IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we are talking about two different phenomena. Van der waals forces are basically molecular interaction, unless my chemistry is even rustier than I thought (entirely possible!). When I say that the NT doesn't remain in suspension, I'm not saying it settles out, but rather it remains adhered to the surfaces. This is the case even after the oil is drained, the benefit remains for some time, even if the NT oil is replaced by a non-NT oil. I only mention dispersants, as one might have inferred that if it "sticks" to metal, it may be suspended due to the presence of dispersants.

Boundary lubrication occurs in running engines in the cylinder walls near TDC and BDC, as the piston changes direction, until a wedge can form. WIth the thinner and thinner oils, it is also becoming more common in the bottom end.

Note that bulk material milled down to 70-90 nm still has a non-fullerene molecular structure.

Here are observed start up friction charts. Starts high with virgin oil. Drops as the NT despites, or "plates out," as Millers likes to say. NT remains in place, allowing subsequent start ups to observe reduced friction.
start_up_friction.jpg
 
BTW....I'm sorry I'm not being thorough. Really busy, trying to scan and address as I can. If I misread something or completely overlook it, I apologize.
 
Originally Posted By: 67King
BTW....I'm sorry I'm not being thorough. Really busy, trying to scan and address as I can. If I misread something or completely overlook it, I apologize.


Off-topic, but, did Millers ever get the HTHSV/viscosity index values of their Nano Drive oils (particularly, the 0W-20/0W-30, and 5W-40 weights) to you??
 
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: 67King
BTW....I'm sorry I'm not being thorough. Really busy, trying to scan and address as I can. If I misread something or completely overlook it, I apologize.


Off-topic, but, did Millers ever get the HTHSV/viscosity index values of their Nano Drive oils (particularly, the 0W-20/0W-30, and 5W-40 weights) to you??


Ug, I'm sorry. Yes, we've had that, our web lackey finally got some updates done yesterday. I checked the first two, and those changes were made. But the numbers are:
0w20 >2.6
0w30 >2.9
5w40 >4.4
10w50 >5.1
10w60 >6.0
 
Apnano is now actually selling an additive that specifically says is a Fullerene like WS2. http://www.apnano.com/products/lubricants/ These are the people that I think were one of the very first to productize this stuff. The minimum order for a small amount of the pure material was around $500. They provide no information that I could find on what the difference is between the multiple "products" they are selling now. If I knew that I would probably pick the one with the most WS2/$. They do, however, require a minimum order of case lots. A bottle is most likely a lifetime supply.

If enough people want to try it I would be willing to buy a case and resell it at cost plus shipping to the buyer.
 
I have sent an email to Apnano asking for some differentiating characteristics on their additive products. I am not expecting much but I will keep you informed.
 
Check out a web site called the oil Hub they carry the product. Earlier this spring I purchased a small 250ml bottle for $25.00 plus shipping and have been running the product in my 2001 f150. Several months back I purchased the 1 liter bottle for $70.00 plus shipping and I am in the process of using it in my 2013 RDX.
The Oil Hub
 
I'd really like to see some real data indicating that these 50 or 70 nm particles are truly that size.

In that range, DLVO forces cause agglomeration of particles, and so unless they are surface stabilized with a surfactant or polymer of some kind, probably are actually half micron or larger particle agglomerate s made up of these smaller crystallites.

Where is the actual data and microscopy to validate these are truly separate particles, fully self-stabilized?
 
JHZR2 - On the particle size thing - well documented if you do some research. These are not individual particles per se. They are a spherical structure made of individual particles. They look like carbon based Fullerenes. That is why they are so large. They will delaminate under pressure to produce smaller particles. To the best of my knowledge there are no other materials necessary before you dump them in oil.

lparker - thanks. I went to the Oil Hub site. They carry a lack of information to new heights. Worse than Apnano. Apnano has now posted information on their MP-X products with actual information on how much to use. But not for sale in their store. Previously they only said one bottle/vehicle for the RX. It would appear that the RX products have a much lower IF WS2 content. For the MP products it is 2-4% of the treated material. Oil Hub does not even tell you if it is mineral or synthetic oil based.

Can you tell me what the use rate is from the bottle you have? How much product per quart or Liter of engine oil.
 
You are correct about the lack of information on the product. From what I can remember from my first order I was told to use 1oz per quart of oil. When I ordered the liter they sent me a little more information about the usage rate. I will look for the info in my paperwork [censored] and get back to you later.
 
