Understanding Viscosity and HTHS

JAG

Joined
Oct 23, 2005
Messages
5,316
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Originally Posted by MolaKule
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.
Some of them provide a table with specific base oils in the rows and percentages of each base oil are in the table, along with the percentage of additive package and the motor oils' viscosity. This is not in the upper parts of the patent where large windows of various components are mentioned. That's the loosey-goose part.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
5,677
Location
Paramount, California
By the way, I ran into two very recent papers by the same authors solely devoted to VIIs (all types of it) and the HTHSV as a function the temperature and shear rate. You will be surprised but it turns out that the temporary shear of the VIIs had never been studied quantitatively until last year, primarily due to high-shear viscometers past the nominal 1,000,000 1/second shear rate not being available until recently, and this is all state-of-the-art research! I will post these in a new thread.
 
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
28,089
Location
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted by Gokhan
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.
Semantics doesn't change the scientific method. It is either a hypothesis - if you can couch it as testable - or it is pseudoscience because it's untestable. It certainly isn't a physical law at this point. I also take issue with you claiming it isn't even a hypothesis in one thread and then claiming it can divine HTHS to greater precision than published HTHS test results in another thread. Which is it? That's my main issue with all this. If you want to say this is just something nifty that might be a relationship and is nice to look at, that's great. I can go along with that. That happens for a time, and then we have other threads where you're using it to make some vaunted claim about a specific oil or that you can divine base stocks or calculate HTHS to some untestable precision. If you want a nifty calculator that's cool to look at and interesting to play with, have at it. That happens all the time with the Harman Index and various viscosity calculators. If you want to claim that the calculator tells you something wondrous about Valvoline Advanced Protection or gives you insight into M1 HM base stocks or gives you an extra decimal place or two over a measured HTHS, you're going to run into strong objections, and this should be no surprise. I love your passion and interest in these topics. I like you bringing new things and new thoughts to the table all the time. Remember, though, that your education, experience, and presence on this board bring with them a good deal of responsibility to ensure that people don't get filled with improper ideas about what you're really intending and trying to accomplish or leave here with a misunderstanding of the scientific method.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Messages
6,570
Location
New Braunfels
I like that you are trying to develop a tool. If it works on your theory that is great. But so far it appears to be correlation Of behaviors you are using as a basis and not actual measurements.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
By the way, I ran into two very recent papers by the same authors solely devoted to VIIs (all types of it) and the HTHSV as a function the temperature and shear rate. You will be surprised but it turns out that the temporary shear of the VIIs had never been studied quantitatively until last year, primarily due to high-shear viscometers past the nominal 1,000,000 1/second shear rate not being available until recently, and this is all state-of-the-art research! I will post these in a new thread.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,656
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
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.
That's not how science works, and you as an engineer should understand that... I've black swanned Gokhan before, on the BOQI...I demonstrated that the mobil blend guide, with a raft of different viscosities gave a different "Base Oil Quality", to the tune of 25%, with base oils that were all part of the same PAO family... Gokhan countered that the mobil blend guide was essentially advertising material, and not a recipe book...now it's the basis of the new super computer... Next effort was the BOQI2, which then mashed HTHS (of the finished product) with the BOQI of item 1, and was the umber mashing validated by the mobil blend guide, which is now infallible... So I know (from reading the patent on which BOQI was based) that it's an incorrect application of the technique...only to be countered with an argument identical to yours, asking me to show my own calculation of base oil quality, or my statements regarding his version hold no merit. Understanding a theory to be most probably flawed does NOT require you to have a competing theory....especially when it comes to divining the constituents of an over the counter engine oil from the manufacturer's data sheet. Now get to this one...the opening statement was that the theory was based on the VII having no effect at high shear rates...a statement that is patently wrong...now the spreadsheet PROVES that it does.... I'm a little disappointed in you as an engineer if you give this, and RAT credence because others haven't built a basestock calculator or valvetrain wear simulator (with accuracy to 8 decimal places)...seriously, that's the first big argument against RATs rankings...ASTM can only get to +/- 20%, ehile he can claim (and will not defend) 8 decimal places...making the vast majority of his results "the same"
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
33,640
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
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.
