^ lmao@Fe repairing the engine! Well hey hey, I might just dump some iron filings in my engine,, bounce it off the rev limiter and hope for the best!
old oil better than new oil
- Thread starter GMorg
- Start date
- Status
Maybe another use for the One-A-Day® tab's plus iron!
Scott
Scott
1stTruck,
I am sorry but I do not agree with your data correction strategy.
Your adjustments seem to be trying to get at what the Fe content would have been if no oil had been lost. Your methods seem flawed. For example, at the 3K mark, a sample was taken for measurement, then make-up oil was added. Your adjustments seem to work on the assumption that oil loss occured the moment before make-up oil was added. Since oil can occur at any point and at uneven rates, then I do not think that your assumption is correct.
I do think that a fair correction of the data can be made to deal with oil loss/make-up oil. One would have to assume that loss linear with miles which isn't true but is likely acceptible. One would also have to assume that makeup oil has no effect on wear. Unknown validity, but I am willing to accept that assumption too for now.
From looking raw Paradise Garage, I cannot see any evidence of "negative wear". I do note that the raw data shows a strong influence of make-up oil. That is - when oil is added it dilutes the previous wear metals.
I will keep my mind open, but your current data correction strategy does not seem to me to be the correct model. Maybe you can get some others here to join in your efforts. If I can find the time, I will have closer look too. I haven't had to create a "de novo" mathmatical model in while. Maybe it will be fun.
I am sorry but I do not agree with your data correction strategy.
Your adjustments seem to be trying to get at what the Fe content would have been if no oil had been lost. Your methods seem flawed. For example, at the 3K mark, a sample was taken for measurement, then make-up oil was added. Your adjustments seem to work on the assumption that oil loss occured the moment before make-up oil was added. Since oil can occur at any point and at uneven rates, then I do not think that your assumption is correct.
I do think that a fair correction of the data can be made to deal with oil loss/make-up oil. One would have to assume that loss linear with miles which isn't true but is likely acceptible. One would also have to assume that makeup oil has no effect on wear. Unknown validity, but I am willing to accept that assumption too for now.
From looking raw Paradise Garage, I cannot see any evidence of "negative wear". I do note that the raw data shows a strong influence of make-up oil. That is - when oil is added it dilutes the previous wear metals.
I will keep my mind open, but your current data correction strategy does not seem to me to be the correct model. Maybe you can get some others here to join in your efforts. If I can find the time, I will have closer look too. I haven't had to create a "de novo" mathmatical model in while. Maybe it will be fun.
MolaKule
Staff member
Negative Wear = Dark Matter in my view. You either have wear or you don't in the physical world.
I have no doubt the instruments measured lower wear and lower coefficient of friction for a short test period (snapshot) described in the paper, but then the major question in my mind is what happens toward the oil's death in terms of
wear and friction coefficient.
The oil is going to become unusable (eventually)in a REAL engine for a number of reasons:
1. Soot and or insoluble particle loading, due to dispersant decomposing or maximum loading,
2. AW is going to decompose because of heat and friction
3. oil is going to oxidize because OI additive has degraded resulting in increased sludge and increased viscosity.
What we need is a set of sensors in a running engine to measure
Simulations and mathematical models run into trouble with singularities and have to rescued from time to time with real data.
[ March 03, 2006, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
I have no doubt the instruments measured lower wear and lower coefficient of friction for a short test period (snapshot) described in the paper, but then the major question in my mind is what happens toward the oil's death in terms of
wear and friction coefficient.
The oil is going to become unusable (eventually)in a REAL engine for a number of reasons:
1. Soot and or insoluble particle loading, due to dispersant decomposing or maximum loading,
2. AW is going to decompose because of heat and friction
3. oil is going to oxidize because OI additive has degraded resulting in increased sludge and increased viscosity.
What we need is a set of sensors in a running engine to measure
the changes in CF and wear.
Simulations and mathematical models run into trouble with singularities and have to rescued from time to time with real data.
[ March 03, 2006, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
I believe this "aged oil" effect as it relates to UOA wear metal levels is really quite minor and is only a participant at the vary begining of the OCI. The dominant player is more likely described by MolaKules original description earlier in the thread:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=003097;p=3#000056
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=42;t=003097;p=3#000056
Are we all talking about the same thing?
