IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant

Status
Not open for further replies.
C3 was developed for European cars, but it meets specs for cars sold here - BMW's LL04 is a bit odd, as they still list the US as having "dirty" gasoline, but in realize, ours is a whole lot closer to Europe's. Millers has been working to try to get BMW to reconsider its recommendation of LL01, which is meant for dirtier (i.e. higher sulfer content) gasolines. But it also meets MB 229.51, BMW 502.00 and 505.00, and also GM's Dexos2.

At present, we do not intend to bring in the fuel additive; however, if I can get an order ahead of time (like this week), we'll bring in some. That pretty much applies to everything. Please call at (865)200-4264 if you want to place an order.

Unfortunately, I just got pricing for the oil last week, just sent a note asking about pricing for the fuel additive. hope to get that very quickly for anyone here.
 
Originally Posted By: dailydriver

THIS is my answer to all of those on here who say the oils I use are "overkill", and "just lightening my wallet", or that I should just use an off the shelf Sino-Mart oil, since the LSxes in Vettes came with that as the factory fill.
lol.gif



The frustrating part is that the engineers don't always get much input! When I was at Ford, they started putting the BP starburst on the fuel caps. No one in engine knew anything about it, it just happened.

About a week later, a report came out (may have been CR?) with a recommended list of fuels - Texaco, Chevron, Shell, etc. BP was not on the list
 
If I may comment. Ceramic is something else. It may be a nano particle (or may not). It is probably Hex Boron nitride. It works. It is not in the same league as IF WS2.

Hex boron = lubricant

IF WS2 = LUBRICANT!!
 
In another vein. I just lubricated a new semi-auto pistol with normal WS2 with a nominal particle size of 600nm. Results from simple "play with it" test. Not live fire. And the gun is essentially unfired. Slide effort does not feel like it has changed. I was really hoping it would. But the gun is not broken and is built to very close tolerances. Trigger is noticeably better. Second identical unfired gun was used as an A/B comparison.

I put some WS2 in 99% alcohol and used a hypodermic to put it in all the usual places. Let it dry. Operated action. I would shoot it, but have you tried to find any ammo or reloading components?

I have ordered some of the Millers Oils 10W30 nano consumer oil. I will try that on another identical gun. I don't particularly want the oil, but I can remove it after a while.

All this presumes it will still be legal for me to have guns after the anti-gun crazies are done. Aaargh - I will not discuss politics per conditions of use.

A note to people trying this (with any version of WS2) - it is messy. If you have dealt with liquid formulations of Molybdenum Disulphide, you know what to expect. Newspaper (or something), paper towels, gloves, careful not to get it on things you do not want to change color. I suggest blue masking tape. Blue masking tape is second only to duct tape as a universal tool.

I once built an entire TV set to tape a cooking show series with nothing but cardboard, duct tape and cans of spray paint. In two days. And they loved it. And they were shocked. Ah, the power of duct tape.

After I posted this I saw a request to post responses in another thread. Perhaps you could just include a link to this thread in the other thread.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: alternety
In another vein. I just lubricated a new semi-auto pistol with normal WS2 with a nominal particle size of 600nm. Results from simple "play with it" test. Not live fire. And the gun is essentially unfired. Slide effort does not feel like it has changed. I was really hoping it would. But the gun is not broken and is built to very close tolerances. Trigger is noticeably better. Second identical unfired gun was used as an A/B comparison.

I put some WS2 in 99% alcohol and used a hypodermic to put it in all the usual places. Let it dry. Operated action. I would shoot it, but have you tried to find any ammo or reloading components?

I have ordered some of the Millers Oils 10W30 nano consumer oil. I will try that on another identical gun. I don't particularly want the oil, but I can remove it after a while.

After I posted this I saw a request to post responses in another thread. Perhaps you could just include a link to this thread in the other thread.


A couple of quick points. First, a question. 600nm is about an order of magnitude larger than the NT in our engine oils - was that a typo? That feature size is getting pretty large, not sure it would be as effective.

Second, our engine oils have a thermally activated aspect to them. I'm not sure of the mechanism, perhaps it is to force some of the outer layers to exfoliate and create the "tribofilm," I'm not certain. Regardless, the engines have to run for about 15-20 minutes to realize the full benefits. The term Millers uses is "plate out." It may be inherent to the technology, or it may be specific to Millers, but it may explain why you weren't able to relize the benefit as much as you'd hoped.

