Tell me about Film Strength and bonding molecules

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't speak from a tibology point of view, but from a physics/chemistry slant I am comfortable. Viscosity is a physical property. It is the resistance to flow. That property holds up well on the macro scale. Intuitively, we can imagine how a viscous material could help separate to metal surfaces. And, as long as the two surfaces are hydroplaning, there is value in our imaginative veiw. However, on the micro scale viscosity is no longer a useful term. In fact, and especially when polymers are involved, the functional viscosity of a fluid changes on the very small scale.

Film strength is derived from phenomena at the micro scale. In macro terms, it is the resistance of a thin layer of liquid to be ruptured or evacuated. Film stength is an easy concept when discussing a simple inert liquid. You can compare the phenomenon to trying to pinch chewing gum between your fingers. However, since film strength is driven by chemical interactions you have to consider how well the molecules of the film interact with the solid substrate. Think about how difficult it is to clean greasy food from a plastic container verses glass or metal. The non-polar or neutral lipids in food oils adhere very well to the non-polar plastic, but less well to the metal or glass. So film strength is dependend on an interaction between the fluid and the solid substrate - viscosity is not. So one must consider if the fluid has stronger adhesive properties (sticks to suface) or coehesive properties (sticks to itself).

Also, the fluid may have components that change or react in particular microenvironments. Some of the friction modifiers such as zddp act in this way. When the film becomes very thin, and the local pressures become very high, a chemical reaction takes place that results in zddp being converted to zinc polyphospate that forms a matrix on the substrate. The Zinc polyphosphate is no longer in the oil, it becomes an elastic solid on the metal.

Another complication occurs when solids or liquid crystals are added to the mix. For example, if microcrystaline grapite or molybdenum disulfide are suspended in the mix, these crystals act like decks of cards. In this example, the deck of cards may prevent your mug (lifter) from touching the table(cam). However, since the cards are flat the mug can slide easily. The film was not broken due to the additive, not the viscosity.

I apologize for the rant. I will stop now.

Hirev, many factors go into the term "film strength" as it is used here. Viscosity is only one factor. And for many types of wear, viscosity is a minor factor.
 
If you took water(H2O)as a base and tried to shear it, chop it and run it in a high pressure pump, it doesn't lose it's film strength. No physical means will shear the H2O because H2O is H2O, there is no change in it's composition.

Only from a chemical stand point would the water lose it's shear strength. In other words, if you combine A + H2O = the H2O will start to lose it's film strength. Because now the H2O will no longer have the same composition.

SO if I had a motor oil that has xx film strength, how is that going to break down. Like the H20, unless there is a chemical reation, the film will not break down.

Synthetic base tends to have less chemical reation because of the uniform composition versus dino oil. As far as formulating a motor oil, well someone can correct me if I am wrong.
 
Mamala Bay,

I think that you are confusing shear strength and film strenght. If you take nearly any long polymer and pass is through a small orifice under high pressure, the covalent bonds will actually break. the polymers will now be shorter. They will be different chemicals. This viscosity of such solutions will change upon shearing.

One the other hand, if you take a gallon of water an do the same thing. The water will not shear. If you add a little salt you will still have water but but it will have a different film strenght (still won't be shearable). If instead of salt you add a little detergent or a little soap, you can increase the film strength. The water part of the solution is still unchanged.

Thinking of water is actually a good exercise. You could dissolve different things in water to produce solution that had very similar viscosities. Lets say you dissolved a little starch or a lot of sugar in water. With a little tial and error you could get two solutions with the same viscosity. However, the solution with starch would be a much better lubricant. Now if you pass the starch solution through a small orifice or shear it within a bearing, the viscosity would begin to decrease as the starch was sheared to smaller polymers and its base unit, sugar. For a while, the vicosity of the starch solution would be lower than the sugar water. However, it would still have higher film strength. Eventually the starch would be sufficiently sheared that it's film strength would be as low or even lower than the sugar water.

Sorry, ranting again.
 
GMorg, are you per chance mixing terms here? Surface tension as a measure of the strength of the liquid's surface film, versus film strength used in the Tribology sense?

As a side note, many people incorrectly assume that capillary action is due to surface tension alone. It's actually due to the result of the properties of adhesion, cohesion, and surface tension for a liquid in contact with a solid.

