the FTC endorsed anything. If you look at the court docs, it says that the FTC accepts the claims and it would not challenge the claims since they were proven. Again, if the FTC is wrong, go file a complaint and explain to them where they are wrong. Oh, that's right, you won't do that for obvious reasons, you have no proof. Interesting. You know what, it would have been a hundred times easier to just go file a complaint and tell the FTC all about your so called proof many pages ago. Instead, you keep posting here your opinion when the facts prove otherwise. Dave5358 has provided a lot of info and I have provided the court docs. No one as yet been able to change those facts.

By all means, keep posting your opinion even tho it has been proven otherwise.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
My proof was already posted on the ZMax thread and I'm perfectly satisfied with it. Go back and look at it. I even posted pictures. The proof was provided in court. It's already documented and everything. That is something none of you have been able to argue against, not one. Despite all the posts, you still can't get around the fact it was proven in court and to the FTC. Also, to this day, the FTC has not challenged the claims. It would seem that the FTC is waiting for someone here who claims it is false to share that info with them. It seems they have one heck of a wait tho. I don't think anyone here is going to step up and do it myself.

Still waiting on you or anyone else to go prove to the FTC they are wrong now and was wrong then too.


You must have an issue that with comprehension that should be resolved if you believe this is proof.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
AS Trav pointed out, the materials in question for valve seats are powdered metal, specifically, metal carbides. The basic process is you take a metal carbide "dust" and squeeze it into to the shape you want. Some manuf. may heat treat it afterwards. The metal carbide dust may be carbides of special steel alloys, cobalts, etc.
Whether it be sintered Oilite bearings or specially processed carbide valve seats, they are both porous materials.

Even if you had Stellite valve seats, it would still be powdered metal technology of some sort. M60 machine gun barrels are lined with Stellite - powder metal technology but porous. Assuming, for sake of argument, that you could actually create a 100% non-porous metal valve seat, it's unclear what you would have accomplished.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
The only way to really show that any liquid can penetrate below the surface of a steel material (as explained in a previous thread), is to take something like 4140 tool steel and pour the liquid on the surface or submerse it in the fluid, then dry it off and cut the specimen in half. Then take a micro photograph of the sliced specimen at high magnification, showing the surface and the material underneath the surface.

Says who? What is your authority for that claim? I will agree that this is one way to show penetration below the surface but hardly the only way.

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.

You can challenge these results all day long, but you have absolutely no credibility in this area. We are still waiting for your accomplishments or publication list (outside of BITOG). Would you like me to repost the publication list or record of engineering accomplishmeonts of Dr Shalvoy or Mr LePera, in case you missed it the first time?

Your "only way to really show" comments are simply preaching to your 2- or 3-man choir on BITOG. Speaking of preaching...

Version #1

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Showing this effect and then saying that it penetrates solid metal is a ruse.

There you go again. Zmax's claim was "Zmax soaks into metal". I am truly amazed at your determination to deflect the issue. You ought to get the Donald Rumsfeld Artful Dodger Award for endlessly evading the question.

Version #2:

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Showing this effect and then saying that it penetrates solid metal particles is a ruse.

That is exactly what the video showed. Surely you would agree that Super Oilite is "solid metal particles". Oh, never mind, this is BITOG and I am sure you would not agree, because then you would have to admit you were wrong.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: rdalek
My proof was already posted on the ZMax thread and I'm perfectly satisfied with it. Go back and look at it. I even posted pictures. The proof was provided in court. It's already documented and everything. That is something none of you have been able to argue against, not one. Despite all the posts, you still can't get around the fact it was proven in court and to the FTC. Also, to this day, the FTC has not challenged the claims. It would seem that the FTC is waiting for someone here who claims it is false to share that info with them. It seems they have one heck of a wait tho. I don't think anyone here is going to step up and do it myself.

Still waiting on you or anyone else to go prove to the FTC they are wrong now and was wrong then too.


You must have an issue that with comprehension that should be resolved if you believe this is proof.


I comprehend just fine. To get sued by a Govt agency and still be able to make the claims proves a lot to me. If the claims were not true, Zmax wouldn't be making them. If they really had nothing to back them up, they likely wouldn't be selling the product at all. They certainly wouldn't be making claims they couldn't prove tho. Can you comprehend that? Or do you still want to post your opinion some more?