Originally Posted By: alternety
JHZR2 - On the particle size thing - well documented if you do some research. These are not individual particles per se. They are a spherical structure made of individual particles. They look like carbon based Fullerenes. That is why they are so large. They will delaminate under pressure to produce smaller particles. To the best of my knowledge there are no other materials necessary before you dump them in oil.

lparker - thanks. I went to the Oil Hub site. They carry a lack of information to new heights. Worse than Apnano. Apnano has now posted information on their MP-X products with actual information on how much to use. But not for sale in their store. Previously they only said one bottle/vehicle for the RX. It would appear that the RX products have a much lower IF WS2 content. For the MP products it is 2-4% of the treated material. Oil Hub does not even tell you if it is mineral or synthetic oil based.

Can you tell me what the use rate is from the bottle you have? How much product per quart or Liter of engine oil.



In the particle science and engineering space, 50nm is small.

Doing TEM on highly dispersed crystallites, we may see 5-10nm, but that is a fully stabilized particle with possible SMSI intractions.

Id be inclined to believe that the "nanopartcles" are 50-70nm, but they rapidly agglomerate into a structure that is more like a half micron. That would be consistent with DLVO and numerous studies of milled fine particles that Ive done.
 
JHZR2 - I don't want to start a fight here, but I am not providing opinions or beliefs here. This is hard and proven reality. The Fullerenes are not milled. This is nano technology. The structures are built. At nano sizes, materials take on characteristics unlike anything at the macro scale. Think magic.

They are the size stated. The stated size is the size of the spherical structure (Fullerene)that the WS2 molecules are made to form. The Bucky balls can further delaminate (as I said) under shear forces and allow the constituent WS2 molecules to disperse and bond to surfaces at a significantly smaller particle size in the several nanometer range. Look up Inorganic like Fullerene Tungsten Disulphide(IF WS2).

You arguing about this because you are "inclined to believe". Respectfully, I don't understand why you don't just go and study the technology instead.
 
Originally Posted By: alternety

You arguing about this because you are "inclined to believe". Respectfully, I don't understand why you don't just go and study the technology instead.


I have studied particle stability and means of stabilizing fine particles after milling and to retain fine structure when put into other solutions. Ive done the experiments, made the calculations, and we see a sharp agglomeration after particles reduce to sub 500nm because of the surface energetics.

Im not trying to pick a fight with you, but it still doesnt make sense to say that there is some molecule that is 70nm, or that the particles stay that small - have SEM/TEM to prove this? Why not give the proof rather than saying its out there to believe but not citing?

Sorry, Im really not fighting, I just dont believe it. Particularly based upon first hand R&D experience (with other nanoparticle systems, now WS2) and my quick review of the literature.

A C60 Fullerene is around 1.1nm at the longest dimension.

Qiao, Rui; Roberts, Aaron P.; Mount, Andrew S.; Klaine, Stephen J.; Ke, Pu Chun. "Translocation of C60 and Its Derivatives Across a Lipid Bilayer". Nano Letters. Retrieved 4 September 2010.

A WS2 nanotube with 4-7 walls thickness is less than 20nm

Scheffer, L., Rosentzveig, R., Margolin, A., Popovitz-Biro, R., Seifert, G., Cohen, S. R., & Tenne, R. (2002). Scanning tunneling microscopy study of WS2 nanotubes. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 4(11), 2095-2098.

Here they found 120nm fullerenic WS2 nanoparticles but they were found to be allomerates of multi-layer sheets.

Moshkovith, A., Perfiliev, V., Lapsker, I., Fleischer, N., Tenne, R., & Rapoport, L. (2006). Friction of fullerene-like WS2 nanoparticles: effect of agglomeration. Tribology Letters, 24(3), 225-228.

These structures in that size are multiwall or multi-arranged in this trigonal prismatic structure.

So how "a" fullerene of WS2 is 70nm when the atoms and bonds are on the order of pm (and a C60 fullerene, with no dimension that different is on the order of 1nm) is beyond me.

A simple wikipedia search yields an SEM with bundles of nanotubes (5-8 wall typically) that together make bunches of ca. 20nm.

INT-WS2_SEM_image.JPG


Again, agglomerated. I have no doubt the "nano" particle is somewhere around 70nm, but it cannot exist in that size regime by itself due to external electronic forces of various types, or a LOT of stabilizing chemistry. So the subcomponents (which consist of thousands or millions or billion of WS2 molecules) may be 70nm in their "particle", but that particle agglomerates with others so it exists stabily in a particle of 500nm or more.