[ March 13, 2006, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
 
427z06,

I recognize that in the detergent vs salt example that the surface tension would be different. However, I am fairly sure the film strength would be different too. Think of rubbing your fingers together with either saltwater between them or with soapy water between them (or detergent and yes they are different). My attempt was to use examples that would have been experienced first hand by most people.
 
Very good GMorg. But it sounds to me like you're describing a concept. What are the physical quantities that can be consistently expressed in terms of a combination of basic dimensions?
 
427z06,

Film strength is generally expressed as a unit of force (applied perpendicular to the contact surfaces or perpendicular to the tangent of curved surfaces) per contact area. The problem is that the measurement is severely confounded with the device. As expected from the discussion above, the materials matter. The solid substrates matters. The surface conditions (finish) matter. The rate of motion matters. So, all comparisons are relative to the method of measument. One can objectively measure film strength. However, the value is not easily translatable.

If you wanted to measure film strength of a lubricant (or series of lubricants) at a given bearing or contact point, it can be done. But the value will have to be qualified by the conditions used.
 
quote:

Originally posted by GMorg:
Film strength is generally expressed as a unit of force (applied perpendicular to the contact surfaces or perpendicular to the tangent of curved surfaces) per contact area.

I believe "generally" is the key word here. It's not defined in any of my Physics textbooks. And unless I dozed off in class the day they defined it while aquiring my Physics degree, I don't recall it ever mentioned.

As I posted earlier in the thread, Film Strength looks to be a very general term that is kinda' meaningless unless many of the other parameters involved are specified and are put into context.
 
427z06,

I agree that the term "film strength" requires qualifications. It is not clean like "mass", "length", and "temperature." However, it can still be useful if qualified. I am sure your text books had many units that require qualification. Speed (relative to what), time (at what speed), solubility (in what solvent), diffusion rate (in what medium), and weight (where) come to mind. And yes, I grant that "film strength" is even less descript than those terms.

I have no argument with your position. I agree with the spirit of what you say. However, I do think that in defined situations, film strength can be measured (and qualified) so that comparisons can be made.

I think that I am more comfortable with the question "which lube has a higher film strength in the average bearing" than I am with "which lube is better for my engine"

Your point is taken. Film Strength is "kinda meaningless unless..parameters..context". By the way, there are many terms that were never defined in my physics books either.
 
Viscosity, resistance to flow, is easy to measure and readily accepted. It is not as useful as film strength as a true measure of keeping parts from wearing but it is all we have.

The same is true for oil pressure. We do not really care what the pressure is as long as there is enough oil flowing. It is just easier to measure pressure rather than flow. Unfortunately people think that higher pressure is a greater separation force between parts and this is just not true.

I love the simple analogies from GMorg. It is often very difficult to take complex physics and make it understandable. I have saved his description of film strength, it is classic for me.

aehaas
 
Some excellent posts here, GMorg your doing a very good job with your easy to understand posts.
 
Hirev, AEHaas,

Thanks for the praise, but 427z06 makes an important point too. A standard that measures an equivalent to film strength could be very useful. I have tried to think of scenerios where one measure of film strength would give one answer ("A" higher than "B") but a different method would give the opposite answer. I can't think of any practical ones yet.

Does anyone know of lubes that change rank depending on wether one uses timken vs pin/vee vs rotating disc measurments?
 
Very good GMorg, even though my questions were somewhat rhetorical in nature. However, even these vague terms have dimensions or is a dimensionless number for an equation with dimensions:

speed=unit distance/unit time
time=9192631770 oscillations of the cesium 133 atom is one second
solubility=mols/volume
diffusion rate=constant for equation (temperature/mass)^1/2
weight=unit mass x acceleration due to gravity

film strength=?????

I have yet to find a consistent definition in the tribological books, although EHL Film Thickness looks to be a good candidate if I were King of the Universe and choosing one.
grin.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:

quote:

Originally posted by bruce381:
Out of my head 32 years triboligy CLS.
As I remember that is the general deffinition it is some what of a gereral property of lubricants.


So in other words, there is no "official" specific definition with physical quantities that can be consistently expressed in terms of a combinations of basic dimensions?


As far as I know Yes there is no "specification"
think of film strenght like a heater in your house you are cold so turn up the heat to be warm.
you have a wear sisuation where increaseing the film strenght of the lube will reduce the problem so thicken the lube or add more/different additives.

kinda like how high is up?
bruce
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top