MMO, the real deal.

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
But solid metals are not sponges and are not porous.

Continuing on the exploration of 'soaks into metal' or 'penetrates metal':

Originally Posted By: Richard Shalvoy PhD December 2001
THE AES EXPERIMENT
The initial effort centered on determining the most effective analytical approach to this investigation with the majority of effort being focused on the Cast Iron specimens. Since this methodology was not defined by any standard testing procedure, the actual procedure that subsequently evolved was viewed as a developmental method. The specimens exposed to either the zMAX, the zMAX -oil blend and the engine oil alone were cleaned prior to being analyzed by AES. The procedure involved wiping and removing the residual oil film, then using an ultrasonic cleaner with selected solvents to remove trace amount of any remaining oil film. Following this cleaning, the specimen was introduced into the high vacuum chamber (7x10-10 torr) of the AES instrument.

Again, please keep your eye on the ball. Molakule keeps suggesting there is some "standard" for testing this. Not according to Dr. Shalvoy.

Common sense suggests that if there had been a "standard" they would have jumped on it in a Calfornia minute. Remember, the results of these tests would be sent to the FTC and entered into the record in Federal Court in North Carolina. To ignore a "standard" in your testing would have been professional suicide.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
But solid metals are not sponges and are not porous.

Continuing on the exploration of 'soaks into metal' or 'penetrates metal' - finally the results:

Originally Posted By: Richard Shalvoy PhD December 2001
RESULTS
As zMAX is principally a hydro-carbon fluid composed of hydrogen and carbon, it was expected that using the Carbon (C) elements as a tracer to detect the absorption of zMAX would be a convenient way to approach this analysis. As it turned out, this did prove to be satisfactory, but there were some problems in optimizing the analytical procedure to measure the different amounts of C that were being detected. These problems were subsequently resolved and a procedure was then established for analyzing the metal specimens that had been exposed to the zMAX, the blend of 10% zMAX in engine oil, the engine oil alone and the controls that were only exposed to the heating and cooling cycles.

The majority of the analyses were performed using the Cast Iron specimens as the Aluminum Alloy specimens because of their greater porosity apparently retained higher levels of absorbed material that tended to prevent any measurement using AES. That is, when the cleaned specimens were placed in the high vacuum analysis compartment of the AES instrument, significant amounts of entrained material were released from the specimen causing a depositing layer to be formed on the surface of the specimen, which in turn, obscured further measurements. Using the control specimens as a baseline the analyses were performed on the zMAX exposed specimens, the zMAX /engine oil specimens and the engine oil alone specimens. The results were then compared to the measurements that had been obtained for the control. The values below reflect the % of Atomic Carbon measured at the end of the Argon depth profiling.

AES Measured ---------- Control --------- Engine Oil ----- Engine Oil with 10% zMAX ------ zMAX

Atomic Carbon
Concentration % ------------ 28 ------------ 27 -------------------- 49 ---------- 63

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.


A soldier in Molakule's endless army of straw men was the notion that the Zmax would 'flash off' under the electron beam. Well, yes, it did that. Except that only the "hydro" part of hydrocarbon flashed off. The carbon stayed behind, leaving a clearly mesurable record

the Aluminum Alloy specimens because of their greater porosity... Porous Aluminum Alloy? Not in Molakule's world. But in the real world, the Aluminum Alloy soaked up so much material they couldn't measure it. Sort of like a sponge, in fact.

Please note, again, 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.

One of the last soldiers in Molakule's straw man army was this gem:

Originally Posted By: Richard Shalvoy PhD December 2001
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%).

According to Molakule, this "not possible to precisely quanitfy" invalidates the entire test. Really?

Wake up, BITOGers. Molakule and his co-horts Trajan and Dave1251 have thrown sense and reason out the door - scientific sense and common sense. Clearly they do not like Zmax (for unspecified reasons). Just as clear from an abundance of scientific evidence is the fact that Zmax soaks into metal and MMO will penetrate metal.

Molakule: We're still waiting for that publication list.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
But solid metals are not sponges and are not porous.

For anyone who has followed this thread, MMO claims to 'penetrate metal'. This MMO claim is related to Zmax as follows: Zmax claims to 'soak into metal'. Zmax, by their own statements and by laboratory analysis is >99% highly refined mineral oil. Depending on which source you consult, MMO is composed of 74 percent mineral oil, 25 percent stoddard solvent, and 1 percent lard. Unless the stoddard solvent or lard magically thicken MMO by a significant amount, it too should soak into metal or 'penetrates metal' just as well or perhaps even better than Zmax. So, it should be productive to look closely at the Zmax claim and the evidence supporting it.