That's not how science works, and you as an engineer should understand that... I've black swanned Gokhan before, on the BOQI...I demonstrated that the mobil blend guide, with a raft of different viscosities gave a different "Base Oil Quality", to the tune of 25%, with base oils that were all part of the same PAO family... Gokhan countered that the mobil blend guide was essentially advertising material, and not a recipe book...now it's the basis of the new super computer... Next effort was the BOQI2, which then mashed HTHS (of the finished product) with the BOQI of item 1, and was the umber mashing validated by the mobil blend guide, which is now infallible... So I know (from reading the patent on which BOQI was based) that it's an incorrect application of the technique...only to be countered with an argument identical to yours, asking me to show my own calculation of base oil quality, or my statements regarding his version hold no merit. Understanding a theory to be most probably flawed does NOT require you to have a competing theory....especially when it comes to divining the constituents of an over the counter engine oil from the manufacturer's data sheet. Now get to this one...the opening statement was that the theory was based on the VII having no effect at high shear rates...a statement that is patently wrong...now the spreadsheet PROVES that it does....
Well, you did exactly what I said someone should do (in red above) if they don't believe someone's claims - you came up with info and reasons to show why you don't believe the claims. You dug into it and tried to show where the model or equations are lacking or wrong. At some level the development of science does work that way ... there are scientists/engineers/physicists that challenge other's theories and studies all the time, and come up with their own theories, models, analysis and tests. There is also science that is "updated" as time and technology progresses (better analysis models, better testing methods, etc).
Originally Posted by Shannow
I'm a little disappointed in you as an engineer if you give this, and RAT credence because others haven't built a basestock calculator or valvetrain wear simulator (with accuracy to 8 decimal places)...seriously, that's the first big argument against RATs rankings...ASTM can only get to +/- 20%, while he can claim (and will not defend) 8 decimal places...making the vast majority of his results "the same"
Woah now ... I haven't gave anyone "credence" - don't know where you got that idea. If you recall the threads about Rat's oil ranking testing (you can go find and read them again), I'm the one who sat down and did error analysis (assuming his measurements were not very accurate or repeatable) to show that his data was basically useless unless you maybe divided the top 100 oils into a "good", "better" and "best" category (ie, just 3 categories instead of a #1 to a #100 ranging). Without knowing exactly how Rat does his testing and measurements, all one can do is assume some kind of error analysis on his data. Someone would have use a more "official" proven oil performance test program to prove Rat's data was correlating or not. And I'm not interested in trying to debunk Gokhan's model/equations ... I'm just saying has anyone clearly debunked his claims by showing info or flaws in his model and equations? You and others have gone down that road, but who's really right, wrong or in between at this point?
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,656
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
. I'm just saying has anyone clearly debunked his claims by showing info or flaws in his model and equations? You and others have gone down that road, but who's really right, wrong or in between at this point?
Has Gokhan demonstrated that his calculator GIVES the information that he is claiming with regard to basestocks from finished oil data sheets...it's "calibrated" to a set of information that he debunked as marketting a few months ago (when it didn't fit his BOQI theory)....and the rest of the conclusions are speculation from there. Surely the proponent of a "science" is the one first accountable for demonstrating that it works...
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
5,677
Location
Paramount, California
Originally Posted by Shannow
That's not how science works, and you as an engineer should understand that... I've black swanned Gokhan before, on the BOQI...I demonstrated that the mobil blend guide, with a raft of different viscosities gave a different "Base Oil Quality", to the tune of 25%, with base oils that were all part of the same PAO family... Gokhan countered that the mobil blend guide was essentially advertising material, and not a recipe book...now it's the basis of the new super computer... Next effort was the BOQI2, which then mashed HTHS (of the finished product) with the BOQI of item 1, and was the umber mashing validated by the mobil blend guide, which is now infallible... So I know (from reading the patent on which BOQI was based) that it's an incorrect application of the technique...only to be countered with an argument identical to yours, asking me to show my own calculation of base oil quality, or my statements regarding his version hold no merit. Understanding a theory to be most probably flawed does NOT require you to have a competing theory....especially when it comes to divining the constituents of an over the counter engine oil from the manufacturer's data sheet. Now get to this one...the opening statement was that the theory was based on the VII having no effect at high shear rates...a statement that is patently wrong...now the spreadsheet PROVES that it does.... I'm a little disappointed in you as an engineer if you give this, and RAT credence because others haven't built a basestock calculator or valvetrain wear simulator (with accuracy to 8 decimal places)...seriously, that's the first big argument against RATs rankings...ASTM can only get to +/- 20%, ehile he can claim (and will not defend) 8 decimal places...making the vast majority of his results "the same"
Shannow, how can you claim to be the absolute authority/judge on what is good science/what is bad science, especially if you don't get involved in the actual scientific discussion except your smearing campaign? A smearing campaign aimed at someone's work, credentials, and abilities does not constitute science or scientific discussion.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Now get to this one...the opening statement was that the theory was based on the VII having no effect at high shear rates...a statement that is patently wrong...now the spreadsheet PROVES that it does....
