Tungsten Disulfide

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
242
Location
Florida
Has anyone ever used this in PCMO? I have found a site that sells this for $54 per pound. They say you mix this with oil at a rate of 1%-15% by weight.
 
Do they state nominal particle size.
Would you mind inboxing me with their website please.
If no website would contact info be possible.
If the particle size is micron or sub micron I'd like to try it as an oil additive.
I read that it can be added to oil using a blender. If you run the carrier oil in the blender long enough the carrier oil will heat up,then add the tungsten disqualified and blend again.
Unless using something like mmo or another solvent as a carrier that will flash off leaving only the TdS behind.
I could start brewing my own friction modifier in my garage.
Klevee's Frankenbrew.
 
From what i have read, its a good friction modifier, but won't stay/maintain a suspension in oil. Lubromoly does seem to have a colloidal property and stays for the most part in suspension. Everything i've read about tungsten disulphide says it falls out immediately.
 
Originally Posted By: BigBird57
What vehicle did you use this product? How much additive per quart of oil?


I had a pound of it which I used for coating bullets, and thought I would take a try at using it in oil. I used it in a 93 Aerostar, and an old edger which had an oil burning issue. I don't remember the dose, IIRC is was about 1 teaspoon/qt of oil. The people at Rosemill suggested the amount. It stopped the edger from using oil. The only downfall is it falls out of suspension and that's why I don't use it any longer. I later tried Lubro Moly MoS2 and found it stayed in suspension, so I stuck with it. The tech people at Rosemill were very helpful at the time with my questions. It would be worth calling them if you're interested in pursuing it further.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Unless it is Dialkylammonium Tungstate in oil I wouldn't use in engine oils.


Can you suggest a source or reference to this product? Except for some guy applying for a patent, I can find almost zero references to Dialkylammonium Tungstate or Dialkyl Ammonium Tungstate.

There are numerous references to Tungsten Disulfide - basically a dry film lubricant, that is gaining in application popularity.
 
Here is my problem with dry lubricants such as powdered moly, titanium, and Tungsten being introduced into a crankcase: Unless the dry lubricant is specially processed into a colloidal system with polarity additives, the dry lubricant may fall out of suspension and may not attach itself to friction surfaces, OR if it's a specially processed organo-metallic chemistry. Organo-metallic chemistries are only the ones that should be introduced into a formulated oil and only after extensive lab testing, engine teardown and analysis, and fleet testing.

MoDTC, special titanium compounds and dialkylammonium tungstate are specially processed organo-metallic compounds and the only ones fully soluble in motor oils.


I went to Google and easily found the following references:

http://www.rtvanderbilt.com/documents/MSDS/EU/51155.pdf

VANLUBE W-324 - Amine Tungstate AW Synergist found in:

http://www.vanderbiltchemicals.com/ee_co...omestic_Web.pdf
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
MoDTC, special titanium compounds and dialkylammonium tungstate are specially processed organo-metallic compounds and the only ones fully soluble in motor oils.

I went to Google and easily found the following references:

http://www.rtvanderbilt.com/documents/MSDS/EU/51155.pdf

VANLUBE W-324 - Amine Tungstate AW Synergist found in:

http://www.vanderbiltchemicals.com/ee_co...omestic_Web.pdf


Okay, but you should have easily found that there was not much information at the Vanderbilt link above, except that VANLUBE W-324, their product containing dialkylammonium tungstate, is listed as a 'new product'.

If you search for VANLUBE W-324, here's the spec sheet. But, there's not much real information here either, particularly as to applications. Four product tests are listed, for one of which one of Vanderbilt's own moly product actually performed slightly better. For all of the tests, it's worth noting that the performance differences between the various products tested was very slight - truly microscopic - if you study the scales on the charts. But, VANLUBE W-324 is an interesting product nonetheless.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Here is my problem with dry lubricants such as powdered moly, titanium, and Tungsten being introduced into a crankcase: Unless the dry lubricant is specially processed into a colloidal system with polarity additives, the dry lubricant may fall out of suspension and may not attach itself to friction surfaces,


MoS2 falling out of suspension is a known issue. Sub-micron particle size seems to be a suitable fix. I've not read of issues involving MoS2 not attaching to metal surfaces.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
... OR if it's a specially processed organo-metallic chemistry. Organo-metallic chemistries are only the ones that should be introduced into a formulated oil and only after extensive lab testing, engine teardown and analysis, and fleet testing.


