So I was told by someone that TBN referred to an oils ability to neutralize acids and that it is not in reference to controlling sludge or deposit formation. I was told that detergents and dispersants handle that. My question is do you find that statement true. For some reason I considered TBN in regards to controlling sludge and that when an oil is depleted of TBN sludge will start to form. Please advise.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
TBN question
- Thread starter Jake777
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Total Base Number vs Total Acid Number
As oil gets used in an engine over time, the TAN goes up while the TBN goes down, signifying the oil gradually loses its ability to neutralize acids.
As oil gets used in an engine over time, the TAN goes up while the TBN goes down, signifying the oil gradually loses its ability to neutralize acids.
The TBN (Total Base Number) is a lubricant’s reserve alkalinity measured in milligrams of potassium hydroxide, or calcium sulfonate per gram of oil. In more simple terms it is the amount of active additives remaining. This number is important because combustion byproducts tend to form acidic compounds and the TBN is the acid-neutralizing capacity of the lubricant. The TBN does not decrease linearly with the time it has been in use. Example: it could start out at a TBN of 10, drop to 5 after only 1,000 miles of use, and then stabilize around 3 for a majority of the remaining service life. A TBN of
Source: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/engine-oil-analysis/
Source: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/engine-oil-analysis/
Farmers that use toilet paper filters tell me that the TBN stays higher longer than without. They say that keeping the moisture out of the oil makes the difference. Moisture can not make it through the toilet paper. They've shown me the beads of moisture on the top of a filter in use. Evidently regular filter do a very good job of trapping moisture, if at all.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Farmers that use toilet paper filters tell me that the TBN stays higher longer than without. They say that keeping the moisture out of the oil makes the difference. Moisture can not make it through the toilet paper. They've shown me the beads of moisture on the top of a filter in use. Evidently regular filter do a very good job of trapping moisture, if at all.
What are these farmers farming??
Farmers that use toilet paper filters tell me that the TBN stays higher longer than without. They say that keeping the moisture out of the oil makes the difference. Moisture can not make it through the toilet paper. They've shown me the beads of moisture on the top of a filter in use. Evidently regular filter do a very good job of trapping moisture, if at all.
What are these farmers farming??
Your question is a deceptively simple/basic one, but its not that simple to answer, which is probably why no one has so far answered it.
I'll have a go, but you might get a more definitive response from the guru's that minister to the "Science of Lubricants and Additives" forum.
If I understand it correctly, you're asking what the relationship between TBN and sludge formation is.
"Relationship" here could mean "statistical/temporal association" describing (positive or negative) correlation between the two phenomena, or it could mean causal relationship, as in, one thing (or its converse) causes another.
The first meaning is fairly straightforward. TBN and sludge formation are negatively correlated, so sludge formation is associated/corresponds/tends to coincide with low/decreasing TBN numbers.
Establishing a causal relationship is trickier, since there is a lot going on as oil ages. As TBN goes down, acid number (AN) tends to go up, but I think it'd be a stretch to say that AN causes sludge formation.
Sludge formation is mostly due to oxidative polymerisation, which will also generate organic acids, so, (at least to an extent) a rise in AN is an effect, rather than a cause, of sludge (or sludge precursor) formation.
Since sludge formation is mostly due to oxidative polymerisation, a decline in antioxidant additives (which tends to coincide with decline in TBN) is likely to be causally related to it. Whether this is directly related to TBN might depend on the extent to which the basic/buffering additives are likely to be also antioxidants, which I don't know, but I THINK the TBN contributors are mostly detergent/dispersents like sulphonates and generally not also significant antioxidants (?).
It might also depend on the extent to which oxidation is directly influenced by (psuedo) pH, which I don't know either.
This article dances around this question but doesn't directly answer it. Here sludge formation is related to decline in ZDDP, which is normally thought of as an anti-wear agent but is also an anti-oxidant. Others include aromatic amines and phenols.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/1052/acid-number-test
Short version (my best guess): TBN can be used to predict sludge formation but it (or its Acid Number converse) don't cause it.
I'll have a go, but you might get a more definitive response from the guru's that minister to the "Science of Lubricants and Additives" forum.
If I understand it correctly, you're asking what the relationship between TBN and sludge formation is.
