Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
/Rant On
Far be it for me to make the claim that I am "perfect" in this aspect and I will not contest his results (though they seem more of a sales pitch than a scientific test routine). However, for a supposedly "working Professional Degreed Engineer, as well as a U.S. Patent holder, who deals with Engineering technical matters for a living", his sentence structure and vocabulary make him appear far less educated than he is touting to be.
I realize an Internet posting can lead one to be casual, but most engineers that I know (especially those attempting to prove an argument) would not describe themselves using the text above and would not make a point worded in a manner like this:
Quote:
For example, 0W30 flows WAY better cold than 20W50. And 0W30 flows WAY better cold than straight 30wt, which is horrible for cold start-up flow and should be avoided at all cost.
Some of his points are interesting, but would likely be shredded in a peer review (which is what he should do if he truly wants to "validate" his paper and have it be credible).
/Rant Off
I agree, why give all that info if you are really an engineer or tribologist comfortable with your own credentials?
Makes me wonder if this is the same guy who not long ago was claiming to to be able to analyze the molecular structure of oils and giving out a lot of false information.
What really matters is the minimum oil film thickness (MOFT) under various loads. That is one of the methods commercial engine builders in R&D use to determine oil suitability.
In other words, how does this PSI figure correlate to MOFT?