PTFE in lubricants - pro? con?

[unDummy]

http://www.cerflon.com/products1.htm

I've never see any con's caused by the dozen or so PTFE loaded high profit oil additives. I've never seen telfon sludge in engines or teflon clogged oil filters. But, I can not say that they actually did anything beneficial(besides employ those companies making someone profits) and possibly pushing $$ into research by other companies.

I am not convinced that it couldn't be made into an oil, spray, grease, or additive. Sorry, but technology changes constantly. PTFE was an accident to begin with. Maybe some chemist fell upon a method(additive or formula) that makes it work well in motor oil, grease, or spray lubes. Maybe it takes a certain ratio, additive, chemical, or base oil, to make it all stay together. Like my coffee, without the specific ratio or milk and sugar, its worthless and gets dumped.

And, if anyone wants to provide a bottle of 'additive' along with a 3 free UOAs(before baseline, during test, residual rinse), I have no fear in adding PTFE(or equivalent) to vehicles that I own. Send me your Tufoil, QMI, PolyGold, Synlube........

 

[bruce381]

""Bruce381
From what I've just read about solid additives on the quoted Acheson site, one could then suspect that the need for using fumed silica (or any other suitable substance) to keep the PTFE (or other-) particles in suspension (not for thickening- or gelling purposes) would be primarily dependent on particle properties like size and surface treatment (stabilizing...(?)...), so there would probably be no need to use fumed silica with very finely dispersed or colloidal particles. On the other hand, fumed silica is also used as thickener -like you already stated- only in grease formulations without the adding of other solids.""

Depends on particles you want to suspend to my knowledge PTFE and MOLY and Graphite and any other "solid" no matter how small will settle out. fumed silica is a solid but has a high surface area and will suspend itseld and other solids there are also other chemistries that will do the same and but truct me moly, graphite and PTFE NEED A suspension additive no matter what Achesion say.

bruce

 

[Quickbeam]

If took the time to find them I could point you to several NTSB reports of aircraft engine failure over the years caused by PTFE clogging. Keep in mind Dupont goes out of it's way to state it's not a proper usage for the product and even refused to sell PTFE powders for use in oil for a while unitl the additive makers got around it.

 

[CluelessFrank]

unDummy

Quote:

---

Like my coffee, without the specific ratio or milk and sugar, its worthless and gets dumped.

---

Yes, those performance boosters must be carefully balanced, otherwise valve-timing may suffer, causing the engine to stutter and backfire; mine runs best on black, only a little milk for additional lubricity from time to time and no sugar please - just clogs the lines.

Bruce381

Quote:

---

...moly, graphite and PTFE NEED A suspension additive...

---

Makes absolute sense to me.

Quickbeam

Quote:

---

If took the time to find them I could point you to several NTSB reports of aircraft engine failure over the years caused by PTFE clogging. Keep in mind Dupont goes out of it's way to state it's not a proper usage for the product and even refused to sell PTFE powders for use in oil for a while unitl the additive makers got around it.

---

I read about those possible problems, too.
For example, I even read a rebuttal from QMI elsewhere, targeting DuPont's negative position regarding PTFE in engine oils; they (QMI) argued that DuPont allegedly overthought their position and now no longer would see the use of PTFE in engine oils as problematic per se...

QMI is a manufacturer of PTFE enhanced products, notably engine oil additives, etc.
http://www.qminet.com/



Just as an aside and food for thoughts, regarding the earlier mentioned transfer film formation concept, I found this abstract, explaining "The Friction and Transfer of Polytetrafluoroethylene" here

here's a part:


Earlier work has shown that the friction of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) increases with increasing velocity and decreases with rise of temperature as though a relaxation process were involved. A study by microscopy, interference microscopy and electron microscopy of the friction tracks formed when PTFE slides on itself or on 'clean' glass shows that there are basically two friction regimes. At high speeds or low temperatures the friction is high ($\mu$ = 0.07 to 0.3) and there is fairly massive transfer and movement of polymer. The details depend on the sliding conditions but in general the transfer is in the form of lumps, ribbons or sheets, the thickness generally exceeding a few tenths of a micrometre. At low speeds and moderate temperatures a very different behaviour is observed: the friction is low ($\mu$ < 0.07) and a thin film of PTFE is laid down or drawn over the surfaces. This film may show strong adhesion to the surfaces if they are clean. It is very fibrous and has a thickness varying between about 100 and 400 $\overset{\circ}{\mathrm A}$; in addition it has a highly oriented crystal structure. The low friction under these conditions is not due to poor adhesion but to easy shear of relevant units of the PTFE crystal. As the speed of sliding is increased or the temperature diminished the viscous force to shear the film increases until a stage is reached where the shear force exceeds the strength of the boundaries between crystals or grains. The higher friction is then accompanied by the transfer of relatively large fragments of PTFE. These two regimes in the frictional behaviour may thus be interpreted in terms of a relaxation time for intra-crystalline flow. The small change in friction at higher speeds suggests that the shear of larger units within the polymer is not appreciably rate dependent.
...etc.

Frank

 

[Mystic]

Why even worry about PTFE in motor oil and why take a chance with your engine when you can already get motor oil with Moly already in it and included with the price of the oil. The Moly reduces friction. Even if the PTFE worked how much more benefit would you get from the PTFE supplement? Would the mileage increase pay for the PTFE supplement?

If you want a lot of friction reducer in a motor oil just go buy some Redline. Look how much Moly it has.

 

[JAG]

Quote:

---

Why even worry about PTFE in motor oil and why take a chance with your engine when you can already get motor oil with Moly already in it and included with the price of the oil.

---

Motor oil is not the application for PTFE that he is interested in.

 

[fitzz47]

No oil I know of will disolve PTFE,you therfore will have a dispersion.You can disolve PTFE in certain solvents,FC40,FC75 made by 3m.these are very expensive,and are not compatable with oil.but make great coatings,Me and Dupont hold the patent 6,835,454.Krytox grease is good stuff,PTFE in oil,Not for me

 

[Touring5]

I have a small bottle of Dupont "Multi Use Lubricant" that I picked up at Lowes a while back. While a liquid, it isn't an oil and dries after application (leaving the teflon behind). I've had great results on metal-to-metal uses. I use it on the hinges for outdoor gates and they operate like on ball bearings - and an application lasts for about six months. Use on automotive door hinges hasn't been very good. This product seems like a good improvement over graphite lubrication.

 

[CluelessFrank]

Mystic

Quote:

---

Why even worry about PTFE in motor oil...

---

I won't, like JAG noticed

; I never was interested in adding PTFE to engine oil. Regarding Moly, I'm convinced you're absolutely right.

Nevertheless, I would still be interested to hear how PTFE solids in a liquid lubricant -or dispersion- are thought to work exactly, i. e. by which process -physical or chemical...(?)- they should attach to (asperity-filling)- or coat the opposing sliding surfaces; I don't get the smear-and fill theory, considering a published (Acheson) PTFE-particle size of ~2-4 microns. I remember reading terms like "specially treated PTFE" and "attaching to-" or "coating" metal surfaces used by manufacturers or marketers - is this all baloney?

In the above context, unDummy's link pointing to the Cerflon SLA 2010 product is interesting. Although the manufacturer speaks of "ceramically reinforced PTFE" (PTFE & BN) which for the layman might suggest a chemical or physical bonding between (a) PTFE and BN particle(s), the patent mentions a mixture of a PTFE dispersion and a BN dispersion; I wonder if the distribution (not necessarily attaching) of the two different particles on the metal substrate would be purely randomly rather.

As mentioned before, in a grease or paste formulation with a high amount of PTFE, I could imagine that the PTFE particles would exert some buffering effect.

fitzz47
Thanks for the explanation. The Teflon AF technology sounds very interesting. If I got you right, you basically don't see any particular use or need for PTFE solids in a liquid lubricant, not just not in engine oils, right? So just the baloney thing rather, in your opinion?

About the Krytox, do you know why DuPont doesn't recommend its use on aluminum bearing surfaces, although there should be no reactivity below 288°C (550°F)?