I think the following:
1. Aged (but not soot saturated, sheared, exhausted) oil may have superior characterisics to brand new, straight from the bottle oil.
2. Oil can become exhausted, sheared, and dirty and should not be allowed to reach this point in use.
3. If we new if/why aged oil produced less wear, then even better oils may be formulated in response to this knowledge.
4. One cannot destroy an engine through frequent oil changes, but..
5. Frequent oil changes may NOT be better than extended oil changes.
I will grant the following:
1. MolaKule's explaination of 'fresh oil washes' may be true.
2. Fresh oil becomes aged oil.
I think the following:
1. Aged (but not soot saturated, sheared, exhausted) oil may have superior characterisics to brand new, straight from the bottle oil.
2. Oil can become exhausted, sheared, and dirty and should not be allowed to reach this point in use.
3. If we new if/why aged oil produced less wear, then even better oils may be formulated in response to this knowledge.
4. One cannot destroy an engine through frequent oil changes, but..
5. Frequent oil changes may NOT be better than extended oil changes.
I will grant the following:
1. MolaKule's explaination of 'fresh oil washes' may be true.
2. Fresh oil becomes aged oil.
"I am sorry but I do not agree with your data correction strategy.
Your adjustments seem to be trying to get at what the Fe content would have been if no oil had been lost."
No, correcting for the addition of oil is a minor adjustment, and it's almost a moot point if the sample taken before or after the oil is added. Adding 1/2 qt to a 6 qt sump will not result in an apparent doubling or halving of iron. The real reason for the exercise was to get at how much 'new iron' was added since the last sample, which is the correct way to estimate how much apparent wear has occurred over the interval, even if the math is easy to contest. Otherwsie you're letting the previous intervals have increasing weight over your measure of 'wear'.
Imagine using radioactive tracing to estimate wear. One could monitor the wear as it occurs, tracking the counter vs time, or have it collect counts over a long interval and then one calculates a rate over that interval. If you are never able to see changes vs time except over a long interval you may miss important changes within that interval.
Your adjustments seem to be trying to get at what the Fe content would have been if no oil had been lost."
No, correcting for the addition of oil is a minor adjustment, and it's almost a moot point if the sample taken before or after the oil is added. Adding 1/2 qt to a 6 qt sump will not result in an apparent doubling or halving of iron. The real reason for the exercise was to get at how much 'new iron' was added since the last sample, which is the correct way to estimate how much apparent wear has occurred over the interval, even if the math is easy to contest. Otherwsie you're letting the previous intervals have increasing weight over your measure of 'wear'.
Imagine using radioactive tracing to estimate wear. One could monitor the wear as it occurs, tracking the counter vs time, or have it collect counts over a long interval and then one calculates a rate over that interval. If you are never able to see changes vs time except over a long interval you may miss important changes within that interval.
I think so? The frequency and duration of the event in the test equates to how many miles of a real life engine's OCI? And the prepared test rig equates to how many equivalent total miles on a real life engine?
I still can't figure out why nobody has come to take my used oil. If it's so much better than new oil, this should be the deal of the century! Let's quit tossing around the technical papers as gospel and get down to business.
The offer is still on the table:
I'm willing to pay $10 (and perform the labor) for anyone who is willing to show up to my house in a newer model car and pour my old-*** oil into their ride. I'll even buy you a nice Wix filter.
Any takers???
(I didn't think so.)
The offer is still on the table:
I'm willing to pay $10 (and perform the labor) for anyone who is willing to show up to my house in a newer model car and pour my old-*** oil into their ride. I'll even buy you a nice Wix filter.
Any takers???
(I didn't think so.)
A used 3K dino oil is far different from a 3K synthetic oil(the real stuff).
I'll be there with the synthetic stuff!
I'll be there with the synthetic stuff!
