Understanding Viscosity and HTHS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
OP
I have never walked down the oil aisle at Walmart and based my oil-buying decision on HTHS, PAO content or TBN.
My vehicles still last 18 years and perhaps I should walk down a different aisle at Walmart and consider a cure for what actually kills my 18 year-old vehicles....... that being rust.


Strangely, I feel like I'm getting the same way since joining BITOG. I've been using Amsoil SS and, more recently, Driven LS30 in my Tahoe for high HTHS and low NOACK (3.5 cP and 6% with LS30) since I tow a 6000 lbs race program several times a month, sometimes 500+ miles away. I began to wonder though if just a simple ACEA A3/B3 oil (like M1 HM 10w-30) would work just as well at half the cost. I should be more concerned about the little 4L60E in that situation than the engine.
 
Last edited:
I used the M1 HM 10w30 in my 2010 GMC … was a bit quieter than 5w30

Agree with 4L60e comments … I put in a TruCool, remote filter, and B&M drain plug at the same time …
Could do a Fram XG16 and pan ATF change in 20 minutes … Clean too …

BiL had BG flush every 50k and got 400k from his 4L60e (he did not tow)
 
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Why train drivers (British) are called Engineers in US?
grin2.gif
can you even find a calculator in the cab?


How can they be called "drivers" if they don't steer?
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted by Triple_Se7en
OP
I have never walked down the oil aisle at Walmart and based my oil-buying decision on HTHS, PAO content or TBN.
My vehicles still last 18 years and perhaps I should walk down a different aisle at Walmart and consider a cure for what actually kills my 18 year-old vehicles....... that being rust.


I just changed the oil on my 83 Caprice yesterday...as usual I can't do it without noticing a spot I need to grab my can of krown rust control and spray because it's gotten dry (a rear brake line, some sections of the frame). That is definitely what's extended the life of my car.

For the oil change it got what was on sale (motomaster high mileage full synthetic 5w30). Not my first choice but like I said it was on sale.
 
Ok, I'm not an engineer and I don't have to steer. I just sit and look out of the window drink, coffee, smoke cigarettes and sing Johnny Cash.
Longest train; 13,400 foot double stack container with "distributed power" 2x AC44s leading, 2x 1/3 back, 2x 2/3 back and one on the tail end.
I once rescued a coal train with a potash train for a total of 45,000 tons.
I didn't need a calculator because we use SAE 40 in the locomotives.

Edit; Retired and working full time for a class 3. I need a calculator to add up my annual income.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
Strangely, I feel like I'm getting the same way since joining BITOG. I've been using Amsoil SS and, more recently, Driven LS30 in my Tahoe for high HTHS and low NOACK (3.5 cP and 6% with LS30) since I tow a 6000 lbs race program several times a month, sometimes 500+ miles away. I began to wonder though if just a simple ACEA A3/B3 oil (like M1 HM 10w-30) would work just as well at half the cost. .

It's a matter of How Much Better. Basically, Driven LS30 uses mPAO for extra film strength and viscosity maintenance under high pressures/temperatures/shear. It is better than cheaper M1 10w30, yet I'd say there is not much more than 10%-20% difference between the two oils in wear performance. Is that worth the extra price for the Driven mPAO oil? For some, yes. Towing might benefit from it. Racing a little, that too. .... It is a nice "trick" oil since about everybody else avoids mPAO due to high material costs. Lake Speed Jr. explains it best at the 2:18 point if you don't want to hear the whole interview:
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan

...If you do hold a degree and make similar statements, it implies that you either don't respect your colleagues because you lack maturity or simply are not capable of understanding their work and lack a deep understanding of science and engineering beyond a superficial knowledge from your training or more likely some combination of the two...


Now wait a minute Gokhan, at least 8 of us here have advanced degrees in various fields and I think we do respect each other, even though we may disagree at times, but criticism of a Hypothesis alone does not constitute disrespect or immaturity.

Crtical analysis is feedback, suggestions, etc.

If, as a scientist or researcher, one cannot accept feedback and criticism from peers, then maybe an alternative career path is in one's future.


Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
...Instead of shooting down Gokhan's equations and model by saying: "It hasn't been tested in the lab to verify accuracy, so it's useless.", how about start by analyzing his equations and model to see exactly how he derived it, and showing why it's not a decent way to model and estimate what he claims it does.