"Relationship" here could mean "statistical/temporal association" describing (positive or negative) correlation between the two phenomena, or it could mean causal relationship, as in, one thing (or its converse) causes another.
The first meaning is fairly straightforward. TBN and sludge formation are negatively correlated, so sludge formation is associated/corresponds/tends to coincide with low/decreasing TBN numbers.
Establishing a causal relationship is trickier, since there is a lot going on as oil ages. As TBN goes down, acid number (AN) tends to go up, but I think it'd be a stretch to say that AN causes sludge formation.
Sludge formation is mostly due to oxidative polymerisation, which will also generate organic acids, so, (at least to an extent) a rise in AN is an effect, rather than a cause, of sludge (or sludge precursor) formation.
Since sludge formation is mostly due to oxidative polymerisation, a decline in antioxidant additives (which tends to coincide with decline in TBN) is likely to be causally related to it. Whether this is directly related to TBN might depend on the extent to which the basic/buffering additives are likely to be also antioxidants, which I don't know, but I THINK the TBN contributors are mostly detergent/dispersents like sulphonates and generally not also significant antioxidants (?).
It might also depend on the extent to which oxidation is directly influenced by (psuedo) pH, which I don't know either.
This article dances around this question but doesn't directly answer it. Here sludge formation is related to decline in ZDDP, which is normally thought of as an anti-wear agent but is also an anti-oxidant. Others include aromatic amines and phenols.
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/1052/acid-number-test
Short version (my best guess): TBN can be used to predict sludge formation but it (or its Acid Number converse) don't cause it.
Last edited:
To make sense, the last line above would be better written as:-
Short version (my best guess): Changes in TBN can be used to predict sludge formation but the phenomena it (or its Acid Number converse) measure don't directly prevent/cause it.
Short version (my best guess): Changes in TBN can be used to predict sludge formation but the phenomena it (or its Acid Number converse) measure don't directly prevent/cause it.
Originally Posted By: bvance554
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Farmers that use toilet paper filters tell me that the TBN stays higher longer than without. They say that keeping the moisture out of the oil makes the difference. Moisture can not make it through the toilet paper. They've shown me the beads of moisture on the top of a filter in use. Evidently regular filter do a very good job of trapping moisture, if at all.
What are these farmers farming??
Fruit, veggies and other things that people eat.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Farmers that use toilet paper filters tell me that the TBN stays higher longer than without. They say that keeping the moisture out of the oil makes the difference. Moisture can not make it through the toilet paper. They've shown me the beads of moisture on the top of a filter in use. Evidently regular filter do a very good job of trapping moisture, if at all.
What are these farmers farming??
Fruit, veggies and other things that people eat.
Sometimes it helps to understand stuff if you go back to stripped down basics...
We've blended up an SAE 10 oil in our imaginary lab. The oil only contains Group II base oil. There's no VII, no ZDDP, detergent, AO, dispersant or anything in this particular oil so the oil has essentially zero TBN and zero TAN.
We put the oil in a flask and heat it up to 100C. We also bubble air through it. To begin with, nothing much happens. All we have is a nice, clear, frothy oil. If we removed a bit of the oil now and measured its properties, its viscosities would not change by much.
However after a few more hours the oil would noticeably darken. The oxygen in the air would be attacking and opening up the weak benzylic hydrogen sites on the base oil. This results in the formation of carboxylic ACIDs. If we measured the properties of the oil now, we would notice that the TAN of the oil is higher and the viscosities of the oil higher as the attacked base oil molecules cross-polymerise and become heavier.
If we kept the heating/blowing process going, we would eventually see the oil go black, the TAN & Viscosity rise further (and at an ever accelerating rate). If you could filter samples of the oil, at this stage you might see tiny bits of black gunk in the oil. These bits are attacked, cross-polymerised base oil molecules that have grown too large to be soluble in oil.
Keep going a few more hours and the oil is still black but visibly thicker; even at 100C. If we tested the oil, viscosity would now be getting difficult to measure. Filtered oil would reveal a lot more black gunk. Interesting TAN might stop rising as acidic stuff removes itself from solution as sludge. You would also now find this oil is corrosive to metal.