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Surely you would agree that Super Oilite is "solid metal particles".


An oilite bearing, as explained many times before, is composed of solid particles with intergranular voids. Those intergranular voids allow capillary action of liquids to fill those voids.

You have to be able to visualize in 3-Dimensions and know something about basic science.

A number of us have attempted to educate you about porous structures, intergranular voids, etc, but I see it hasn't helped.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule, in a response to Clubber_Lang
You have to be able to visualize in 3-Dimensions and know something about basic science. A number of us have attempted to educate you about porous structures, intergranular voids and etc, but I see it hasn't helped.

Welcome to the club Clubber! You are now in the company of the FTC, FAA, Federal Judge in North Carolina, Carroll Shelby, Fred Offenhauser, Harry Miller, Dr Richard Shalvoy and Maurice LePera, to name a few. Be sure to replace the battery in your B-S sensor and when it warns you to PUT ON HIP WADERS, heed that warning.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Dave1251: You must have an issue that with comprehension that should be resolved if you believe this is proof.


Don't expect comprehension any time soon.

Thread hijacking, namedropping, and ignorance of scientific principles are all they have to offer.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Dave1251: You must have an issue that with comprehension that should be resolved if you believe this is proof.


Don't expect comprehension any time soon.

Thread hijacking, namedropping, and ignorance of scientific principles are all they have to offer.



Some drink from the fountain of knowledge. Some only gargle.

I don't know who they're trying to impress, but it isn't anyone in this thread. Unless the impression is unfavorable.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: rdalek
My proof was already posted on the ZMax thread and I'm perfectly satisfied with it. Go back and look at it. I even posted pictures. The proof was provided in court. It's already documented and everything. That is something none of you have been able to argue against, not one. Despite all the posts, you still can't get around the fact it was proven in court and to the FTC. Also, to this day, the FTC has not challenged the claims. It would seem that the FTC is waiting for someone here who claims it is false to share that info with them. It seems they have one heck of a wait tho. I don't think anyone here is going to step up and do it myself.

Still waiting on you or anyone else to go prove to the FTC they are wrong now and was wrong then too.


You must have an issue that with comprehension that should be resolved if you believe this is proof.


the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.

—David Dunning

They don't have it.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: rdalek
My proof was already posted on the ZMax thread and I'm perfectly satisfied with it. Go back and look at it. I even posted pictures. The proof was provided in court. It's already documented and everything. That is something none of you have been able to argue against, not one. Despite all the posts, you still can't get around the fact it was proven in court and to the FTC. Also, to this day, the FTC has not challenged the claims. It would seem that the FTC is waiting for someone here who claims it is false to share that info with them. It seems they have one heck of a wait tho. I don't think anyone here is going to step up and do it myself.

Still waiting on you or anyone else to go prove to the FTC they are wrong now and was wrong then too.


You must have an issue that with comprehension that should be resolved if you believe this is proof.


the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.

—David Dunning

They don't have it.


The ability to see what is right in front of your face sometimes only requires common sense and the ability to focus on the facts. There seems to be a lack of it on this issue.

Let's recap again. Zmax went to court, proved that Zmax does what it claims. To this day, a decade or so later, Zmax still makes the same claims. I might add, with no challenge from the FTC. We have a few people on this site that claims it doesn't do what it claims. They have no actual proof but that is their claim. Those same people who claim to have all kinds of science, intelligence and knowledge that no one else could possibly know or even start to understand are the same people who refuse to share that into with the FTC. My position is, they have no proof otherwise, why not share it. Just saying.

After all the nay sayers posting on this issue, not one single thing has changed. Zmax is still selling its product with the same claims that survived a FTC lawsuit. Not one person has been able to change that and I don't think any of the ones saying it doesn't do what it claims can prove otherwise.

 

[Trajan]

Sorry bud, but you're on ignore. I'll remove it every once in awhile to see if you post anything that falls into the realm of actual, real, science. Not this irrelevant stuff you keep pushing.

But I don't expect it anytime this century.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Sorry bud, but you're on ignore. I'll remove it every once in awhile to see if you post anything that falls into the realm of actual, real, science. Not this irrelevant stuff you keep pushing.