I took another look at the paradise garage study. In my consideration of the data I assumed that any phenomenon that affected one oil should also be at play in the other oil (mobil vs amsoil). I think that the data is consistant with the following:
1) aluminim, iron, and copper are highly correlated with one another. They accumunlate in the oil in a non-linear fashion with regard to miles. The data are consistant with non-linear wear, but the data are also consistant with the oil having a finite and reachable carrying capacity for these elements. This second posibility appears to me to be consistant with MolaKule's original suggestion. However, if this is the case, then Amsoil has a lower carrying capacity of these three elements. The curves (mobil vs amsoil) have very similar shapes, but different magnitudes. Both oils produce curves that spike rapidly for the first 1-2K and then evenually approach level (maxed carrying capacity or maxed wear for this "state" of the oil)
2) Lead appears in the oil in what appears to be a linear fashion with regard to miles. I must accept from this observation that some wear is CLEARLY linear with miles. Clearly others may have another oppinion.
3) Chromium and tin are not present in sufficient quantities to draw any conclusions about linearity.
I would like to ask if anyone thinks that TBN's non-linear fall (that corresponds nicely accumulation of Fe, Al, and Cu) are related to Fe/Al/Cu accumulation. If so, can you propose a mechanism. Also, if oil looses its ability to hold these metals, why is the magnatude different between amsoil and mobil and what is the significance of that difference?
I will not be able to check back for a while (I have to do some work that pays). Please don't think that I am offended and am ignoring you.
Also, I realize that the more experienced BITOGs are providing a wonderful service of education here. I appreciate your efforts. I am not trying to prove anything, just understand a little more.
1) aluminim, iron, and copper are highly correlated with one another. They accumunlate in the oil in a non-linear fashion with regard to miles. The data are consistant with non-linear wear, but the data are also consistant with the oil having a finite and reachable carrying capacity for these elements. This second posibility appears to me to be consistant with MolaKule's original suggestion. However, if this is the case, then Amsoil has a lower carrying capacity of these three elements. The curves (mobil vs amsoil) have very similar shapes, but different magnitudes. Both oils produce curves that spike rapidly for the first 1-2K and then evenually approach level (maxed carrying capacity or maxed wear for this "state" of the oil)
2) Lead appears in the oil in what appears to be a linear fashion with regard to miles. I must accept from this observation that some wear is CLEARLY linear with miles. Clearly others may have another oppinion.
3) Chromium and tin are not present in sufficient quantities to draw any conclusions about linearity.
I would like to ask if anyone thinks that TBN's non-linear fall (that corresponds nicely accumulation of Fe, Al, and Cu) are related to Fe/Al/Cu accumulation. If so, can you propose a mechanism. Also, if oil looses its ability to hold these metals, why is the magnatude different between amsoil and mobil and what is the significance of that difference?
I will not be able to check back for a while (I have to do some work that pays). Please don't think that I am offended and am ignoring you.
Also, I realize that the more experienced BITOGs are providing a wonderful service of education here. I appreciate your efforts. I am not trying to prove anything, just understand a little more.
Makes sense to me. Base oils, corrective adds, and the additives (levels and types) may very well influence this. Maybe MolaKule can chime in with more.
I agree, except that I think the following contra-indicates the second possibility listed above:
If the non-linear accumulation of these metals is the result of the oil having reached its finite, reachable carrying capacity, then the results of a catastrophic failure would not show up in a UOA, since the oil is incapable of carrying the exponentially higher element levels resulting from that failure. Even an event like a moderate to severe coolant leak would not be visible as increased elementals levels beyond the oil's carrying capacity.
UOAs both on this board and in analyis labs around the country do not appear to me to support the concept of a maximum holding capacity in the range seen at the Spacebears site.
Good point bulwnkl. But what if the "reachable carrying capacity" is actually a "reachable carrying capacity rate"?
Help me make sure I'm with you here, 427Z06. You're suggesting the possibility that the oil has a rate at which it is able to 'pick up' and suspend those elements and that this rate declines over time? I would be open to that possibility. Am I following you properly?
The article would be better, but from what I gather below used oil has more wear than fresh oil.