Time to stop this first experiment. Put all the data into Lotus 123 and analyse it. You might rightly conclude that for a oil to go black and gunky, you don't need an engine or combustion gases or wear metals or any if that good stuff. All you need is heat, oxygen and base oil. You might also come to the conclusion that the presence of acid in the oil catalyses the oxidation reactions to go faster. Finally you might conclude that if you could neutralise the acids as they form, this might be a good thing...
Cue next experiment..
We make up an SAE 30 oil from the same Group II base oil but this time include 3% 300TBN Calcium Sulphonate. The latter gives the oil a TBN of 9. TAN is still zero. The oil is no longer water white but still a nice straw colour and both clear and bright.
Repeat everything we did before right through to its final conclusion.
What we see this time is it takes several hours longer for the oil to darken. We see the TBN progressively decrease. We see TAN increase but from a later point and not start to accelerate until the TBN hits low levels. Ultimately we reach a point where the oil is visibly thick, contains a lot of insoluble gunk and is corrosive but all of these things have been delayed by several hours.
So in this example TBN increasing detergents do help prevent the onset of sludging but they don't ultimately prevent it. This is sort of true for most lubricant additives and base oils too.
Hope this long winded explanation is of some use...
We've blended up an SAE 10 oil in our imaginary lab. The oil only contains Group II base oil. There's no VII, no ZDDP, detergent, AO, dispersant or anything in this particular oil so the oil has essentially zero TBN and zero TAN.
We put the oil in a flask and heat it up to 100C. We also bubble air through it. To begin with, nothing much happens. All we have is a nice, clear, frothy oil. If we removed a bit of the oil now and measured its properties, its viscosities would not change by much.
However after a few more hours the oil would noticeably darken. The oxygen in the air would be attacking and opening up the weak benzylic hydrogen sites on the base oil. This results in the formation of carboxylic ACIDs. If we measured the properties of the oil now, we would notice that the TAN of the oil is higher and the viscosities of the oil higher as the attacked base oil molecules cross-polymerise and become heavier.
If we kept the heating/blowing process going, we would eventually see the oil go black, the TAN & Viscosity rise further (and at an ever accelerating rate). If you could filter samples of the oil, at this stage you might see tiny bits of black gunk in the oil. These bits are attacked, cross-polymerised base oil molecules that have grown too large to be soluble in oil.
Keep going a few more hours and the oil is still black but visibly thicker; even at 100C. If we tested the oil, viscosity would now be getting difficult to measure. Filtered oil would reveal a lot more black gunk. Interesting TAN might stop rising as acidic stuff removes itself from solution as sludge. You would also now find this oil is corrosive to metal.
Time to stop this first experiment. Put all the data into Lotus 123 and analyse it. You might rightly conclude that for a oil to go black and gunky, you don't need an engine or combustion gases or wear metals or any if that good stuff. All you need is heat, oxygen and base oil. You might also come to the conclusion that the presence of acid in the oil catalyses the oxidation reactions to go faster. Finally you might conclude that if you could neutralise the acids as they form, this might be a good thing...
Cue next experiment..
We make up an SAE 30 oil from the same Group II base oil but this time include 3% 300TBN Calcium Sulphonate. The latter gives the oil a TBN of 9. TAN is still zero. The oil is no longer water white but still a nice straw colour and both clear and bright.
Repeat everything we did before right through to its final conclusion.
What we see this time is it takes several hours longer for the oil to darken. We see the TBN progressively decrease. We see TAN increase but from a later point and not start to accelerate until the TBN hits low levels. Ultimately we reach a point where the oil is visibly thick, contains a lot of insoluble gunk and is corrosive but all of these things have been delayed by several hours.
So in this example TBN increasing detergents do help prevent the onset of sludging but they don't ultimately prevent it. This is sort of true for most lubricant additives and base oils too.
Hope this long winded explanation is of some use...
I like Joe's response.
In case you missed it in the second hypothetical he added 3% 300TBN CALCIUM SULPHONATE - which functions as a detergent and provides the alkali reserve.
So in reference to your original question - does TBN control correlate with deposit control? not directly but as one molecule can functionally perform multiple outcomes, in some cases increasing TBN can also increase detergent/dispersant levels and as such improve deposit control.
In case you missed it in the second hypothetical he added 3% 300TBN CALCIUM SULPHONATE - which functions as a detergent and provides the alkali reserve.