This same type of discussion has come up at least three times; see
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/forums/53/1/technical-and-white-papers

and many of us have analyzed those equations and methodology and found them wanting in certain respects.

As for Verification and Validation, this is an integral part of any System's Analyses.

See:

Modeling and Simulation V and V
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
...Instead of shooting down Gokhan's equations and model by saying: "It hasn't been tested in the lab to verify accuracy, so it's useless.", how about start by analyzing his equations and model to see exactly how he derived it, and showing why it's not a decent way to model and estimate what he claims it does.

This same type of discussion has come up at least three times; see
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/forums/53/1/technical-and-white-papers

and many of us have analyzed those equations and methodology and found them wanting in certain respects.

As for Verification and Validation, this is an integral part of any System's Analyses.

See: Modeling and Simulation V and V


Of course, I've dealt with Systems Engineering, and qualification and V&V testing for many years in my career. We all know there is no way Gokhan's theory and equations can be V&V here by anyone, so all we can do is go down the same path he did to develop the model and find any major flaws in it. If no major flaws can be found in the theory and equations, then it's just a question of how accurate is the model and equations. Of course you can't do that without doing some actual V&V testing, so it just goes in circles because it's easy to say it's bunk because it hasn't been verified, especially for people who haven't tried themselves to go down the same (or their own modified) path he has with his theory.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by MolaKule
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
...Instead of shooting down Gokhan's equations and model by saying: "It hasn't been tested in the lab to verify accuracy, so it's useless.", how about start by analyzing his equations and model to see exactly how he derived it, and showing why it's not a decent way to model and estimate what he claims it does.

This same type of discussion has come up at least three times; see
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/forums/53/1/technical-and-white-papers

and many of us have analyzed those equations and methodology and found them wanting in certain respects.

As for Verification and Validation, this is an integral part of any System's Analyses.

See: Modeling and Simulation V and V


Of course, I've dealt with Systems Engineering, and qualification and V&V testing for many years in my career. We all know there is no way Gokhan's theory and equations can be V&V here by anyone, so all we can do is go down the same path he did to develop the model and find any major flaws in it. If no major flaws can be found in the theory and equations, then it's just a question of how accurate is the model and equations. Of course you can't do that without doing some actual V&V testing, so it just goes in circles because it's easy to say it's bunk because it hasn't been verified, especially for people who haven't tried themselves to go down the same (or their own modified) path he has with his theory.

Nicely said.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Instead of shooting down Gokhan's equations and model by saying: "It hasn't been tested in the lab to verify accuracy, so it's useless.", how about start by analyzing his equations and model to see exactly how he derived it, and showing why it's not a decent way to model and estimate what he claims it does.

The problem is that models have to be verified. Dimensional analysis can be checked briefly to see that the units are at least appropriate, but that shows merely that the units are plausible, not that there's any relationship. I can measure the length of a room and the time I've been in there and divide those two numbers and get a velocity, but it's related to absolutely nothing, and then divide that number by the time it took me to do the calculation and get an acceleration, again just as out there. Gokhan believes there is a relationship, and he may very well be right. It has to be tested. Inability to test something doesn't eliminate the requirement for testing. At the very least, couch something in a completely testable fashion and devise an experiment, even if you can't carry it out, since someone else can. That's happened many times.

Where I really begin to have problems is when we take an untested relationship and then claim it can be used to get improved precision on one of the tested values, which is a load of bollocks because by that very statement we've created an untestable hypothesis - which is pseudoscience by its very definition. You get the relationship tested and then verified as a scientific law, with all other inputs having a much higher degree of confidence (and no confounding factors like a one or two significant figure physical constant), then we might have something.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
If no major flaws can be found in the theory and equations, then it's just a question of how accurate is the model and equations.

Who cares whether anyone finds flaws? If they do, the model could still be right. If they don't, the model could still be wrong.

It's ALWAYS a question of how accurate the model is.


Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Of course you can't do that without doing some actual V&V testing, so it just goes in circles because it's easy to say it's bunk because it hasn't been verified, especially for people who haven't tried themselves to go down the same (or their own modified) path he has with his theory.

Let's be clear about something: the problem here is not that Gokhan is definitely wrong. The problem is that he's acting as though he's definitely right.
 
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Let's be clear about something: the problem here is not that Gokhan is definitely wrong. The problem is that he's acting as though he's definitely right.


Well of course, because people who develope a model and the inputs and outputs seem to make sense, then they will believe it's valid to some degree and that it works until someone can prove otherwise.

