This and the inability to proof the formula against actual blending data makes it pseudo or Faux.
No knock on the hard work trying to pin it down, I think the concepts of base oil viscosity as a quality are great, but the base oil calculation does not have enough consistent data,points,to be reliable. Some of the results are so counterintuitive that the proof end of the formula is needed to believe it.
Right now we have an equation and some numbers but no way to prove the efficacy of it, despite that I appreciate the effort to deconstruct but there is something missing that we won't be able to fix. That's the actual formulation data of enough oils to prove or disprove the formula.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ka9mnx
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Here is the updated VII content (VII column) and base-oil viscosity at 150 C (BO DV150 column) table:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oIYJP_5lgdt9l-_5n_ftKL5ScaaeY0MErFRothajZos/edit?usp=sharing
A lot of work there. I see Chevron Delo but no Havoline?
I thought we debunked his BOC a year or 2 ago?
I think the issue is that you run into scenarios where the derived figures are... questionable.
For example, if we use the Mobil Blending Guide:
And use the following data for Density:
SpectraSyn 8: 0.833
SpectraSyn 6: 0.827
SpectraSyn 4: 0.820
The resultant VII percentages don't quite align for all the examples, despite being quite close for others.