Was the request to link this thread directed to me? I found another one I want to add to, regarding startup friction, wear, but I'm still waiting to hear back from Wayne about sponsorship. Perhaps I should comment in there and see what I can work out with Wayne when he gets a chance to answer my questions.
 
Yes 600nm nominal is correct. It is not IF which is inherently in the 60nm range. I suspect heat may help, but the mechanism is basically being burnished into the surfaces. It can actually be applied with just fairly low pressure air to create the necessary surface. I actually would not be surprised if the oil actually slows the process. It is busily at work trying to keep interfering surfaces apart and the closer they are to each other, the better the take up of the IF WS2.

The less than hoped for results on the gun are most likely because the springs are the dominant factor or there still needs to be a bit of wear in of the base surfaces. Right now the surfaces are close tolerance but still have the gross fitment issues caused by machining the surfaces. It is known that the guns "loosen up" after the first 100-200 rounds are fired.

It will be interesting to see how the second gun reacts to the nano oil. It will probably take a while. I will probably need to use it; strip the oil and see how it works and repeat as needed. I am not a fan of wet gun lube. One of the reasons that started me on this whole thing. And 9mm ammo is essentially non-replaceable at this time. I don't have a lot of plinking sort of ammo.
 
Last edited:
Ah, okay, that makes sense.

I'm with you on the ammo, as well. Recent new gun owner - Sig SP2022 in 9mm. APparently I need to break it in, but can't find ammo and the range ammo is pretty expensive. Will be interested to read what you find out as you play with it, more.

Also need to keep this in mind for when my son gets a little oder and starts doing the pinewood derby thing - graphite was also the dry lube of choice when I was a kid
smile.gif
 
Actually one of the places online that sells a large particle regular type WS2 markets to the pinewood derby people. It has all the advantages of the molly, really nasty black dirty and so you retain the experience of cleaning up your son, and it is a better lubricant. You could do some experiments on derby cars and see if the speed of two identical cars is different with WS2 vs Moly. And maybe open a new market for your racing oil :).
 
Just to expand on the IF WS2 thing. It would probably work better if you could just get the raw WS2 powder and stick in a [censored] oil or some solvent). Probably the worse the lubricity of the carrier the better. You want the WS2 to get between the two wear/friction parts. Good oil would (I presume) slowdown this process.

If the engine would live through it, I suspect something like kerosine or other minimally lubricious fluid would work best to plate the appropriate surfaces. Perhaps one of the sludge treatment products plus WS2.

It would be interesting to see some experimental results from IF WS2 and an non-lubricious (i.e., cleaner) carrier. How long to run it. Damage evaluation. If the engine could make it through without damage; it would seem like the best approach. Going this way, one would get out anything currently being carried by the oil or condensed on the surfaces (changing filter at least once in the process) and thoroughly purging the existing oil during a change (like flushing with kerosene).
 
I believe it (the non-IF WS2)has been around for at least a year in the little racer market. Maybe some racers have kept it a secret and used it as secret sauce.
 
alternety - I am curious if you have ever run across anything that compares Nano IF-WS2 to Nano Sublimated WS2 (The other way to get nearly spherical WS2) to the standard Nano Lamellar WS2 (Crystal Platelet) in the same size range? I have seen reports comparing Nano IF-WS2 to Lamellar WS2 of unspecified size but they are typically in the order of "We compared our product to the results seen in report X" to make their determinations, but I can never find a side by side with the same sizes at the same test facility.

I ask the above because I always find myself questioning and often grinning at how some manufacturers describe their product as, and bear with me here, a spherical ball bearing like material that fills voids and sticks to the surface and may exfoliate under high pressure to provide a sheet like film coating. You may ask yourself, why do I find some humor in my mental image? It is because I envision a bunch of BB's spot welded to one steel sheet, with another steel sheet placed on top, that is then placed under enough high pressure to crush said BBs into a new sheet like film which now provide a platelet wear barrier and friction reduction surface. I always have to ask myself how these "stuck" ball bearings are providing friction reduction in that mental image even if only at low pressure.

And to follow up on my mental image I have to ask, when WS2 in its various forms has a Rockwell of 30-40, how high (Or low) is high enough pressure to cause said exfoliation? We know that it does take a bit for the oils fluid film layer to fail to the point of metal on metal contact which is where the bonding or burnishing of WS2 in its forms will occur, and where having the WS2 surface coating is beneficial. So how high is the “High Pressure Exfoliation?” Or is it possible that maybe, the actual exfoliation pressure just slightly higher to or the same as the pressure required for bonding the WS2 to the friction surfaces in the first place? If that is the case, then the actual friction reduction and wear protection would not really differ in method (Exfoliated sheets) from standard Lamellar WS2, but the spherical design may provide for better oil suspension due to the possibility of entrapped air in the “Onion Layers” of both IF and Sublimated WS2 morphologies.