Touring5
Maybe there's some previous lube left in the automotive door hinges, hindering the "MUL" from properly penetrating and deposing a sufficient amount?

Frank

 

[fitzz47]

Most of these coatings are for mold release,rubber molding,and curing,golf ball molds,etc. these work well but will wear off.The coating of strings,(tennis racket ,musical inst.) give nice results,but wear off.I've even coated the front of Nascar race cars with clear teflon,to prevnt the buildup of rubber from the race tires(fills the grill,and rad.)Most teflon oil additives are 1% percent or less by weight,and are mass produced,using refomulated oil,They are way over priced.I don't know why the al. warning for Krytox,I never worked with it.Every pit was using it,and when I gave it away,was treated quite well.One team swore they where having axle problems once they went to Krytox they stopped.

 

[Quickbeam]

I worked with Krytox and Foblim oils for many years. They are very expensive. They're often used in vacuum pumps for semiconductor processing equipment, not for lubrication but for inertness. These fluids can really take a beating. They aren't effected by acids and a pump filled with them can safely handle oxygen rich mixtures. Anything over about 30% O2 can be dangerous in a pump filled with hydrocarbon oil.

 

[JAG]

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4349444.html

 

[fitzz47]

that patent was filed 26 years ago,key word Dispersion

 

[Mystic]

Now that Moly is commonplace and already mixed into motor oils, I can't see why anybody would want to dump PTFE into their engine.

First, how do you know that the PTFE supplement will not damage your engine? If it does, will the company that made the supplement represent you when you have to face the music from GM or Ford or whoever?

Assuming that the PTFE supplement actually works and improves fuel mileage, you already have Moly in your engine to increase the fuel mileage.

Want more Moly? Buy some LubroMoly or Redline motor oil. Lots of Moly already in those motor oils.

 

[CluelessFrank]

Thanks for the comments and hints!

After following the link provided by JAG, I googled a bit and found, amongst other relevant information in the same context, this patent specification

5877128 Catalyzed lubricant additives and catalyzed lubricant systems designed to accelerate the lubricant bonding reaction here.


It may be primarily of academic interest, but for the sake of the discussion, following the text of the patent, it seems as if PTFE particles dispersed in lubricating oil would -basically- indeed be capable of forming a chemical bond with ferrous substrates under boundary lubrication conditions.
If and where this actually happens under real world conditions and if this process would be of any practical value regarding the discussed lubricants remains the question.
However, this made for some interesting reading.

The following abstracts (beware, grossly out of context!) are partially in reference to:

L.L. Cao et al. "Chemical Structure Characterization of Boundry Lubrication Film Using X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy and Scanning Anger Microprobe Techniques," Wear, 140 (1990), pp. 345-357.

abstract:
One of the most popular solid lubricant additives is polytetrafluoroethylene ("PTFE") which is the subject of U.S. Pat. No. 2,230,654. Since the time of U.S. Pat. No. 2,230,654, PTFE has been recognized to be a bondable solid lubricant having superior lubricating properties, primarily because of its exceptionally low coefficient of friction, and its apparent penchant to resist the adherence of other materials. Furthermore, PTFE is highly resistant to most forms of chemical attack.

abstract:
Based on the research work disclosed earlier by L. L. Cao, et al., it was determined that metallic wear surfaces treated with PTFE resulted in a bonded lubrication film that could be qualitatively divided into four layers, including the outermostlayer of PTFE.

abstract:
It was clearly established that a multilayered boundary lubricant reaction film, with the structural layers cited above, was formed on the metallic surface. The outermost or first layer was composed of a film of PTFE. The second layer wascomposed of a mixed reaction film, containing a mixture of the chemical structures shown as Items 2, 3, and 4 above. The third layer exhibited a chemical structure in which there was a paucity of fluorine with respect to the second layer. The deepestlayer consisted primarily of ferrous and ferric fluoride, along with some microparticles of PTFE. It is evident from the binding energy figures that each of the bonded layers was tightly bound, with the outermost layer exhibiting the greatest bindingenergy. The innermost layer, or the fourth layer was clearly reacted and had become part of the metallic matrix, even though its binding energy was determined to be slightly less than the other three layers.

abstract:
The researchers, L. L. Cao, et al., concluded that, "under boundary lubrication, PTFE microparticles not only mechanically reduce friction, but also take part in the chemical reaction and form a multilayer structure of fluorine compounds whichplay an important role in antifriction and antiwear."

etc.

