Well he said the same as everyone I talked to in that CA will NOT fade away and that he knows of NO ashless CA additives.
I'm done with this next time know what you are talking about.
bruce
Supertech Synthetic 10W-30, 1999 Toyota Camry, 5S-FE, 4572 miles
- Thread starter X72
- Start date
- Status
I'm done with this next time know what you are talking about.
bruce
Ted, now it sounds like your just sucking up. ekpolk would understand this is he had a set.
427ZO6,
You can learn enough to fool 99% of the folks on here and be talking complete trash and junk science - Heck, I may be proof of that. But Bruce certainly knows his stuff and we've spent some time talking on the phone and PM'ing about these topics.
TS
You can learn enough to fool 99% of the folks on here and be talking complete trash and junk science - Heck, I may be proof of that. But Bruce certainly knows his stuff and we've spent some time talking on the phone and PM'ing about these topics.
TS
MolaKule
Staff member
Just some background reading here from the past.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=21;t=000021 and
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=56;t=000005
An element of the periodic table that can come in different forms is called an "allotrope."
Boron allotropes come in metallic and non-metallic versions. One type is a brown powder called, "amorphous boron" and is brown, while the metallic version is black.
The Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry will tell you that boron is an allotrope, while the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Chemistry, and other simple dictionaries, will tell you it is a non-metallic element.
There are additive packages that combine potassiums and Borates, but I have never seen any calcium borate additive packages. This does not mean that additive makers have not or are not working on them.
There is also phosphorylated borates (used as AW additive in many ATF formulations).
There is also an additive that comes as a Borate Ester, that can be added as part of a PCMO or gear oil additive package.
But calcium in PCMO's and gear lubes are manufactured as high base, medium base, and low base calcium sulfonates for the purpose of being agents for setting tbn, as an AW additive/friction modifier, and as a rust and corroson inhibitor.
Here is a fairly comphrehensive list of additives that accomplish more than one task in a lubricant:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=56;t=000005
As an addendum, calcium and magnesium are considered to be part of the alkili-earth metals group. ANY metallic compound is usually ash forming. Calcium ashes are usually softer than other ash (organo-metallic) compounds.
[ July 01, 2006, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=21;t=000021 and
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=56;t=000005
An element of the periodic table that can come in different forms is called an "allotrope."
Boron allotropes come in metallic and non-metallic versions. One type is a brown powder called, "amorphous boron" and is brown, while the metallic version is black.
The Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry will tell you that boron is an allotrope, while the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Chemistry, and other simple dictionaries, will tell you it is a non-metallic element.
There are additive packages that combine potassiums and Borates, but I have never seen any calcium borate additive packages. This does not mean that additive makers have not or are not working on them.
There is also phosphorylated borates (used as AW additive in many ATF formulations).
There is also an additive that comes as a Borate Ester, that can be added as part of a PCMO or gear oil additive package.
But calcium in PCMO's and gear lubes are manufactured as high base, medium base, and low base calcium sulfonates for the purpose of being agents for setting tbn, as an AW additive/friction modifier, and as a rust and corroson inhibitor.
Here is a fairly comphrehensive list of additives that accomplish more than one task in a lubricant:
http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=56;t=000005
As an addendum, calcium and magnesium are considered to be part of the alkili-earth metals group. ANY metallic compound is usually ash forming. Calcium ashes are usually softer than other ash (organo-metallic) compounds.
[ July 01, 2006, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]
I'm no chemist and thus I employ people like Molakule for formulating work.
There are new compounds that may be considered low ash or "ashless" Ca adds. Will may be on to something.... However they are not totally ashless in test but leave little or no deposits. That may be what is confusing some of the ego's eh.. discussion here.
Bruce, respectfully, the fact that a group of chemists from one companies labs may not have heard of what may be considered R&D level add chemistry does not eliminate its potential existence. You and I know that oronite and infinieum don't let much out of the bag even to there 1/2 owners that actually mix oil.