So in reference to your original question - does TBN control correlate with deposit control? not directly but as one molecule can functionally perform multiple outcomes, in some cases increasing TBN can also increase detergent/dispersant levels and as such improve deposit control.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Farmers that use toilet paper filters tell me that the TBN stays higher longer than without. They say that keeping the moisture out of the oil makes the difference. Moisture can not make it through the toilet paper. They've shown me the beads of moisture on the top of a filter in use. Evidently regular filter do a very good job of trapping moisture, if at all.
Conventional oil filters are not intended to capture water from the oil. By design, the water should evaporate and exit the internals by way of the PCV. Far more water is formed, and thus eliminated, than any toilet paper roll could possibly trap. The volume would be in gallons, in the course of an OCI.
Farmers that use toilet paper filters tell me that the TBN stays higher longer than without. They say that keeping the moisture out of the oil makes the difference. Moisture can not make it through the toilet paper. They've shown me the beads of moisture on the top of a filter in use. Evidently regular filter do a very good job of trapping moisture, if at all.
Conventional oil filters are not intended to capture water from the oil. By design, the water should evaporate and exit the internals by way of the PCV. Far more water is formed, and thus eliminated, than any toilet paper roll could possibly trap. The volume would be in gallons, in the course of an OCI.
Originally Posted By: 4wheeldog
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Farmers that use toilet paper filters tell me that the TBN stays higher longer than without. They say that keeping the moisture out of the oil makes the difference. Moisture can not make it through the toilet paper. They've shown me the beads of moisture on the top of a filter in use. Evidently regular filter do a very good job of trapping moisture, if at all.
Conventional oil filters are not intended to capture water from the oil. By design, the water should evaporate and exit the internals by way of the PCV. Far more water is formed, and thus eliminated, than any toilet paper roll could possibly trap. The volume would be in gallons, in the course of an OCI.
The toilet paper filters do capture moisture even though most of it evaporates out before it gets filtered.
These farmers drain oil out of their equipment that does not have filters and gravity feed it through a home grown toilet paper setup and they always trap some moisture. They say that the moisture can't be seen in the oil before the gravity feed filtering but they always find a little bit on the filters after filtering. They claim that getting that little bit out is worth the trouble. These guys are very good mechanics. They fix everything and some of their methods are amazing. They cut, weld, machine, cast and forge stuff and keep the equipment running. They're like farmers everywhere.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Farmers that use toilet paper filters tell me that the TBN stays higher longer than without. They say that keeping the moisture out of the oil makes the difference. Moisture can not make it through the toilet paper. They've shown me the beads of moisture on the top of a filter in use. Evidently regular filter do a very good job of trapping moisture, if at all.
Conventional oil filters are not intended to capture water from the oil. By design, the water should evaporate and exit the internals by way of the PCV. Far more water is formed, and thus eliminated, than any toilet paper roll could possibly trap. The volume would be in gallons, in the course of an OCI.
The toilet paper filters do capture moisture even though most of it evaporates out before it gets filtered.
These farmers drain oil out of their equipment that does not have filters and gravity feed it through a home grown toilet paper setup and they always trap some moisture. They say that the moisture can't be seen in the oil before the gravity feed filtering but they always find a little bit on the filters after filtering. They claim that getting that little bit out is worth the trouble. These guys are very good mechanics. They fix everything and some of their methods are amazing. They cut, weld, machine, cast and forge stuff and keep the equipment running. They're like farmers everywhere.
Originally Posted By: 4wheeldog
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Farmers that use toilet paper filters tell me that the TBN stays higher longer than without. They say that keeping the moisture out of the oil makes the difference. Moisture can not make it through the toilet paper. They've shown me the beads of moisture on the top of a filter in use. Evidently regular filter do a very good job of trapping moisture, if at all.
Conventional oil filters are not intended to capture water from the oil. By design, the water should evaporate and exit the internals by way of the PCV. Far more water is formed, and thus eliminated, than any toilet paper roll could possibly trap. The volume would be in gallons, in the course of an OCI.
The roll wouldn't have to store all the water it trapped on the course of an OCI, since the filter is exposed to oil temperature, so any trapped condensate would boil off. Storage would be short term, until the engine reaches operating temperature.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Farmers that use toilet paper filters tell me that the TBN stays higher longer than without. They say that keeping the moisture out of the oil makes the difference. Moisture can not make it through the toilet paper. They've shown me the beads of moisture on the top of a filter in use. Evidently regular filter do a very good job of trapping moisture, if at all.