Just like 540Rat's oil testing and ranking blog, lots of guys think it's worthless because of his test methods, but nobody can prove that the data is useless or not. People can believe or not. But as said, it's easy for people to question just about anything and say it's garbage, but they can't or won't even try to prove and show why they think it's wrong.

There are people here that don't even believe in a 20 year old ISO international industry filter efficiency testing standard (ISO 4548-12) or various SAE technical studies, so how are they going to believe some guy's oil properties analysis model.
 
It's not up to anyone to be able to prove that Rat's or Gokhan's "science" is worthless.

It's up to the proponents of this "science" to prove that their models and theories are valid, repeatable, and representative of actual behaviour.

And neither do...the defer to their credentials..."I am right you are wrong" type statements, and either ignore requests for validation, or in RAT's case rewrite the question as a strawman and beat on that for a bit.

I can't prove that the FSM DOESN'T exist...but you can prove that he DOES by presenting him.

You can't ask people to prove the nul hypothesis, and use that lack of proof as evidence of the worth of these things.

(Similarly the "what is YOUR model then" strawman is an equally invalid logical flaw)
 
When one begins by assuming the truth of an Hypothesis which he sets out to establish, this therefore begs the important question of the validity of an Hypothesis by assuming his truth has already been established. While question-begging is by no means absent from science, they are not normally considered to be an acceptable part of the scientific enterprise.
 
Last edited:
My calculator is neither a hypothesis nor rating of oils. It is a simple model/calculator that was shown to work for at least some of the oils, such as the ones in the Exxon Mobil blending guide.

Its sole intention to understand oils better. Its values are estimates only and the caveats were given that it will fail for some of the less common VII types and may not be accurate for some others, as it assumes a temperature-independent viscosity boost by the VII (not true for all VIIs, especially for the PMA type). But then, if the results don't make sense, that could give clues on the VII type or base-oil type, which still makes it useful. Also, of course, the output is only good as the parameters taken from the PDS. If the caveats are understood and the meaning of the properties it estimates are appreciated, it could help one in selecting an oil. Even if that fails, it educates one from a theoretical perspective on what matters when selecting an oil.
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
It's not up to anyone to be able to prove that Rat's or Gokhan's "science" is worthless.

It's up to the proponents of this "science" to prove that their models and theories are valid, repeatable, and representative of actual behaviour.


If people don't believe someone's claim based on the proponent's info/data, then they must have a reason in their mind to not believe it, and should have some kind of technical info/data that debunks the proponent's claims. If they don't have anything to prove it's inaccurate, then they are just blowing smoke. Many of the technical people here usually provide that scary data and graphs to support their claims. Others that make claims with no data to back it up, or people who claim someone else's claims are garage with no backup info to refute someone's claim aren't very believable either.

The proponent of the science or test method may be locked into believing misconceptions, therefore it's better if an independent source verifies if the model or data is true and accurate if it goes to that degree of validation. Similar to how a college thesis is developed and then scrutinized by a technical community for its validity. If people don't believe the science the proponent is claiming, then the only way to prove otherwise is to show why it's not true or accurate, and that may include coming up with their own mathematical model or test methods to prove what's actually true or not. That's not an equally invalid logical flaw in the development of science. Remember the 'cold fusion' claims that turned out to be bogus.
 
Originally Posted by JAG
For additional data to compare to the outputs of the tool/model, there are many motor oil patents that could be used...


What substantive data can you glean from motor oil patents?

Motor oil patents are as loosey-goosey as Safety Data Sheets.

Take any motor oil patent or any chemistry patent and try to nail down the exact formulation.

You may get 10 or more different formulae described and within each formulation the components may vary as much as +, - 50% or more; and the reason is give the patent as much coverage as possible.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by MolaKule
What substantive data can you glean from motor oil patents?

If you can do that then the company's patent lawyers should be fired.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
Low Kinematic high hths?
Replies
12
Views
2K
CR94
Al
High or Low Viscosity.
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Triple_Se7en
R
Motul 8100 0w-20: Eco-Lite vs Eco-Clean (or anything else)? For Citroen C1 (Toyota Aygo)
Replies
11
Views
939
vinu_neuro
J
A3/B4 in 2GR-FE
Replies
14
Views
1K
Georgiey22
S
API versus Euro oil, for the same engine
Replies
17
Views
1K
KCJeep
Back
Top