MMO, the real deal.

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang
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.

Keep looking. $4/quart for MMO is more like it in our area (Meijer, Menards). I pay more for oil than that.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: 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.


If by biased, you mean biased in favor of accuracy, then I would agree with you. If you mean biased because he doesn't fall for fancy technobabble geared toward those who rely on marketing claims, I would agree with you.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: 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.


Yes it is. Neither product diffuses into metal. Deny all you want, it doesn't change the physics or chemistry.

 

[MrQuackers]

All matter is mostly, by far empty space. Solid does not exist.

 

[kschachn]

Of course, and if you spent only a few minutes googling the subject you would see the results. The only atoms that diffuse into some metals under some circumstances are those that are very, very small such as hydrogen and sometimes helium. Hydrocarbon molecules are way to large to navigate the interstitial atomic structure.

Paint and the like will attach to surface molecules and penetrate macro porosity in the metal finish. It will not adhere to a highly polished uniform metallic surface especially if the surface is of low energy.

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

 

[kschachn]

Relatively speaking. Do you think those spaces are larger than hydrocarbon molecules? Please do not post generalizations that have no bearing on the specific discussion.

Originally Posted By: MrQuackers
All matter is mostly, by far empty space. Solid does not exist.

 

[Clubber_Lang]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang
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.

Keep looking. $4/quart for MMO is more like it in our area (Meijer, Menards). I pay more for oil than that.

"
Exactly, i was just erring on the high side. I can get a gallon for less than $16. If high profile brand x marketed this stuff they could probably sell it for $15 a quart, more people would "believe in it " enough to give it a chance and it would be praised for its "simple, robust and effective" formula.

But noooo, its to old so it cant be effective. My AK rifle was modernized into its current form back in the mid 1950s. Its old technology. It will also work in environments where higher tech rifles will fail.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang
But noooo, its to old so it can't be effective. My AK rifle was modernized into its current form back in the mid 1950s. Its old technology. It will also work in environments where higher tech rifles will fail.

I see this statement quite often, on BITOG and elsewhere. Clearly, some parts of engines have changed - ECU, various pollution devices, etc. Valve trains are much better on modern engines - maybe starting with the water cooled VW engine in the 70's. But there are several modern engine features that make MMO just as useful today as it was 50-years ago - most notable being the VVT system, which is oil-hydraulic on most vehicles. Get a bit of varnish or gum in the mechanism or on the sensors and get ready for endless headaches. MMO is the cure.

 

[MolaKule]

And so is Rislone Engine Additive, one that never claims to permeate into non-porous metals.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: Trajan

Making a claim does not equal proving a claim. Science tells us that this claim is not possible. Repeat it all you want, it does not, can not, or will not change the fact that it is impossible.


I'm going to make the same challenge I made once before. If you have so much proof and facts that these companies are claiming their products do something that it doesn't, this link is where you start.

https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/

Go file a complaint against MMO and Zmax to while you are at it. Please do let us know what they tell you tho.

Just a reminder, you posting your claims doesn't prove anything either. For me, I'll believe a Federal Court and the FTC before I believe someone else's opinion. If anyone has a reason to prove ZMax, MMO or any other company wrong on their claims, it would be the FTC. It's not like the FTC didn't give it a try either. I just wish a few people on here could accept the facts like the FTC had too.

Originally Posted By: Trajan

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


Pardon? I don't recall Zmax breaking anything. From my recollection, they were sued for making claims the FTC didn't agree with. Turns out, ZMax was closer to the facts than the FTC was, including "soaking into metal". Court documents say that. Care to go argue with the court? Maybe file that complaint with the FTC? I doubt it. If you or anyone else could, you would. Instead, you keep posting your opinions here with no facts. Here's a clue, if I could prove that either of those companies claims were false, I'd file the claim myself if for no other reason than to protect other people from spending money on something that doesn't do what it claims. While I am not sure if MMO has been to court with the FTC, we certainly know that Zmax has and still claims "soaks into metal" among other things.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: Clubber_Lang

But noooo, its to old so it cant be effective. My AK rifle was modernized into its current form back in the mid 1950s. Its old technology. It will also work in environments where higher tech rifles will fail.


So does mine. So do my 1943 Mosin-Nagant 91/30 rifles. But we're not confusing a weapon with an engine now, are we?

 

[JHZR2]

The whole court issue is another funny thing. So were basing technical discourse on what some political science majors deem appropriate and allowable as claims and as basis of the physics?

Conversation, even if spirited, between technical folks who understand the physics and chemistry of the situation, the techniques, etc is one thing. Relying on what a bunch of profitmongering lawyers try to sneak in as admissible to up their billable rates and profit themselves is another. Even if in the best spirit, because I know there are a lot of good, well meaning lawyers out there, and I'm friends with a bunch... Isn't the technical discussion best set by what technologists state and not what lawyers do?