Ted many here follow you as an expert so do be careful what and how you say it. The recent smacks on LC/FP and suggesting that it shears oil is one of the inaccuracies I have observed posted multiple times. And I respect and like ya!
As far as Buster jumping on the UOA ( basic spectro elementals) noise argument; a good lab with ICP can get accuracy to 5-10 ppm on most elementals. Atomic Absorption spectro as used in our new Premium Service will get you in the 1 -2 ppm range consistently( phos is less accurate) and some of the people posting here have used it to formulate lubes!
I add the fact that I compare both engine and oil results to our data base of hundreds or thousands of similar reports AND whatever proprietary knowledge in my HEAD from testing for engine and oil mans ...to that analysis result interpretation, Mannix, I assure you I can be almost as accurate as any R&D lab on the result at about 300% less cost for the consumer.
Bruce, I would have loved to see the lab there with ya.. Redline guys were there too ? Thats an interesting group...
Both Chevron and Texaco heads mixing, now with RL cool..
Thanks for the Molakation, Mola.
Terry
There are new compounds that may be considered low ash or "ashless" Ca adds. Will may be on to something.... However they are not totally ashless in test but leave little or no deposits. That may be what is confusing some of the ego's eh.. discussion here.
Bruce, respectfully, the fact that a group of chemists from one companies labs may not have heard of what may be considered R&D level add chemistry does not eliminate its potential existence. You and I know that oronite and infinieum don't let much out of the bag even to there 1/2 owners that actually mix oil.
Ted many here follow you as an expert so do be careful what and how you say it. The recent smacks on LC/FP and suggesting that it shears oil is one of the inaccuracies I have observed posted multiple times. And I respect and like ya!
As far as Buster jumping on the UOA ( basic spectro elementals) noise argument; a good lab with ICP can get accuracy to 5-10 ppm on most elementals. Atomic Absorption spectro as used in our new Premium Service will get you in the 1 -2 ppm range consistently( phos is less accurate) and some of the people posting here have used it to formulate lubes!
I add the fact that I compare both engine and oil results to our data base of hundreds or thousands of similar reports AND whatever proprietary knowledge in my HEAD from testing for engine and oil mans ...to that analysis result interpretation, Mannix, I assure you I can be almost as accurate as any R&D lab on the result at about 300% less cost for the consumer.
Bruce, I would have loved to see the lab there with ya.. Redline guys were there too ? Thats an interesting group...
Both Chevron and Texaco heads mixing, now with RL cool..
Thanks for the Molakation, Mola.
Terry
X72 have you ever Auto-RX 'd this engine, I would if not. That should correct your oil consumption.
This oil TBN is normal as it starts very low to begin with.
Mannix are you the Mobil guy ? Get better, *** Bless you on the stroke recovery. If I don't stop burning it at both ends I will end up like Bob Winters and you, myself.
Terry
This oil TBN is normal as it starts very low to begin with.
Mannix are you the Mobil guy ? Get better, *** Bless you on the stroke recovery. If I don't stop burning it at both ends I will end up like Bob Winters and you, myself.
Terry
""There are new compounds that may be considered low ash or "ashless" Ca adds.""
No there are not please name them with CA??
You can supose anything you want but it does not mean theres anything to it.
""Will may be on to something....""
No Will is not on to anything here, he goes to the people I know for "formulating" info and they ALL say No such thing as a ashless CA anything.
I called Will and he said he has NEVER said chevron uses an ashles CA since ther is NONE.
Therefore Mannix has missunderstood Will or someone else about this subject. Also please read Molakules post regarding CA as ash forming.
""Bruce, respectfully, the fact that a group of chemists from one companies labs may not have heard of what may be considered R&D level add chemistry does not eliminate its potential existence.""
Thats very true and I do beleive we will see much lower ash forming CA additives in the future.
But re read FULL thread this guy was claming SM type oils Now in use with "new" CA deteregents were/are ASHLESS this is/was my only ***** about this whole thread.
""You and I know that oronite and infinieum don't let much out of the bag even to there 1/2 owners that actually mix oil.""
NOT True and in private conversation I was told of NO such ashless CA period, I belive that.