Frank

 

[GMorg]

Thank to CluelessFrank and the other participants. I have tried to get a discussion on PTFE before and the threads would not get beyond "gimmick" or "snake oil". Thanks again to all those that seriously considered CluelessFrank's question. I have been very satisfied with PTFE in manual transmissions.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:

---

I have been very satisfied with PTFE in manual transmissions.

---

Molakule wrote that PTFE can make gear boxes run quieter. Have you noticed this effect? Did you have any before and after UOA's?

I agree with GMorg that this discussion was very informative. That last post by CluelessFrank was the first information I had seen that has shown PTFE might bond with the surface.

 

[CluelessFrank]

You're welcome, GMorg; my thanks to the other posters, too.
I basically expected to hear those "gimmick" & "snakeoil" ratings, too, but was hoping to get a more thorough explanation why exactly using PTFE in lubricants would be bad, or good for that. After some reading done and thinking things over, I remain skeptical regarding the values of PTFE when used in fluid or semi-solid lubricants for its sheer lubricating properties; other things like anti-seize-, sealing- or damping properties etc. left aside. However, I'm still open to more information.

Tempest, this was the first time I read an explanation how a bonding reaction between PTFE and metal substrates should happen under boundary lubrication conditions. However, in context with PTFE dispersions I remember casually reading before about the fluorination of metal substrates -I think this is addressed in the Cerflon patent, too- but suspected this might be a stretch or marketing strategy because I had the "gospel" in my head that PTFE would bond to nothing as long as it wouldn't thermally decompose and then, the resulting reactions would be anything but positive. I wonder if the quoted publications about the fluorination-bonding under boundary lubrication conditions would describe the special case scenario rather than the real world conditions happening outside of a lab; the possibility of shearing and dislodging of (allegedly) so created PTFE boundary film particles -or flakes rather- gets mentioned in one of the older threads, too.

I did a more thorough forum search using Molakule for username and PTFE for keyword for the maximum searchable date range and found some threads where this topic has been already rehashed several times; my bad.

Acheson and Cerflon were mentioned and the bonding of colloidal PTFE through fluorination was briefly mentioned and questioned, too.

The following may be a bit out of context because the mentioned products were tested for use as an anti-seize and lube for the S and S bicycle frame couplings, but I found the information very interesting, though. link

Quote:

---

Objective: Our test is very specific to determine how effective various products are at reducing the tendency of stainless steel threads to gall and seize under extreme pressure. The pressure we use exceeds the loads encountered during normal tightening or loosening of S and S Couplings. We do this to simulate what happens during the final fraction of a turn during the tightening of a coupling nut. The results don't tell us anything about how well these lubricants will perform in other situations. Don't be tempted to apply our findings to ball bearings or other applications where galling isn't a problem.

---

and

Quote:

---

Greases that contain some Teflon as an additive didn't do much if any better than grease without Teflon.

---

Merry Christmas to you all!

Frank

 

[vipergg]

I used tufoil for years without any problems . And I can say the engine was without a doubt quite a bit smoother when I added this and did turn over better in the winter . Are they all as good as tufoil, i don't know . Never used anything like slick 50 or Zmax or the others that are out there . Tufoil did also have ptfe in it but it never caused any problems that I could see and it made the motor quiter and smoother . Wasn't cheap though .

 

[vipergg]

Quote:

---

I used tufoil for years without any problems . And I can say the engine was without a doubt quite a bit smoother when I added this and did turn over better in the winter . Are they all as good as tufoil, i don't know . Never used anything like slick 50 or Zmax or the others that are out there . Tufoil did also have ptfe in it but it never caused any problems that I could see and it made the motor quiter and smoother . Wasn't cheap though .

---

Oh also Tufoil does have quite a bit of moly in it so maybe that is what made work as well as it did though the makers point more towards the ptfe end of it .