The actual lab testing of this specific Zmax claim was conceived and performed by Richard Shalvoy PhD, then on the faculty of Brown University. If you do a search of WorldCat Dr. Shalvoy is the author or co-author of numerous scientific articles, including
- The bond ionicity and structural stability of some average valence five materials studied by x-ray photoemission
- X-ray Photoemission Studies and Bonding in Amorphous Chalcogens (for the National Bureau of Standards)
- Catalytic conversion of alcohols - Attempt to correlate the ESCA oxygen 1s binding energy with the selectivity, Journal of the Chemical Society, Royal Society of Chemistry Journals
- Hydrogenation with anthranilic acid anchored, polymer-bound nickel catalysts, Journal of Organic Chemistry

However, Dr. Shalvoy has not published any articles on BITOG

Dr. Shalvoy did his research on Zmax at Arch Analytical Systems. His written results are not secret. Here is what he set out to do:

Originally Posted By: Richard Shalvoy PhD December 2001
INTRODUCTION
As a result of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) involvement questioning the performance claims being made in a zMAX Infomercial, a need surfaced for an investigation that would provide some evidence of zMAX’s ability to become absorbed (i.e. to penetrate the surface) into metal components of internal combustion engines such as cylinder walls and piston skirts. zMAX is a proprietary hydrocarbon based product advertised to be pure micro-lubricating oil that treats the metal.

This report provides a summary of the investigation that was performed by Arch Analytical Services.

Please note Dr. Shavoy's choice of words: "become absorbed", "penetrate the surface". Nowhere to be found is Molakule's straw man of "diffuse"


Like I mentioned earlier, take any thin oil and drop a piece of ferrous metal into it, for more fun heat it to the temps oil in an engine would reach. Then take that metal wipe it clean with a dry cloth and apply an oil based primer specifically for metal to it. Report back. I found the oil treated metal must be washed with a chemical like Wil-Bond, and wiped dry in order for the primer to properly adhere. Is the thin oil penetrating? You'd sure as [censored] would think it did when your primer won't properly adhere. Interesting stuff for sure.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
But solid metals are not sponges and are not porous.



Please note Dr. Shavoy's choice of words: "become absorbed", "penetrate the surface". Nowhere to be found is Molakule's straw man of "diffuse"


Quote:

Maybe Dave5358 has a crosssection or photo micrograph of his favorite fluid permeating below a solid metal surface.

Quote:
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, and this where Dave5358 and others get confused.

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."

So no matter what Dave5358 incorrectly believes, or what some companies may advertise, oil films DO NOT diffuse; they do not permeate or penetrate into the metal below the surface.


So now Dave5358 abandons the concept of porosity and attempts to obfuscate the matter with terms not even he can define scientifically.

It's unfortunate Dave5358 and rdalek had to bring their alchemy and unscientific claims to what was an otherwise interesting discussion.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
Dave5358: According to Molakule, this "not possible to precisely quanitfy" invalidates the entire test. Really?


Molakule was repeating the wording of the actual test.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
So now Dave5358 abandons the concept of porosity and attempts to obfuscate the matter with terms not even he can define scientifically. It's unfortunate Dave5358 and rdalek had to bring their alchemy and unscientific claims to what was an otherwise interesting discussion.

Blah, blah.

We are still waiting for that list of 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?

 

[Trajan]

The laws of physics and chemistry do not change because people keep repeating marketing claims. Or insist that the fact they say the product works trumps said laws.

 

[137_Trenton]

I'm not going to get into semantics with anyone, but I will just say have fun welding on cast aluminum that's been exposed to oil

 

[Clubber_Lang]

This thread is seriously sidetracked. The questions need to be: 1. How well does MMO clean, and 2: Does it cause harm when used per label instructions.

Users will tell you it definatively cleans a problem engine better than an oils add pack. 90 years of existence without a lawsuit should tell you its safe.

I dont care if the formula was developed in 1923 or 1823. It works.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: 137_Trenton
I'm not going to get into semantics with anyone, but I will just say have fun welding on cast aluminum that's been exposed to oil

I forgot about that. Same goes for painting it as well.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: dave5358


This report provides a summary of the investigation that was performed by Arch Analytical Services.

Please note Dr. Shavoy's choice of words: "become absorbed", "penetrate the surface". Nowhere to be found is Molakule's straw man of "diffuse" [/quote]

Not impressive. Use of lots of fancy terms and analytical techniques that anyone with skittle understanding of the associated physics can dispute easily. If your background isn't in surface science or physical chemistry, I have a hard time understanding why you're trying to dispute things that folks on here are saying.