""Mannix, I assure you I can be almost as accurate as any R&D lab on the result at about 300% less cost for the consumer.""
Fully agree and as far as a Noise Floor of 50ppm that is wrong Id'say more like 5-10ppm at most now days.
Bruce
No there are not please name them with CA??
You can supose anything you want but it does not mean theres anything to it.
""Will may be on to something....""
No Will is not on to anything here, he goes to the people I know for "formulating" info and they ALL say No such thing as a ashless CA anything.
I called Will and he said he has NEVER said chevron uses an ashles CA since ther is NONE.
Therefore Mannix has missunderstood Will or someone else about this subject. Also please read Molakules post regarding CA as ash forming.
""Bruce, respectfully, the fact that a group of chemists from one companies labs may not have heard of what may be considered R&D level add chemistry does not eliminate its potential existence.""
Thats very true and I do beleive we will see much lower ash forming CA additives in the future.
But re read FULL thread this guy was claming SM type oils Now in use with "new" CA deteregents were/are ASHLESS this is/was my only ***** about this whole thread.
""You and I know that oronite and infinieum don't let much out of the bag even to there 1/2 owners that actually mix oil.""
NOT True and in private conversation I was told of NO such ashless CA period, I belive that.
""Mannix, I assure you I can be almost as accurate as any R&D lab on the result at about 300% less cost for the consumer.""
Fully agree and as far as a Noise Floor of 50ppm that is wrong Id'say more like 5-10ppm at most now days.
Bruce
Terry, just so you know, I wasn't referring to you when talking about "noise floor". I know you are good at what you do. My issue has been the scare tactics used by some, over 5-10ppm differences in wear, to persuade one oil is better than another. You could run multiple tests and probably see variations of that magnitude with the same oil. Point is, some on here get so paranoid over the smallest things.
bruce/mola, thanks for that information.
bruce/mola, thanks for that information.
Thanks for the suggestion Terry. This engine has never had an Auto-Rx treatment. I will use Auto-Rx at the next oil change with a conventional oil and see how it affects oil consumption and post what I find.
How much Ca is in this oil to start with? I didn't see this oil in the VOA library. Up the thread a ways it was said that the virgin value was considerably higher than it is now. If that assertion is correct, where did it go? Consumption and replacement do not dilute. Where did it go?
buster, I never doubted your integrity nor was or am I offended. "Been doing this a long time" and not much offends.
Bruce, point taken, to be sure that there are adds being developed,possibly in use currently that would check the block mannix is talking about.
Are you kidding about proving that ? As mentioned before the formulators don't even know exactly what the additive makers are selling them and most of the add makers are at arms length on a proprietary basis at least on paper, for sure they could not discuss the product with an outside potential competitor until they are ready to sell to everyone.
Bruce, point taken, to be sure that there are adds being developed,possibly in use currently that would check the block mannix is talking about.
Are you kidding about proving that ? As mentioned before the formulators don't even know exactly what the additive makers are selling them and most of the add makers are at arms length on a proprietary basis at least on paper, for sure they could not discuss the product with an outside potential competitor until they are ready to sell to everyone.
Terry,
I have used FP60 and it works as advertised.... I have seen some instances where folks are using too much LC20 and it is thinning out the oil. I tried running the maximum dosage in my old Audi, which has factory installed (VDO) oil pressure and oil temp gauges. There was a clear drop in oil pressure - indicating a loss of viscosity - with the maximum treat rate of LC20.
The issue I have with any of these adds is that folks think if a little is good, then more must be better.
TS
I have used FP60 and it works as advertised.... I have seen some instances where folks are using too much LC20 and it is thinning out the oil. I tried running the maximum dosage in my old Audi, which has factory installed (VDO) oil pressure and oil temp gauges. There was a clear drop in oil pressure - indicating a loss of viscosity - with the maximum treat rate of LC20.
The issue I have with any of these adds is that folks think if a little is good, then more must be better.