That's all Im saying.

Im happy to be wrong and learn something new - but until Ive seen actual peer-reviewed basis for claims, and preferably the reports from calibrated analytical equipment and SEM/TEM, its difficult to believe any claims...

Has anyone run WS2 in oil through a particle scan in a UOA at least?
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: alternety

You arguing about this because you are "inclined to believe". Respectfully, I don't understand why you don't just go and study the technology instead.


I have studied particle stability and means of stabilizing fine particles after milling and to retain fine structure when put into other solutions. Ive done the experiments, made the calculations, and we see a sharp agglomeration after particles reduce to sub 500nm because of the surface energetics.

Im not trying to pick a fight with you, but it still doesnt make sense to say that there is some molecule that is 70nm, or that the particles stay that small - have SEM/TEM to prove this? Why not give the proof rather than saying its out there to believe but not citing?

Please reread what I have said. I have repeatedly said the 60-70nm structure is NOT a molecule. Review the definition of a Bucky Ball or Buckminsterfullerenes (the original Carbon structure is a Buckminsterfullerene (C60)). A simple search of Wikipedia will explain this to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene. It is a structure constructed (occurring) in a pseudo spherical form, sometimes created by humans. Being carbon based, it is referred to as an organic Fullerene. It was once thought that this form could only be attained with Carbon. Not so much. Hence the IF (Inorganic Fullerene like) prefix to IF WS2. The individual components of this structure are much smaller. Probably single digit nm. I have not really paid attention to that point. But really isty bitsy teeny weeny.

I have not provided references because they are readily available with Google. I am not going to go back and reread this thread, but I suspect there are some hints about references; maybe not. No one has really questioned the reality.


Sorry, Im really not fighting, I just dont believe it. Particularly based upon first hand R&D experience (with other nanoparticle systems, now WS2) and my quick review of the literature.

A C60 Fullerene is around 1.1nm at the longest dimension.

A C60 Fullerene does not, by definition, have a longest dimension. I believe you are confusing this with a Carbon nanotube. And that feels like a diameter.

Qiao, Rui; Roberts, Aaron P.; Mount, Andrew S.; Klaine, Stephen J.; Ke, Pu Chun. "Translocation of C60 and Its Derivatives Across a Lipid Bilayer". Nano Letters. Retrieved 4 September 2010.

A WS2 nanotube with 4-7 walls thickness is less than 20nm

Scheffer, L., Rosentzveig, R., Margolin, A., Popovitz-Biro, R., Seifert, G., Cohen, S. R., & Tenne, R. (2002). Scanning tunneling microscopy study of WS2 nanotubes. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 4(11), 2095-2098.

Again, nanotubes. Not the discussion.

Here they found 120nm fullerenic WS2 nanoparticles but they were found to be allomerates of multi-layer sheets.

Moshkovith, A., Perfiliev, V., Lapsker, I., Fleischer, N., Tenne, R., & Rapoport, L. (2006). Friction of fullerene-like WS2 nanoparticles: effect of agglomeration. Tribology Letters, 24(3), 225-228.

These structures in that size are multiwall or multi-arranged in this trigonal prismatic structure.

So how "a" fullerene of WS2 is 70nm when the atoms and bonds are on the order of pm (and a C60 fullerene, with no dimension that different is on the order of 1nm) is beyond me.

Again, I believe there is a mix of Bucky balls and nanotubes in play here. THEY ARE NOT NANOTUBES!

A simple wikipedia search yields an SEM with bundles of nanotubes (5-8 wall typically) that together make bunches of ca. 20nm.

INT-WS2_SEM_image.JPG


Interesting, but Fullerenes are not nanotubes.

Again, agglomerated. I have no doubt the "nano" particle is somewhere around 70nm, but it cannot exist in that size regime by itself due to external electronic forces of various types, or a LOT of stabilizing chemistry. So the subcomponents (which consist of thousands or millions or billion of WS2 molecules) may be 70nm in their "particle", but that particle agglomerates with others so it exists stabily in a particle of 500nm or more.

That's all Im saying.

Im happy to be wrong and learn something new - but until Ive seen actual peer-reviewed basis for claims, and preferably the reports from calibrated analytical equipment and SEM/TEM, its difficult to believe any claims...

OK. Here is what I am saying. You do not believe they exist. Sort of like elves and pixies. Fine. You may purchase these non-existent structures from Apnano. With real cash; they are not particularly inexpensive. This reference has, I am fairly certain, been made in this thread.