I am not knocking IF-WS2 or Sublimated WS2 as a lubricant, but I am curious if in your reading you have found what I haven’t been able to in that kind of side by side testing that shows one of the three morphologies to be a superior material? As a stateside manufacturer of WS2 in its standard lamellar form, I have looked everywhere I could think of and maybe I have just not clicked that last search link that will give me my answer. I would also note that there are three ways to make WS2 so the various properties of the WS2 will vary there as well.

As far as the gun lubrication, I notice a small difference between the slides and triggers of my H&Ks using 0.5 micron (500 nm) and 0.07 micron. But I did notice a larger difference using a 600 micron material, coating the surface and running 100 or so rounds through it and then feeling the action of both slide and trigger. The same holds true in many rougher tolerance applications such as gearboxes. It would appear that the action of the slide & trigger as well as burnishing of the gear teeth actually mills the WS2 to size in the application providing a nice fill and protection. Granted, way too big for an engine or filtered application though so best to stick to Nano material there as the higher surface area allows for the best suspension, as well as ability for filter pass through.

Well, just some thoughts on WS2 but more importantly a serious inquiry for any study info or reports if you have seen them.
 
Another silly mind view is of little bitty engagement rings being crushed by the products advertising they use diamonds.

Regarding your question. I do not recollect ever seeing a comparison between various forms of WS2. It has always been between WS2 and some form of oil. That makes the results spectacular; particularly if you have figured out how to make commercial quantities of IF WS2. Nor have I seen good information of the "effectiveness" of the Fullerenes structure delaminating vs other surface bonding approaches.

The following is purely my thinking on the subject. I have never seen corroborating data.

One thing I have thought would improve the results of the IF is the resultant size of material. The Bucky balls seem to run about 60nm. Now comes the guessing/assumptions. When a 60nm BB (see your mind image might have more validity than you thought) breaks up it seems to do so in layers. It does not really "peel" the onion. I suspect the forces necessary to cause this onion slicing is less that to remove a smaller piece (mill off) of a monolithic form. Now, if the diameter of the entire BB starts at 60nm, you can get some very small particles from this process. The net result is that it is easier for the pieces to bond in the roughness of the surface to be lubricated. A 60nm particle is not going to fall into a 2nm surface imperfection. But a destroyed BB part will. So you get a smoother plating of the target substrates with a mix ranging from 60nm and down.

Conclusion: IF works better because it delivers much smaller particles resulting in smoother mating surfaces. And probably sooner than any long term performance of "lesser" particles.

You also raise a point that I have been curious about:eek:il. Inherently oil (shorthand here for anything being used as a lubricant) is designed to get between the substrate surfaces and add a slippery film. When you put in WS2, it will be a lot harder for the surface burnishing to take place because it is being insulated from the pressure and contact it really wants to have. It has to be real bad oil to result in the metal-to-metal interface you would like to have for plating. If the BBs slice with less force than normal particles, it could then improve time to improved performance in an oil carrier.

In an operating engine or gears etc. there has to be an oil to carry the WS2. The best and fastest results would be achieved by the part manufacturer initially plating the surfaces. The material can be sprayed and will bond at relatively low pressures.

Now - guns. For anything that can be used without oil for a bit; the WS2 should be delivered as a powder suspended in an evaporating carrier. Then operated a few times to embed the WS2. That was my thinking for my gun. Alcohol with WS2. I have not fired the gun since I treated it. But I did work the slide and action many times. I have multiple identical guns and the second one will get some Millers Oils nano oil. It will not be a completely fair result because I am going to replace the trigger group on the second one before lubing it. I will exercise the slide and trigger like I did with the first one (dry fire is OK). And when we can buy ammo again, I will do some shooting. These guns are known to be built to very tight tolerances (they are a work of art) and will change significantly after a few hundred rounds. This means it is not really a good testbed because there are more than one changed factor involved in results. But what I mostly care about is getting them operating as well as I can. I could take a third one and break it in before applying anything; but I won't. There are a few parts inside that the manufacturer recommends be lubricated with a MoS2 grease because of extreme pressures on the surfaces. They are so lubricated from the factory. He uses a grease with Graphite in it - which I don't like. This may mask some of the WS2 effects on those parts. I clean all of that off before I use them. And they probably have not fired more than 7 rounds during factory test. Plus maybe 14 rounds of mine (standard pressure) through the one I have lubed. I could ask them how many they fire. Further violating the basic rules of experimentation, the second gun is black and has a "self lubricating" finish. It will be awhile before I figure out if I am improving anything. If nothing else, I do not think I am doing any harm.
 