Conventional oil filters are not intended to capture water from the oil. By design, the water should evaporate and exit the internals by way of the PCV. Far more water is formed, and thus eliminated, than any toilet paper roll could possibly trap. The volume would be in gallons, in the course of an OCI.
The roll wouldn't have to store all the water it trapped on the course of an OCI, since the filter is exposed to oil temperature, so any trapped condensate would boil off. Storage would be short term, until the engine reaches operating temperature.
Originally Posted By: Solarent
I like Joe's response.
In case you missed it in the second hypothetical he added 3% 300TBN CALCIUM SULPHONATE - which functions as a detergent and provides the alkali reserve.
So in reference to your original question - does TBN control correlate with deposit control? not directly but as one molecule can functionally perform multiple outcomes, in some cases increasing TBN can also increase detergent/dispersant levels and as such improve deposit control.
Disagree. TBN clearly DOES "correlate" with deposit control. That can be easily observed. The issue is whether it is causally related to deposit control, which is harder to establish.
I like Joe's response too. It's a "mind experiment", as used by Einstien, who was no slouch.
These add clarity, but they do so by simplifying. I'd take issue with "You might also come to the conclusion that the presence of acid in the oil catalyses the oxidation reactions to go faster." You might, and it'd be a reasonable hypothesis, but the first "experiment" provides no support for it.
Adding buffering detergent, in the second "experiment", would give some support, but other effects, such as ..er..detergency (which I believe Calcium Sulphonate has) or antioxidant properties (dunno) are also possibilities.
Experimental support for acid catalysis could perhaps be gained by "spiking" the reaction mixture with the organic acids produced by oxidation, and seeing if it accelerates the polymerisation of the oil.
In real experiments with real oil, it seems likely, from the article I linked to, that antioxidants will also be important.
I like Joe's response.
In case you missed it in the second hypothetical he added 3% 300TBN CALCIUM SULPHONATE - which functions as a detergent and provides the alkali reserve.
So in reference to your original question - does TBN control correlate with deposit control? not directly but as one molecule can functionally perform multiple outcomes, in some cases increasing TBN can also increase detergent/dispersant levels and as such improve deposit control.
Disagree. TBN clearly DOES "correlate" with deposit control. That can be easily observed. The issue is whether it is causally related to deposit control, which is harder to establish.
I like Joe's response too. It's a "mind experiment", as used by Einstien, who was no slouch.
These add clarity, but they do so by simplifying. I'd take issue with "You might also come to the conclusion that the presence of acid in the oil catalyses the oxidation reactions to go faster." You might, and it'd be a reasonable hypothesis, but the first "experiment" provides no support for it.
Adding buffering detergent, in the second "experiment", would give some support, but other effects, such as ..er..detergency (which I believe Calcium Sulphonate has) or antioxidant properties (dunno) are also possibilities.
Experimental support for acid catalysis could perhaps be gained by "spiking" the reaction mixture with the organic acids produced by oxidation, and seeing if it accelerates the polymerisation of the oil.
In real experiments with real oil, it seems likely, from the article I linked to, that antioxidants will also be important.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Solarent
I like Joe's response.
In case you missed it in the second hypothetical he added 3% 300TBN CALCIUM SULPHONATE - which functions as a detergent and provides the alkali reserve.
So in reference to your original question - does TBN control correlate with deposit control? not directly but as one molecule can functionally perform multiple outcomes, in some cases increasing TBN can also increase detergent/dispersant levels and as such improve deposit control.
Disagree. TBN clearly DOES "correlate" with deposit control. That can be easily observed. The issue is whether it is causally related to deposit control, which is harder to establish.
I like Joe's response too. It's a "mind experiment", as used by Einstien, who was no slouch.
These add clarity, but they do so by simplifying. I'd take issue with "You might also come to the conclusion that the presence of acid in the oil catalyses the oxidation reactions to go faster." You might, and it'd be a reasonable hypothesis, but the first "experiment" provides no support for it.
Adding buffering detergent, in the second "experiment", would give some support, but other effects, such as ..er..detergency (which I believe Calcium Sulphonate has) or antioxidant properties (dunno) are also possibilities.
