Originally Posted By: MolaKule
As much as some people would like to believe, this is not an issue of porous liquids soaking into metals below the surface of metals.
The whole porosity discussion is simply a smokescreen to deflect the discussion away from the claims made by a certain company or companies, I.E., whether any oil or chemical molecule can go below the surface layer and
get in between those itty-bitty atoms of the metal.
That sure sounds like "diffusion' creeping back into the discussion. Yet, neither Zmax, nor MMO, nor Rislone ever claimed to diffuse into anything. Would you please stop this straw-man smokescreen? The companies should be accountable for what they claim in their ads - not what bizarre twist you make to their ad claims to bolster your argument.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Below is a list of engineering references if you would like to read further about porosity and castings.
http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-permeability-and-vs-porosity/
Unsigned anonymous article primarily dealing with permeability. Even if it were on point, a reader couldn't very well evaluate the article. Who wrote it? What were their qualifications?
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
http://newengineeringpractice.blogspot.com/2011/08/engine-block-manufacturing-process.html
A blogspot? Unsigned. No author. Anonymous? Certainly an interesting read, but there is not a clue as to it's validity. I do note there are a series of spaces down the left side of the page marked "Your ad here". None of them are filled. Do advertisers know something about this blog that you don't?
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
http://www.afsinc.org/about/content.cfm?ItemNumber=6933
Yet another unsigned, unauthored read that has nothing to do with Zmax or MMO or much of anything. But, you must not have read the article before wasting the groups time or using it as a smokescreen.
Earlier, you said
Originally Posted By: Molakule
In Surface Science and metallurgy, porosity in welds and engine blocks or pipes, plain and simple, is a defect, something you want to avoid, something you don't want in a good engine block.
The mystery author of the AFS piece you site had a different spin
Originally Posted By: Anonymous AFS article cited by Molakule
Porosity in a casting does not... mean the casting is defective, and requiring tighter porosity specifications in noncritical areas may call for extra steps or less economical methods at the metalcasting facility that can lead to higher overall part cost...
Zmax has nothing on you when it comes to questionable claims and slippery surfaces.
Originally Posted By: Molakule
http://www.engineering-dictionary.org/Materials-Science-and-Engineering-Dictionary/porosity
A dictionary definition? Where is the scientific definition of 'soaks into metal'? We're still waiting. If you can't find such a definiton, why don't you simply admit it and quit the smokescreen of "porosity" and "diffusion" and "permeability"?
The ad claim was "soaks into metal".
Originally Posted By: Molakule
http://user.engineering.uiowa.edu/~becker/documents.dir/HardinTMS2012.pdf
Yet another smokescreen article dealing with porosity in cast steel. Okay, porosity is a fact of life. It makes cast steel plates more likely to fail. Zmax would probably soak into cast steel as well as it did for cast iron, the latter being clearly demonstarated in the Shalvoy / Arch Analytical Systems test results. At least this article was signed. It's a shame it did not deal with 'soaks into metal' or something vaguely relevant.
Absolutely nothing in the articles you cite deals with oils or fluids penetrating the surface of metals. What is more disturbing is that you have personally interpreted these articles in such a way and foisted them off on the BITOG readership to support your position and to discredit the research supporting Zmax.
The credentials and publication lists of the persons doing the research in support of Zmax advertising claims are publicly available. This was not anonymous research. We are still waiting for that list of Molakule's publications. Surely you have published something outside of BITOG? We are still waiting for some test or research clearly discrediting the Zmax testing.
Along the way, you have trashed 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, former member of the National Research Council. And then there's the FAA, FTC, the Federal Court. Maybe all of these persons or organizations are wrong. But, at least the readers can see who they are, see what they wrote about the subject at hand, and perhaps form some judgement as to the validity of their position. As for you, it's diffusion and permeation and porosity.
Dear readers: the words I posted regarding the Zmax testing for 'soaks into metal' start
here, at message #3444655. The qualifications of the persons doing this research are clearly spelled out. In my view, they are experts in their fields, which is why they were chosen in the first place. The word are theirs - 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? Can you lay out a single document that tends to disproves Zmax's ad claims or tends to disproves the engineering and test results supporting Zmax's ad claims?
As another user suggested, have you reported this outrageous deception by Zmax to the FTC?