I even told in a previous post how to start calculating so that you can see what the physical dimensions of the situation are. It's easy to do.

Define surface and adsorption/absorption in terms of a length scale so were all on the same page here.

I'm sure you don't understand what an Auger electron is, or why the technique is not appropriate, which I provided in another thread on the topic some time back.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang
90 years of existence without a lawsuit should tell you its safe.

That's some really high benchmark, right there.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang
This thread is seriously sidetracked. The questions need to be: 1. How well does MMO clean, and 2: Does it cause harm when used per label instructions.


You think it cleans better than modern add packs. So what makes it so?

Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang


Users will tell you it definatively cleans a problem engine better than an oils add pack. 90 years of existence without a lawsuit should tell you its safe.


One does not sue if said product does not harm. But it also does not follow that it shows proof of benefit.

Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang

I dont care if the formula was developed in 1923 or 1823. It works.


Why? Because it's been around since 1923? Because it hasn't wrecked any engines? What does it do in the sump that Mobil 1 5w-30, or Pennzoil Ultra, Castrol Edge, etc can't. What does it do with fuel that Redline Sl-1 can't?

 

[Clubber_Lang]

Look through the forum archives, at pictures posted before and after. Some of them are very impressive. Engines with hundreds of thousands of miles that went from looking like a sludged soup sandwich to looking *new* to the naked eye in timeframes that no synthetic oils add pack can match. If memory serves Gary Allens posts show super impressive results.

If someone dumped MMO into a bottle labled mobil 1 miracle clean additive or PP super clean miracle formula some of you guys would try it in sludged applications, love it and sing its praises.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang

If someone dumped MMO into a bottle labled mobil 1 miracle clean additive or PP super clean miracle formula some of you guys would try it in sludged applications, love it and sing its praises.


Excellent point, you mean appeal to those loyal to their favorite brand of oil? It would be a great experiment and I'd be willing to bet on the outcome. The brand loyal folks would sing from the roof tops, and the brand haters would be [censored]'in just like they usually do.

I forgot who said it, but it went something like this. A good oil can't excel at everything, sometimes it needs a little help. Especially when someone wants to silence a lifter or clean up an engine. If you don't have any problems run your favorite oil and nothing else. Pretty easy concept if you ask me.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: dave5358

This report provides a summary of the investigation that was performed by Arch Analytical Services.

Please note Dr. Shavoy's choice of words: "become absorbed", "penetrate the surface". Nowhere to be found is Molakule's straw man of "diffuse"


Not impressive. Use of lots of fancy terms and analytical techniques that anyone with skittle understanding of the associated physics can dispute easily. If your background isn't in surface science or physical chemistry, I have a hard time understanding why you're trying to dispute things that folks on here are saying.


Blah, blah, blah. I realize you're the moderator and a clearly biased one at that. The written words and credentials of Maurice LePera and Dr. Richard Shalvoy speak for themselves. If I have reported their words incorrectly, then the blame is mine. Simply because you do not like the clearly documented result is no reason to go after the messenger.

 

[Mystic]

What we need to settle all of this is for somebody to do some research and find out if metals actually can be porous to motor oil and oil supplements. I tried to do some research on the internet and I did come across information that graphite in cast iron oil does make the metal somewhat porous. But we need actual scientific documentation.

I am sure somewhere, if somebody knows exactly where to look, people have already long since done research on the porosity of metals.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Mystic
What we need to settle all of this is for somebody to do some research and find out if metals actually can be porous to motor oil and oil supplements.

Hello? Did you just join this thread?

The phenomenon of 'soaking into metal' or 'penetrates metal' seems to be pretty well nailed down. This would be a non-issue except that a few forum users are in some kind of total denial mode.

 

[Mystic]

No, I didn't just join this thread. I am looking for solid scientific evidence from an accredited source independent of you and Molakule where there has been excellent research into the porosity of metals.

I am sure that somewhere there has been such scientific research. And don't tempt me, because I will go to the college if I have to and talk to chemistry professors.

 

[Clubber_Lang]

And still, we are caught up on definitions and word games. The only question should be does it safely work as a cleaner of sludged engines better than oil alone?

The bottom line is this-- The stuff is proven safe when used at a recommended % and recommended OCI. Many swear by its cleaning abilities.

If you want to find out, youll have to spend $5 for a quart, which is about $2 more than the quart of oil you would have bought instead. And thats way cheaper than running full syn over multiple OCIs, even if you think that will get you the same result.