There's a reason why the 'consultants' used the terms and techniques they did, access to technologies they could leverage, and because the names sounded impressive. Doesn't make them right.

 

[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 Zmax, at no time have they ever claimed to "permeeate" or "diffuse" into metal - that was a straw-man arguing point of your own creation. Their ad claim was "Zmax soaks into metal" - which advertising claim has now been approved by the FTC.

If you are referring to MMO, they never claimed anything like this in their advertising - their ads are really quite conservative. Rather, there was a message on the MMO forum which included the statement "penetrates metal". It was made by an MMO employee or the forum moderator or some such, so it might have a bit more significance than just a forum-user statement. But it hardly amounts to an advertising claim.

If you are referring to Rislone, you are simply wrong. 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." Even piston rings! Note the word "penetrate" - not permeate or diffuse.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The whole court issue is another funny thing. So were basing technical discourse on what some political science majors deem appropriate and allowable as claims and as basis of the physics?

Conversation, even if spirited, between technical folks who understand the physics and chemistry of the situation, the techniques, etc is one thing. Relying on what a bunch of profitmongering lawyers try to sneak in as admissible to up their billable rates and profit themselves is another. Even if in the best spirit, because I know there are a lot of good, well meaning lawyers out there, and I'm friends with a bunch... Isn't the technical discussion best set by what technologists state and not what lawyers do?

There's a reason why the 'consultants' used the terms and techniques they did, access to technologies they could leverage, and because the names sounded impressive. Doesn't make them right.

Okay, I won't disagree with what you are saying, particularly regarding the lawyers. But the history of this (the Zmax - FTC flap) was a bit different than you are reporting.

The FTC went after Zmax about some claims made in an infomercial. The matter mucked around for a year or so out of court - just an agency enforcement matter. Apparently, Zmax would not knuckle under - they hired profit-mongering attorneys, who in turned hired profit-mongering chemists and consultants. They started testing... and then the FTC decided to make a court case out of this.

Suddenly, the tests were in. You don't have to agree with the test results, but they were performed in a business-like way by consultants (chemists, college professors) with impeccable reputations. And, they supported Zmax claims, at least in a way that would convince a non-technical judge or jury. The FTC was caught with their pants down - in a rural Court district in North Carolina. The FTC case might have worked in DC, but the FTC chose the forum and they chose very poorly.

The main witness for Zmax was Maurice LePera - the very consultant who had previously worked for the FTC in the Slick-50 and Dura-Lube cases. How were they planning to discredit him? This Court case was in 2001-2002, so the Zmax folks could have called Carroll Shelby, in person, as a witness (he actually used Zmax in his Cobra automobiles). Think about it: Carroll Shelby, rural North Carolina, Zmax's main witness is the very man previously used as an expert by the FTC? The only think missing is the Dukes of Hazzard crashing through the window. You could make a movie out of this - a rather good one at that.

As I suggested in a much earlier message, the FTC blew this case. Big time. From start to finish. Whichever attorney managed this case for the FTC should have been fired.

Does it make it right? Who knows. As the US Supreme Court is fond of saying: "We are not final because we are right. We are right because we are final".

 

[Trajan]

That fact that they can continue to claim that it "soaks" into metal does not mean that it does.

Physics and chemistry says that it can't. Using some hired gun like Lepera doesn't change that.

 

[rdalek]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The whole court issue is another funny thing. So were basing technical discourse on what some political science majors deem appropriate and allowable as claims and as basis of the physics?

Conversation, even if spirited, between technical folks who understand the physics and chemistry of the situation, the techniques, etc is one thing. Relying on what a bunch of profitmongering lawyers try to sneak in as admissible to up their billable rates and profit themselves is another. Even if in the best spirit, because I know there are a lot of good, well meaning lawyers out there, and I'm friends with a bunch... Isn't the technical discussion best set by what technologists state and not what lawyers do?

There's a reason why the 'consultants' used the terms and techniques they did, access to technologies they could leverage, and because the names sounded impressive. Doesn't make them right.


But nothing provided here changes what the court says either does it? This is the thing, irregardless of what you or anyone else claims to know, it doesn't change the fact that the FTC had to back off. It got the percentages off and changed a little wording but in the end, the FTC could not stop or basically even slow down Zmax. To this day, no one has been able to provide the FTC with anything they could go back to court on. The very claim that people say is impossible is still being made to this day. That applies to Zmax or MMO.

Originally Posted By: Trajan
That fact that they can continue to claim that it "soaks" into metal does not mean that it does.

Physics and chemistry says that it can't. Using some hired gun like Lepera doesn't change that.


Until you can prove otherwise and it be able to overturn what the court has agreed to, I still take their word on it. To be able to show enough evidence that forces the FTC to back off says a lot in my book.