Originally Posted By: Coronamaker
I ask the above because I always find myself questioning and often grinning at how some manufacturers describe their product as, and bear with me here, a spherical ball bearing like material that fills voids and sticks to the surface and may exfoliate under high pressure to provide a sheet like film coating. You may ask yourself, why do I find some humor in my mental image? It is because I envision a bunch of BB's spot welded to one steel sheet, with another steel sheet placed on top, that is then placed under enough high pressure to crush said BBs into a new sheet like film which now provide a platelet wear barrier and friction reduction surface. I always have to ask myself how these "stuck" ball bearings are providing friction reduction in that mental image even if only at low pressure.


They stick due in large part because of their size. I believe van der waals forces drive it. But the point about them sticking is that they don't end up just in the sump, the concentration required for them to do anything would be huge if not for the fact that they stick to the metal surfaces.

A way I envision this is they fill low points to make asperities less prone to shearing. You have to remember, they are 60-100nm. I'm not sure what the roughness on bearings is, but it is on the order of microns. By having the BB's there sticking (magnetic would probably be a better mental picture, but they are free to rotate)in the low points would even out the surface to a point where it would almost be as if it were polished to a feature size two orders of magnitude smaller than it currently is. As for the exfoliation, the nanoparticles are manufactured in layers, and they do exfoliate in sheets. Not sure if you are familiar with graphene, but that would be the best analogy I would have. I'd expect that it is the nanoparticles that are in the film separating the two adjacent (moving) parts that would be the ones to exfoliate. But again, the difference is that at the nano level, you've got particles that are small enough to settle into the low spots. With conventional solid lubricants, they would still be on top of the asperities.
 
Interesting thoughts on the lubrication mechanics folks.

I did read about an ongoing project to try to actually watch the lubrication mechanism in a variety of situations regarding Fullerenes. If published openly it will be interesting to see how this all works.

As far as needing to stick to a surface to avoid ending up in the sump, I would offer that the Nano WS2 we work with, even in platelet form, can achieve almost complete suspension in Synthetic Base Stocks which lack the Dispersants found in engine oils. We don't see the Nano materials having any problem with settling out in engine oil. We also see that in the PAO Base Stocks the small amount that may settle after a few weeks only takes a small agitation to remix whereas larger materials like the 0.5 micron in the same ratios take more agitation.

Sticking to the metal surfaces is certainly desireable for several reasons as WS2 in all forms even when not acting in it's capacity to reduce friction, will hold an oil film on the surface which is beneficial for both cold start lubrication, as well as providing an oil barrier on the metal to prevent oxidation if needed. Also, in any area where it has been applied such as by burnishing or air impingement like valves, piston crown, heads, etc. it will reduce carbon and varnish build up by 50% or more acting as a release agent.

I guess I will have to wait for the answer about what differences, if any, are seen in actual lubrication quality between the various forms and methods of production of Nano WS2. It seems that the folks at Apnano have their oil and grease products, but I haven't seen powder offered by them. The folks in Canada with their $330 per 50 gram material which I can only presume they get from their Chinese sources are the only Nano WS2 powder I have really seen actually available in the "Nearly Spherical" form, which makes me think Sublimated since they do not call it IF.

Will the differences be enough to warrant the currently higher prices for IF or "Nearly Spherical" material over the less expensive milled Nano WS2 in Lamellar form?

Maybe my question is really just an extension of the Nano WS2 vs. soluable MoDTC / MoDTP vs. Nano Ceramic price/performance debate?
 
Originally Posted By: Coronamaker

As far as needing to stick to a surface to avoid ending up in the sump, I would offer that the Nano WS2 we work with, even in platelet form, can achieve almost complete suspension in Synthetic Base Stocks which lack the Dispersants found in engine oils.