Tribology Transactions
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Issue: Volume 47, Number 2 / April-June 2004
Reduced Phosphorus Concentration Effects on Tribological Performance of Passenger Car Engine Oils
Abstract: Phosphorus is present in engine oils in the form of the antiwear and antioxidation additive zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP). Its effects on wear and friction were studied at different temperatures using a high-frequency reciprocating rig (HFRR). The electrically insulating tribofilm formation was measured using an electrical contact resistance (ECR) technique. The wear and friction performance of a fully formulated fresh oil containing 0.05 wt%phosphorus was compared with the corresponding used oil drained from a vehicle. The results show that the wear performance of fresh oils having phosphorus concentration from 0.02 to 0.1 wt%is very similar. Further reduction of phosphorus concentration below 0.02 wt%leads to high wear. The coefficient of friction increases with increased phosphorus concentration at temperatures above 80°C but decreases with increased phosphorus concentration at temperatures below 80°C. The used oil and the fresh 0 wt%P oil running on the original fresh steel surface exhibit higher wear than when both oils were evaluated on a previously formed film from a fresh oil containing 0.05 wt%phosphorus.
Tribology Transactions
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Issue: Volume 47, Number 2 / April-June 2004
Reduced Phosphorus Concentration Effects on Tribological Performance of Passenger Car Engine Oils
Abstract: Phosphorus is present in engine oils in the form of the antiwear and antioxidation additive zinc dialkyldithiophosphate (ZDDP). Its effects on wear and friction were studied at different temperatures using a high-frequency reciprocating rig (HFRR). The electrically insulating tribofilm formation was measured using an electrical contact resistance (ECR) technique. The wear and friction performance of a fully formulated fresh oil containing 0.05 wt%phosphorus was compared with the corresponding used oil drained from a vehicle. The results show that the wear performance of fresh oils having phosphorus concentration from 0.02 to 0.1 wt%is very similar. Further reduction of phosphorus concentration below 0.02 wt%leads to high wear. The coefficient of friction increases with increased phosphorus concentration at temperatures above 80°C but decreases with increased phosphorus concentration at temperatures below 80°C. The used oil and the fresh 0 wt%P oil running on the original fresh steel surface exhibit higher wear than when both oils were evaluated on a previously formed film from a fresh oil containing 0.05 wt%phosphorus.
Close, bulwnkl. I was thinking more along the lines that an engine with a given oil may generate a certain amount of wear metals per unit of time or use, the oil holds in suspension a certain maximum amount given that the oil also dissipates (through some undefined mechanism) a certain amount per unit time or use.
What happens to a UOA sample that sits for a length a time? Don't the wear metals measurements in the sample lower over time? Good question for Terry or MolaKule.
What happens to a UOA sample that sits for a length a time? Don't the wear metals measurements in the sample lower over time? Good question for Terry or MolaKule.
Sorry for not responding, I have been away.
bulwnkl,
I agree that a finite carrying capacity is not likely for the same reasoning that you mention. In addition, I would not predict such large differences from the two brands.
427Z06
If "a given oil may genrate a certain amount of wear metals" then aren't we talking about that rate changing with use. And if so, then aren't you suggesting that WEAR is changing with use. And if so, the you are suggesting that used oil produces wear at a lower rate than new oil. That is where we started. Is use (not exhausted) oil better than new oil?
I am still curious is we are looking at different sources of wear metals, corrosion vs friction. I am also curious if this phenomenon is directly related to TBN.
bulwnkl,
I agree that a finite carrying capacity is not likely for the same reasoning that you mention. In addition, I would not predict such large differences from the two brands.
427Z06
If "a given oil may genrate a certain amount of wear metals" then aren't we talking about that rate changing with use. And if so, then aren't you suggesting that WEAR is changing with use. And if so, the you are suggesting that used oil produces wear at a lower rate than new oil. That is where we started. Is use (not exhausted) oil better than new oil?
I am still curious is we are looking at different sources of wear metals, corrosion vs friction. I am also curious if this phenomenon is directly related to TBN.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
coming in late here. I can see that you've gotten deep here ...down to true single filament type thought. Gosh I love this level of discussion.
Under the assumption that new oil produces a disproportionate amount of wear metals ..and that they appear to evidence themselves early in the OCI (between 2-3k)
Mind if I yank you down to sea level for a minute??