My opening statement about the "high-temperature, full-shear viscosity (HTFSV)," a cute term I coined to describe the dynamic base-oil viscosity at 150 °C: Perhaps I hadn't researched into the so-called second Newtonian phase sufficiently before I came up with the term. In the last couple of months since this thread, you beat me over and over this, perhaps a dozen times, claiming that I have no idea what I am talking about and all my work should be disregarded. That's despite that what the second Newtonian phase actually is does not alter my calculation. Any reasonable person would bring it up only once or perhaps twice, and if the other person is wrong, it's not the end of the world. But what if you were actually the one who was wrong? It turns out that you were totally wrong after all, and in the second Newtonian phase, the VII does fully shear and has no effect on the viscosity. The only thing that affects the viscosity in the second Newtonian phase is the base oil and unsheared part of the detergent-inhibitor package. I will post this paper, which is a very recent state-of-the-art work, soon.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,656
Location
'Stralia
Post them...then well both know something that NEITHER of us knew at post 1....assuming of course that your interpretation is correct...which we have had issues with in the past. I have no issues whatsoever with learning new stuff Edit...you've been pointing to these brand new revelations for days. Just post them
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
5,677
Location
Paramount, California
Originally Posted by Shannow
Post them...then well both know something that NEITHER of us knew at post 1....assuming of course that your interpretation is correct...which we have had issues with in the past. I have no issues whatsoever with learning new stuff Edit...you've been pointing to these brand new revelations for days. Just post them
Not for days, just for a day. It's an excellent paper and going to take a while to summarize it. I'll post it today or tomorrow. Yes, I agree 100% about learning new stuff!
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
33,640
Location
PNW
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
I'm just saying has anyone clearly debunked his claims by showing info or flaws in his model and equations? You and others have gone down that road, but who's really right, wrong or in between at this point?
Has Gokhan demonstrated that his calculator GIVES the information that he is claiming with regard to basestocks from finished oil data sheets...it's "calibrated" to a set of information that he debunked as marketting a few months ago (when it didn't fit his BOQI theory)....and the rest of the conclusions are speculation from there. Surely the proponent of a "science" is the one first accountable for demonstrating that it works...
He has been demonstrating it and he seems to think it works for the most part to some degree of accuracy, but people don't think it's a good model. That's my point, if people don't believe the claim then they need to technically point out why it's not valid with their own technical information. This happens all the time on this chat board when technical claims are made. People can't just say "it's invalid" without showing why they think it's wrong (not you, I'm talking in general).
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,656
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by Gokhan
It turns out that you were totally wrong after all, and in the second Newtonian phase, the VII does fully shear and has no effect on the viscosity. The only thing that affects the viscosity in the second Newtonian phase is the base oil and unsheared part of the detergent-inhibitor package. I will post this paper, which is a very recent state-of-the-art work, soon.
Will be very interested in how the science has been re-written. Everything up to there has indicated that VMs DO impact KV100 and HTHS...after all, molecules in the 1000MW up range can't simply disappear under temporary shear. [Linked Image] http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/30861/1/IJCT%205(5)%20309-314.pdf
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2002
Messages
43,656
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Not for days, just for a day. It's an excellent paper and going to take a while to summarize it. I'll post it today or tomorrow.
Been a number of suns up down here. how about posting the links so that we can all read it, and form discussion points.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
5,677
Location
Paramount, California
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by Gokhan
It turns out that you were totally wrong after all, and in the second Newtonian phase, the VII does fully shear and has no effect on the viscosity. The only thing that affects the viscosity in the second Newtonian phase is the base oil and unsheared part of the detergent-inhibitor package. I will post this paper, which is a very recent state-of-the-art work, soon.
Will be very interested in how the science has been re-written. Everything up to there has indicated that VMs DO impact KV100 and HTHS...after all, molecules in the 1000MW up range can't simply disappear under temporary shear. [Linked Image] http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/30861/1/IJCT%205(5)%20309-314.pdf
Shannow, I have never disputed that. Of course, the VII influences both the KV100 and HTHSV. That's what my calculator calculates. I don't know where you are coming up with the idea that I am claiming otherwise and this is not the first time. The claim is about the second Newtonian phase, which occurs beyond the 10,000,000 - 100,000,000 1/second shear rate. HTHSV measurement is not performed in the second Newtonian phase but the non-Newtonian phase between the first and second Newtonian phases. I am about to post the paper.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
5,677
Location
Paramount, California
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Not for days, just for a day. It's an excellent paper and going to take a while to summarize it. I'll post it today or tomorrow.
Been a number of suns up down here. how about posting the links so that we can all read it, and form discussion points.
Yes, the sun is coming down in 45 minutes here and I am about to post it.
 

ZeeOSix

$100 site donor 2022
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
33,640
Location
PNW
Shannow, can you post that graph showing the oil shear rates in various engine parts vs engine RPM. I can't seem to find it, and want to see where the shear rates exceed way above the standard 1M 1/sec shear rate used for 150C HTHS. Thanks.
 
Top