Experimental support for acid catalysis could perhaps be gained by "spiking" the reaction mixture with the organic acids produced by oxidation, and seeing if it accelerates the polymerisation of the oil.
In real experiments with real oil, it seems likely, from the article I linked to, that antioxidants will also be important.
Can I disagree with your disagreement?
TBN clearly DOES NOT correlate with deposit control; or at it least it never did in all the time I was playing with additives, oils and engines. TBN does correlate nicely with rust control and plays a definable role in controlling base oil oxidation. In the sense that oxidation is the precursor to all deposits then yes, high TBN helps but in most fully formulated oils, the bulk of oxidation control comes from ZDDP & antioxidants and these days, increasingly from better base oils. In this environment, you can easily double an oils TBN and see very little benefit in terms of deposits.
Can I also correct your correction concerning your use of the word 'hypothosis'?
If I was writing my PhD thesis and wanted to con my tutor into thinking that I was a true scientist (and not someone who had spent the last three years going to parties, playing cricket and getting laid), then yes, I would absolutely be hypothesising everything I wrote. The lack of definition 'hypothosis' implies would allow for, and acknowledge the very real possibility, that my thesis, which I only started writing three months before it was due, is going to be utter bollocks! However if I was writing a post for BITOG in the highly simplified form of a Janet And John story, the use of the more widely understood word 'conclude' is correct, especially if the strength of the word is tempered by preceding it with the word 'might'. In English, context is everything.
Finally can I again state for the record that in the context of lubricant additives, the word 'detergent' is a misnomer. Sadly, what we call detergents do not 'deterge'. Sorry to shatter so many BITOG dreams but the truth always hurts...
Originally Posted By: Solarent
I like Joe's response.
In case you missed it in the second hypothetical he added 3% 300TBN CALCIUM SULPHONATE - which functions as a detergent and provides the alkali reserve.
So in reference to your original question - does TBN control correlate with deposit control? not directly but as one molecule can functionally perform multiple outcomes, in some cases increasing TBN can also increase detergent/dispersant levels and as such improve deposit control.
Disagree. TBN clearly DOES "correlate" with deposit control. That can be easily observed. The issue is whether it is causally related to deposit control, which is harder to establish.
I like Joe's response too. It's a "mind experiment", as used by Einstien, who was no slouch.
These add clarity, but they do so by simplifying. I'd take issue with "You might also come to the conclusion that the presence of acid in the oil catalyses the oxidation reactions to go faster." You might, and it'd be a reasonable hypothesis, but the first "experiment" provides no support for it.
Adding buffering detergent, in the second "experiment", would give some support, but other effects, such as ..er..detergency (which I believe Calcium Sulphonate has) or antioxidant properties (dunno) are also possibilities.
Experimental support for acid catalysis could perhaps be gained by "spiking" the reaction mixture with the organic acids produced by oxidation, and seeing if it accelerates the polymerisation of the oil.
In real experiments with real oil, it seems likely, from the article I linked to, that antioxidants will also be important.
Can I disagree with your disagreement?
TBN clearly DOES NOT correlate with deposit control; or at it least it never did in all the time I was playing with additives, oils and engines. TBN does correlate nicely with rust control and plays a definable role in controlling base oil oxidation. In the sense that oxidation is the precursor to all deposits then yes, high TBN helps but in most fully formulated oils, the bulk of oxidation control comes from ZDDP & antioxidants and these days, increasingly from better base oils. In this environment, you can easily double an oils TBN and see very little benefit in terms of deposits.
Can I also correct your correction concerning your use of the word 'hypothosis'?
If I was writing my PhD thesis and wanted to con my tutor into thinking that I was a true scientist (and not someone who had spent the last three years going to parties, playing cricket and getting laid), then yes, I would absolutely be hypothesising everything I wrote. The lack of definition 'hypothosis' implies would allow for, and acknowledge the very real possibility, that my thesis, which I only started writing three months before it was due, is going to be utter bollocks! However if I was writing a post for BITOG in the highly simplified form of a Janet And John story, the use of the more widely understood word 'conclude' is correct, especially if the strength of the word is tempered by preceding it with the word 'might'. In English, context is everything.
Finally can I again state for the record that in the context of lubricant additives, the word 'detergent' is a misnomer. Sadly, what we call detergents do not 'deterge'. Sorry to shatter so many BITOG dreams but the truth always hurts...