Has anyone run WS2 in oil through a particle scan in a UOA at least?


I have no idea what that means. I am not an oil person. Tests - yes. Look around. Apnano, Millers Oils, etc.
 
Last edited:
You're missing my point. It's not about being a "believer" or not. I've never said that WS2 doesn't exist or tht the claimed structure is wrong. You're mixing up crystallographic structure with actual phase and arrangement of materials.

Until there is XRD and some real particle count data to prove otherwise, the claimed form doesn't exist as-is. This doesn't mean that 70nm or whatever size nano particles don't exist . Heck, I'm making 5-10nm nano particles in my lab, and have done XAS, XPS, TEM, etc to identify and understand the structure and disorder of the particles. But mine are supported, on a particulate substrate.

And btw, a C60 fullerene is around 10 Angstroms, or 1nm as I said before, and so a WS2 of similar form will have a "ball radius" of around the same size. This is well known, and their (WS2) formation into cheers of these structures is well known, per my references above. Also see here: https://sesres.com/PhysicalProperties.asp

Again, this is all about surface science and stability of dispersed particles. And I've yet to see anything that indicates that the PSD of these things in solution is what you're claiming. We make lots of nano particles that are made of true nano particles smaller even than 70nm. But they aren't surface stable, so they agglomerate into slightly larger particles (which would still fit through an oil filter - what a ridiculous test) which is the ONLY thing that I'm implying in all of this. NOT that these 70nm particles are false, not that they are fake or made up, but that they are not 70nm particles when in solution. Instead that they are larger agglomerates of some particle 20-70nm in size, up to a size where they can be easily surface stabilized and still remain in solution. Anyone can make a nano particle with some assumed size, dump it in a liquid of whatever kind, and say "hey, I have an oil with x nm particles I'm it!" Doesn't mean it is truly what is in there.

Burden of proof is on you. I'm perfectly happy to be wrong and learn something new. But as of now there is no basis, including from what I've seen of the vendors you've mentioned and the literature. I'm talking as an engineer with experience with dispersed fine particles and particle and powder processing, not some claims from a salesman or Internet snippets.

I may be wrong - no pride of being right here. Just looking for factual data to verify form and structure, which Im not seeing.
 
Originally Posted By: alternety
JHZR2 - I don't want to start a fight here, but I am not providing opinions or beliefs here. This is hard and proven reality. The Fullerenes are not milled. This is nano technology. The structures are built. At nano sizes, materials take on characteristics unlike anything at the macro scale. Think magic.

They are the size stated. The stated size is the size of the spherical structure (Fullerene)that the WS2 molecules are made to form. The Bucky balls can further delaminate (as I said) under shear forces and allow the constituent WS2 molecules to disperse and bond to surfaces at a significantly smaller particle size in the several nanometer range. Look up Inorganic like Fullerene Tungsten Disulphide(IF WS2).

You arguing about this because you are "inclined to believe". Respectfully, I don't understand why you don't just go and study the technology instead.


Alternety,

Surface science is an interesting yet complex field of investigation with many turns and twists when it comes to nano distances and the forces encountered at those distances.

Perhaps you could supply us with some papers to support your statements.
 
I'm going to show this thread to my wife the next time she says I'm argumentative. Of course she was cursing me last night since I haven't figured out how to set my "private" time on my phone, so I don't get e-mail in the middle of the night (which I should do since I get a lot of e-mail from England!).

I don't see how the points each of you is saying are mutually exclusive. They can be built up in layers. As their size increases, they can agglomerate. Is there anything other than van der waals forces attracting the ~70nm layered spheres together? If so, then the outer layers shed and react with each other.......but is the internal fullerene not preserved? If they are just van der waals forces, the fullerene structure would certainly be preserved. I'm sure if my advisor from grad school were reading this, he'd disown me, but it has been probably 15 years since I've been in this environment (and I was a poor student!!!!).

We know the stuff likes to stick to metal surfaces. So it makes sense to me that it wants to stick to itself.

ON the size, though, molecular layers are nearly 10A.....I don't know how many layers are built up, but I'd assume the spacing increases as the layers build. All that said, I assure you all of this stuff is very proprietary, so you aren't likely to find academic papers on what is going on. I also assure you it works. Unfortunately, most of the objective stuff behind that is also proprietary/confidential. When you've got one brand of oil on the side of your car, you aren't going to advertise to the world that you are using a competitor's product, especially at the F1 level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top