But I don't expect it anytime this century.


Well, I've posted plenty. You on the other hand have not. Since I have not attacked or given you any reason to ignore me, then you only do it because you have ran out of facts, which you did a very long time ago. So, when you can get back to reality, check out the facts that I have posted and prove them wrong. Until then, it's your loss, not mine.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
...The ability to see what is right in front of your face sometimes only requires common sense and the ability to focus on the facts...


And none of you Zmax pushers have either.

Quote:
Thread hijacking, namedropping, and ignorance of scientific principles are all they have to offer.



Metallurgy for Non-Metallurgists.

 

[route66mike]

Originally Posted By: Trajan

Some drink from the fountain of knowledge. Some only gargle.


Don't gargle or drink it if its MMO.
(That gargle old saying has always been a fav of mine.)

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: route66mike
Originally Posted By: Trajan

Some drink from the fountain of knowledge. Some only gargle.


Don't gargle or drink it if its MMO.
(That gargle old saying has always been a fav of mine.)

If you don't, you an "anti" (MMO)

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule


Quote:
Thread hijacking, namedropping, and ignorance of scientific principles are all they have to offer.



Metallurgy for Non-Metallurgists.


Too many polysyllable words like "metallurgy", or "microstructure"

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: dave5358

Originally Posted By: Dr Richard Shalvoy / Arch Analytical Services
The results obtained using the Cast Iron specimens revealed that absorption of the zMAX had been shown based on the following three findings: (1) the initial releasing of material (i.e. zMAX) from the specimen occurred after placing the specimen into the high vacuum chamber. This releasing caused the vacuum to decrease as long as the specimen remained in the chamber and was not observed for the control specimen. The fact that zMAX has an effect on vacuum pressure is indeed further evidence that it has indeed penetrated the metal specimens. (2) Examination of the surface revealed a significant and increasing C signal during the hour required for analyses. This again was not observed for the control specimen. (3) The amount of C detected below the specimen’s surface (i.e. detected by depth profiling) displayed a significant increase in the level of C over that measured for the control specimen.

Comparative tests of zMAX by itself and in blends with commercial SAE 5W-30 engine oil as well as the engine oil itself revealed that zMAX by itself and when blended with the engine oil, penetrated both types of metals far deeper than engine oil alone. Although it was not possible to precisely quantify the difference in penetration depths between the engine oil, and engine oil with zMAX, measuring the percent C by AES revealed the presence of zMAX in the engine oil resulted in a 82% greater penetration (i.e. % C for engine oil alone was 27% versus % C for engine oil with zMAX was 49%). This ability to soak into metals is the key t zMAX’s effectiveness.



I guess that increased C below the surface got there by magic. Only in Molakule's world does oil remain on the surface of cast iron. It is unclear why he is so obsessed with this single issue. Molakule correctly observed that soaking into metal (or not) has nothing to do with lubrication, which does occur at the surface.


Ummm, XPS and AES are surface sensitive techniques. AES is good for maybe 30 Angstroms. There was a good paper by the Naval Research Laboratory that depth profiled via XPS in mid-Z eldments that went maybe to 100A or so with the right ion beam.

We all should know that spurious carbon is always present on the surfaces, and in fact, the carbon peak is typically used to measure charging of samples. So... What was the reference used? Since spurious carbon is variable spatially by samples, and no error data was provided that I recall, how are we saying anything is accurate here? As I recall from reading, there were no replicates and no statistical treatment of the samples. Of course AES should be performed in high vacuum, but I don't recall any treatment on the details of if in the reducing conditions of the beam, if the carbon can change phase/form.

Without XAS, I have severe doubts that these results are indicative of anything real.

 

[Trajan]

It's accurate because Oil-Chem says it is. And the FTC allows them to make a claim.....

What chance does real, actual, physics/chemistry/tribology have against the power of marketing....

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: route66mike
Originally Posted By: Trajan

Some drink from the fountain of knowledge. Some only gargle.


Don't gargle or drink it if its MMO.
(That gargle old saying has always been a fav of mine.)

If you don't, you an "anti" (MMO)

Looks to me like you're an "anti" "Max" too. This thread was lots of fun, somewhat educational too, now it's getting monotonous.

It seems like it could be time for a mercy lock.