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
Can I disagree with your disagreement?
Not on present form.
Your first "disagreement" confuses correlation with causation.
These are not the same thing, which was my main point above.
You then go on to suggest antioxidants are more important in resisting deposit formation, which was my other point above, so that doesn't work very well as a disagreement either.
Your second "disagreement" confuses "hypothesis" with "absolute bollocks".
These are not the same thing either.
A hypothesis is a (hopefully reasonable, as in this case) suggested explanation of a phenomena which requires/lacks confirmatory evidence, which was the case in the context (context is important, check) of your first "experiment".
The qualification implied by "might" in "might conclude" applies to the action (you also might not conclude) not the conclusion, but if your intention was to suggest that your conclusion was tentative, because it lacked confirmatory evidence, then you're agreeing with me again anyway.
So apparently not.
Can I disagree with your disagreement?
Not on present form.
Your first "disagreement" confuses correlation with causation.
These are not the same thing, which was my main point above.
You then go on to suggest antioxidants are more important in resisting deposit formation, which was my other point above, so that doesn't work very well as a disagreement either.
Your second "disagreement" confuses "hypothesis" with "absolute bollocks".
These are not the same thing either.
A hypothesis is a (hopefully reasonable, as in this case) suggested explanation of a phenomena which requires/lacks confirmatory evidence, which was the case in the context (context is important, check) of your first "experiment".
The qualification implied by "might" in "might conclude" applies to the action (you also might not conclude) not the conclusion, but if your intention was to suggest that your conclusion was tentative, because it lacked confirmatory evidence, then you're agreeing with me again anyway.
So apparently not.
Last edited:
And how many world class lubricant developments programs have you run exactly?? Thought so...
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
And how many world class lubricant developments programs have you run exactly?? Thought so...
"Argument by authority" isn't argument, its bluster/bullying.
You've made a very positive contribution to the discussion above but now you're embarrassing yourself a little, or should be.
You're probably younger and better looking than me too but that has nothing to do with the merits of your argument either.
And how many world class lubricant developments programs have you run exactly?? Thought so...
"Argument by authority" isn't argument, its bluster/bullying.
You've made a very positive contribution to the discussion above but now you're embarrassing yourself a little, or should be.
You're probably younger and better looking than me too but that has nothing to do with the merits of your argument either.
Originally Posted By: Joe90_guy
And how many world class lubricant developments programs have you run exactly?? Thought so...
I think what we're having here is basically a semantic, not a technical disagreement.
(In a purely technical argument, if its possible to have one, I'd apparently be hopelessly out-gunned).
I think we're both saying the same thing, but I'm saying it more accurately. No big deal.
And how many world class lubricant developments programs have you run exactly?? Thought so...
I think what we're having here is basically a semantic, not a technical disagreement.
(In a purely technical argument, if its possible to have one, I'd apparently be hopelessly out-gunned).
I think we're both saying the same thing, but I'm saying it more accurately. No big deal.
Here's a few things for you to ponder on...
Bullying and downright thuggery are part and parcel of the lubricant industry. Don't ask me why, is just is. It's unavoidable so you have to toughen up and grow a very thick skin. As a formulator, you get kicked repeatedly and often from both the client (you wants everything done first time through and for nothing) and your own side where envy, malice and spite are in plentiful abundance.
There is little or no 'pure science' in the lubricant industry. You would think there would be but there just isn't. Discussions about 'causality' and other scientific semantics, if they happen at all, quickly degenerate into 'JUST GET IT F*****G DONE!'
I too am old so if I'm a bit grumpy at times, don't think I haven't earned it!
Bullying and downright thuggery are part and parcel of the lubricant industry. Don't ask me why, is just is. It's unavoidable so you have to toughen up and grow a very thick skin. As a formulator, you get kicked repeatedly and often from both the client (you wants everything done first time through and for nothing) and your own side where envy, malice and spite are in plentiful abundance.
There is little or no 'pure science' in the lubricant industry. You would think there would be but there just isn't. Discussions about 'causality' and other scientific semantics, if they happen at all, quickly degenerate into 'JUST GET IT F*****G DONE!'
I too am old so if I'm a bit grumpy at times, don't think I haven't earned it!
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 2K