Again tho, why have you not filed a complaint with the FTC and shared your information with them? You claim you can prove with science that it is wrong so why not provide that to the FTC? It's really not that hard. Heck, I even got the link for you and everything. Here is the reason I suspect you don't. You would much rather continue to argue here because the FTC would very likely send you a response that this has already been settled in court. I doubt the FTC wants to bite on that nasty apple twice without more than somebody on the internet just says it is so. My challenge still stands. IF, you believe you are so right, go file a complaint and prove it. If you don't want to do that, then you can't back up your claims. Basically, you are posting things that you claim are facts with nothing that can change the court or the FTC or even the claims you disagree with. Basically, your posts doesn't prove a thing.

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
...My challenge still stands. IF, you believe you are so right, go file a complaint and prove it. If you don't want to do that, then you can't back up your claims...


That statement above makes no sense at all, i.e, it isn't logical. To say that if you do not file a claim with the FTC, and that it equates to no back up of contradicting scientific claims, is still nonsensical.

It is upon the shoulders of the pro-"soaking" crowd to understand proper scientific definitions and to prove that the physics of diffusion (permeation) can be violated, not with manufacturers claims, but with physics and chemistry.

And my scientific White Paper still stands since no one on the pro-"soaking" side has been able to contradict it.

People who believe that molecules of hydrocarbons can diffuse into or permeate iron or steel cubical lattice structures are uniformed since the physics is not there to support it.

Neither uninformed government agencies nor hired guns can change the physics of the matter.

I have asked this question before, "What is the big deal with this-called and unscientifically supported "soaking" language anyway?"

I think the primary reason is it sounds impressive to unquestioning consumers and those uneducated in the nuances of tribology.

What really matters in vehicle or machine technology are surface interactions.

Anti-wear films which chemically interact with the atoms at the material's surface forms a plastic film composed of the material's surface and chemical compounds contained within the anti-wear compound to retard wear and prolong machine life.

Compounds which produce a whisker effect at the surface reduce friction in order to increase fuel mileage.

Compounds which prevent rust and keep unused and exposed parts free of rust forms protective films on the surfaces as well.

Chemical compounds that suspends deposits and sludge precursors, selectively lift and attach themselves to contaminants on surfaces to keep engines clean.

So any marketing hype that promotes any "soaking" effect(or similar language) is simply deflecting the consumers attention away from what a product really should be doing, and that is protecting and cleaning surfaces.

 

[rdalek]

Reminder for MolaKule. You are on my ignore list so I don't see or have any interest in anything you post. Period.

By the way, for the mod who seems to have removed my previous comment on this member being on my ignore list and why. I plan to take a screenshot of this post right after I post it. That way I have proof it is posted. Unless you can show this post violates the rules of this site, it may be a good idea to leave it be. If you plan to remove my posts, it would be best to have a very good reason. I'm starting to see a trend on this site. It is disturbing to say the least.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: rdalek
Reminder for MolaKule. You are on my ignore list so I don't see or have any interest in anything you post. Period.



Then you'll never learn about how wrong you are. Pity.

I'll just repeat his post for your education.

Quote:
...My challenge still stands. IF, you believe you are so right, go file a complaint and prove it. If you don't want to do that, then you can't back up your claims...



The following is all Molakule.

"That statement above makes no sense at all, i.e, it isn't logical. To say that if you do not file a claim with the FTC, and that it equates to no back up of contradicting scientific claims, is still nonsensical.

It is upon the shoulders of the pro-"soaking" crowd to understand proper scientific definitions and to prove that the physics of diffusion (permeation) can be violated, not with manufacturers claims, but with physics and chemistry.

And my scientific White Paper still stands since no one on the pro-"soaking" side has been able to contradict it.

People who believe that molecules of hydrocarbons can diffuse into or permeate iron or steel cubical lattice structures are uniformed since the physics is not there to support it.

Neither uninformed government agencies nor hired guns can change the physics of the matter.

I have asked this question before, "What is the big deal with this-called and unscientifically supported "soaking" language anyway?"

I think the primary reason is it sounds impressive to unquestioning consumers and those uneducated in the nuances of tribology.

What really matters in vehicle or machine technology are surface interactions.

Anti-wear films which chemically interact with the atoms at the material's surface forms a plastic film composed of the material's surface and chemical compounds contained within the anti-wear compound to retard wear and prolong machine life.

Compounds which produce a whisker effect at the surface reduce friction in order to increase fuel mileage.

Compounds which prevent rust and keep unused and exposed parts free of rust forms protective films on the surfaces as well.

Chemical compounds that suspends deposits and sludge precursors, selectively lift and attach themselves to contaminants on surfaces to keep engines clean.

So any marketing hype that promotes any "soaking" effect(or similar language) is simply deflecting the consumers attention away from what a product really should be doing, and that is protecting and cleaning surfaces."

 

[MolaKule]

Reminder for MolaKule. You are on my ignore list so I don't see or have any interest in anything you post. Period.

Reminder for rdalek;

As my grandma used to say: "People who yell the loudest, usually know the least."

Being on your ignore list is truly an honour.