Sorry, I may have not been clear on that. The nature of the NT is the opposite. It does NOT stay in suspension, van der waals forces will have it migrate to the surfaces. Now, I'm not the expert chemist here (have a couple of degrees in Materials Engineering, but did ME work for Ford), so this is my interpretation of the info that Millers has shared with me. But the point is that as it flows through the engine, it will more or less "settle" onto the metal surfaces, and NOT remain in suspension. If it did, it wouldn't be able to work very well. And again, I'm pretty sure it is van der waals forces that cause the attraction, which is an atomic level bond, meaning the size of the nanoparticles is what enables it (and why it isn't attracted to dispersants).
 
Regarding your comment on oil film and WS2 burnishing.

Some thoughts:

In a perfectly designed and maintained lubrication system, there would always be enough oil being pumped at the right pressures and rates of the right viscosity to provide full Hydrostatic Lubrication. Bearings would rarely if ever have to worry about asperity contact during normal running, but they would still be subjected to apsperity contacts at certain times such as startup where oil is not pumping at sufficient volume and pressure to provide that hydrostatic boundary. In this situation, WS2 which has stuck to the surfaces, be they metal or plastics, or others, will burnish in at this time for a hard bond versus the weaker Van der Waals forces 67King mentioned.

The unpressurized bearings in a system would, again if perfectly designed and maintained, would be protected instead by Hydrodynamic Lubrication. Again though this oil film dies when bearings are stopped or even reversed and the WS2 burnishing of material already stuck to the surface by the Van der Waals forces can again occur at movement restart prior to the film being reformed providing that hard bond if you will.

Most systems though sooner or later have some level of Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication where there is occasional asperity contact. During this phase of Lubricant Film failure to keep the surfaces apart, WS2 will be burnished into the asperities, and smaller particles may start to fill in pits, valleys, scratches, etc as previously mentioned by way of Van der Waals forces.

I have never worked on the perfect system. I know from experience that WS2 in a system such as a lawn mower which relies primarily on Hydrodynamic Lubrication and perhaps not as well designed, benefits much more and coats up much more quickly than does an engine with a nice oil pump, well designed oil passages, the proper oil, and bearings with good tolerances. The well designed engine will still benefit because none are perfect, but it may not have as much asperity contact that will benefit from the WS2 application as quickly or as frequently.

In any event, my point is the oil does not necessarily have to be "real bad oil" for any of these to occur. Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication can happen in a good system when, for example, a novice with their manual transmission pulls from a stop at low RPM lugging the engine which sends load shock waves to the bearings, at a time they are being fed with reduced oil pressure and volume due to engine speed. I have worked on semi trucks which have experienced near fatal bearing galling and deformation due to this particular combination. But it would result in burnishing if you had WS2 in that bearing oil or held by Van der Wall force at the time. There are many similar scenarious where fucntional design and reality can collide, thankfully it is not typically for a long enough duration to kill the components in most cases, it is long enough though to burnish in the WS2 one event at a time.

Just some thoughts.
 
Your reference initially to not ending up in the sump is one I have heard frequently regarding WS2 in a non Nano size which is a concern to many as far as sludge formation. That is where I initially thought you were going with the comment. I was not disputing the van der Waals attraction, causing it to stick to the to the substrates, I was only pointing out that in our work with the material, that settling to the sump was a non issue with Nano WS2 as it will in fact stay suspended in oil due to it's much higher surface area until it bonds with a substrate.

I will have to agree to disagree with the comment about Dispersants though as we have observed absolutely zero settling from the PAO Base Stocks we work with when we introduce even the most mild dispersant package to the mix. Similarly in standard engine oils that we have tested, which of course have a variety of packages, we have observed no settling. The amount of setteling of the Nano material in the straight Base Stock is so low that we do not typically worry about it but it does occur in very small amounts over time.

As far as the van der Waals forces it is actually a molecular interaction and this is the primary working mechanism of all WS2 and MoS2 type lubricants, regardless of size. We have done testing with material from our first pass milled material at 600 micron and smaller, down to the Nano sized material at 70-90 nm. All of them will bond to the substrates not just the Nano materials. The industry standard size for Air Impingement application as specified by NASA, the military, and all of the major users of WS2 is 0.5 micron and I can assure you that it bonds completely as well as providing the friction reduction for which WS2 was developed so many years ago. In burnishing situations when the 600 micron material is made into a paste with alcohol, it can be hand burnished onto subtrates as well and has no bonding problems.

These are just our observations from almost ten years of working with WS2 in general, and over the past year Nano WS2 all in Lamellar form.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top