?What would not be answered with this series of tests:
Same oil (5 gallons) from the same lot (5 gallon pail preferred). 5 one gallon clean jugs (assumes 4 quart sump). The filter should not be an issue - so change only to eliminate residuals
One oil for at least one OCI of whatever duration. One OCI monitored every 500 miles to determine where upramp in wear metals occurs. Repeat for validation.
Then 500 mile OCI change/test/save
1000 miles change/test/save
1500 miles change/test/save
2000 miles change/test/save
2500 miles change/test/save
etc..etc.
You then repeat the tests with the used oils and test every 500 miles until the event occurs.
You would either see the phenomena occur at the same time, earlier, later, or not at all. You should then be able to eliminate certain possible causes and suggest highly probable causes.
Now I'd love to do this ..but I'm resource/time tapped for any more homegrown projects at the moment.
As far as simulating old oil with the addition of abrasives, I don't think that the abrasive part of used oil is why it generates less wear metals. It would be sorta like going to 60 grit to get a smoother finish. I think it makes much more sense that the upramp is due to resuspension of precipitated particles/residuals ..or film disrutions (in many respects the same thing in effect - if not from the same sources). That is, the same para-"ionic exchange" (I'm sure there is some polar component to it) that forms new AW (or other) films, kicking out the older/and assumed weaker, bonds, also liberates precipitated particles. I'm also sure that oil is not perfect in its ability to keep even particle level (size) particles in suspension. I'm sure (that is assuming) that any number of chemical imperfections exist that would result in a random number of any elemental particles from just getting kicked out.
Under the assumption that new oil produces a disproportionate amount of wear metals ..and that they appear to evidence themselves early in the OCI (between 2-3k)
Mind if I yank you down to sea level for a minute??
?What would not be answered with this series of tests:
Same oil (5 gallons) from the same lot (5 gallon pail preferred). 5 one gallon clean jugs (assumes 4 quart sump). The filter should not be an issue - so change only to eliminate residuals
One oil for at least one OCI of whatever duration. One OCI monitored every 500 miles to determine where upramp in wear metals occurs. Repeat for validation.
Then 500 mile OCI change/test/save
1000 miles change/test/save
1500 miles change/test/save
2000 miles change/test/save
2500 miles change/test/save
etc..etc.
You then repeat the tests with the used oils and test every 500 miles until the event occurs.
You would either see the phenomena occur at the same time, earlier, later, or not at all. You should then be able to eliminate certain possible causes and suggest highly probable causes.
Now I'd love to do this ..but I'm resource/time tapped for any more homegrown projects at the moment.
As far as simulating old oil with the addition of abrasives, I don't think that the abrasive part of used oil is why it generates less wear metals. It would be sorta like going to 60 grit to get a smoother finish. I think it makes much more sense that the upramp is due to resuspension of precipitated particles/residuals ..or film disrutions (in many respects the same thing in effect - if not from the same sources). That is, the same para-"ionic exchange" (I'm sure there is some polar component to it) that forms new AW (or other) films, kicking out the older/and assumed weaker, bonds, also liberates precipitated particles. I'm also sure that oil is not perfect in its ability to keep even particle level (size) particles in suspension. I'm sure (that is assuming) that any number of chemical imperfections exist that would result in a random number of any elemental particles from just getting kicked out.
Gary Allen,
My real question for all who want to minimize wear is wether very short OCIs is actually worse than extended OCIs. Many of us use terms like "cheap insurance" and "fresh is better" and "the best oil is clean oil". I am not convinced that any of these terms have a basis in observation. (Again, I am excluding exhausted oil from this discussion. I do think that "too dirty" does exist.) Intuition can be valuable, but it should never trump observation IMHO. So, what can we observe and what does it mean?
My real question for all who want to minimize wear is wether very short OCIs is actually worse than extended OCIs. Many of us use terms like "cheap insurance" and "fresh is better" and "the best oil is clean oil". I am not convinced that any of these terms have a basis in observation. (Again, I am excluding exhausted oil from this discussion. I do think that "too dirty" does exist.) Intuition can be valuable, but it should never trump observation IMHO. So, what can we observe and what does it mean?
- Status
Similar threads