TS
I have been away for a little but have missed alot on the discussion. First, I can assure you there are new calcium compounds currently in use that are considered ashless. Now ashless to some is a very subjective term. When the test is performed and the compound ITSELF is combined with sulfur and "burned", It prodouces a very, very low amount of sulfated ash. Now, when the entire formulation is tested there is sulfated ash produced, but the levels are very low when compared with old style technology. I believe that is the reason for the difference in opinions here. I am refering to testing the individual compound and others may be referring to the entire formulation. I have also noticed that another GTX analysis has been posted with stellar reslults using the lastest additive technology that I was orinally referring to.Happy Birthday America!
So far, the newer blends of GTX, Valvoline Durablend, and SuperTech Synthetic which includes: Mag1/(Warren Distribution) blended synthetics. By the way, the most recent UOA that has been posted is a stellar result, and one of the brands I originally reported on.
To Terry: I have no doubt that you can produce an accurate test, with an expert interpretation, at a value to the consumer. My point about the noise floor is that you must establish a trend on a particluar engine/oil combination to get a information that is of value. I consider a used oil analysis to be like taking a persons blood pressure. Doctors rely on a sequencial trend of results before making a diagnosis. Same with analysis. It may be perfectly normal for an engine to have 50 ppm of a wear metal, and subsequent results of this would establish a trend. I will say: In the event of a potentially catastophic failure, such as a blown head gasket, introducing coolant into the oil, that early detection through an oil analysis is key.
I would like to thank the fellow posters here for engaging in a CIVIL,and stimulating conversation, regardless of their difference of opinion.
[ July 06, 2006, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Mannix ]
To Terry: I have no doubt that you can produce an accurate test, with an expert interpretation, at a value to the consumer. My point about the noise floor is that you must establish a trend on a particluar engine/oil combination to get a information that is of value. I consider a used oil analysis to be like taking a persons blood pressure. Doctors rely on a sequencial trend of results before making a diagnosis. Same with analysis. It may be perfectly normal for an engine to have 50 ppm of a wear metal, and subsequent results of this would establish a trend. I will say: In the event of a potentially catastophic failure, such as a blown head gasket, introducing coolant into the oil, that early detection through an oil analysis is key.
I would like to thank the fellow posters here for engaging in a CIVIL,and stimulating conversation, regardless of their difference of opinion.
[ July 06, 2006, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Mannix ]
So far, the newer blends of GTX, Valvoline Durablend, and SuperTech Synthetic which includes: Mag1/(Warren Distribution) blended synthetics. By the way, the most recent UOA that has been posted is a stellar result, and one of the brands I originally reported on.
To Terry: I have no doubt that you can produce an accurate test, with an expert interpretation, at a value to the consumer. My point about the noise floor is that you must establish a trend on a particluar engine/oil combination to get a information that is of value. I consider a used oil analysis to be like taking a persons blood pressure. Doctors rely on a sequencial trend of results before making a diagnosis. Same with analysis. It may be perfectly normal for an engine to have 50 ppm of a wear metal, and subsequent results of this would establish a trend. I will say: In the event of a potentially catastophic failure, such as a blown head gasket, introducing coolant into the oil, that early detection through an oil analysis is key.
I would like to thank the fellow posters here for engaging in a CIVIL,and stimulating conversation, regardless of their difference of opinion.
To Terry: I have no doubt that you can produce an accurate test, with an expert interpretation, at a value to the consumer. My point about the noise floor is that you must establish a trend on a particluar engine/oil combination to get a information that is of value. I consider a used oil analysis to be like taking a persons blood pressure. Doctors rely on a sequencial trend of results before making a diagnosis. Same with analysis. It may be perfectly normal for an engine to have 50 ppm of a wear metal, and subsequent results of this would establish a trend. I will say: In the event of a potentially catastophic failure, such as a blown head gasket, introducing coolant into the oil, that early detection through an oil analysis is key.
I would like to thank the fellow posters here for engaging in a CIVIL,and stimulating conversation, regardless of their difference of opinion.
Teddles,
I couldn't of said it better myself.
- Status
Similar threads