Where do you get this stuff? It really sounds good, but according to this Wiki's article on organo-metallic chemistry, there's no particular link between this very new technology and oil additives. In any event, the bond between MoS2 and metal surfaces should be mechanical - not chemical. MoS2 is not soluble in oil (or much of anything else). But, I'm clearly not a chemist.

As for "extensive lab testing, engine teardown and analysis and fleet testing" we all want that. Who wouldn't want that kind of information? But if that's the standard to be met before using an additive, there would be no additives.

There's a small body of this information on Molybdenum Disulfide used as an oil additive (but clearly not enough to satisfy detractors). And this is a product which has been in rather widespread industrial use for about a century. We can only hope this type of testing is someday done on the organo-metallic flavors of molybdenum and titanium.
 
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
... OR if it's a specially processed organo-metallic chemistry. Organo-metallic chemistries are only the ones that should be introduced into a formulated oil


Upon further reflection, I think I was much too kind. You specifically do not want a soluble form of tungsten or molybdenum in the oil (which seems to be the claimed goal of organo-metallic chemistry, at least your reference). As before, small particle size is a suitable fix for settling issues.

If the additive is soluble, it will drain out when the engine stops - just like the oil in the Lucas gear-crank toy mentioned earlier in this thread. In may drain faster or slower - basically the take-away from the Lucas toy. But, once it drains out - no more lubrication. One of the nice features of MoS2 is that it does not drain out. It more-or-less stays put on the bearing surfaces. You get dry-film lubrication at start up, and you can keep driving if you take a bullet in your engine pan. In that narrow sense, MoS2 doesn't make for a 'better oil'. Rather, it's more of an oil substitute, which does not interfere with the motor oil's normal functioning.

But MoS2 (and probably Tungsten Disulfide) is a very slippery substance, it reduces friction, heat and it is highly resistant to extreme pressure. Viewed in that way, it might make a 'better oil'.
 
This is why I like the forum. It sounds like the tungsten disulfide is not quite ready for prime time in PCMO. I can see a use on a bolt action rifle in extremely cold weather. I run Pennzoil Ultra so I will resist the temptation to experiment with this dry lubricant.
 
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
... OR if it's a specially processed organo-metallic chemistry. Organo-metallic chemistries are only the ones that should be introduced into a formulated oil


Upon further reflection, I think I was much too kind. You specifically do not want a soluble form of tungsten or molybdenum in the oil (which seems to be the claimed goal of organo-metallic chemistry, at least your reference). As before, small particle size is a suitable fix for settling issues.

If the additive is soluble, it will drain out when the engine stops - just like the oil in the Lucas gear-crank toy mentioned earlier in this thread. In may drain faster or slower - basically the take-away from the Lucas toy. But, once it drains out - no more lubrication. One of the nice features of MoS2 is that it does not drain out. It more-or-less stays put on the bearing surfaces. You get dry-film lubrication at start up, and you can keep driving if you take a bullet in your engine pan. In that narrow sense, MoS2 doesn't make for a 'better oil'. Rather, it's more of an oil substitute, which does not interfere with the motor oil's normal functioning.

But MoS2 (and probably Tungsten Disulfide) is a very slippery substance, it reduces friction, heat and it is highly resistant to extreme pressure. Viewed in that way, it might make a 'better oil'.


I'm interested to see what his reply to this is, as he formulates oils for a living so I'm quite certain he has a solid reason as to why the soluble versions are greatly preferred here.
 
Quote:
BigBird57: Where do you get this stuff?


One gets it from his additive supplier.

Quote:
BigBird57:As for "extensive lab testing, engine teardown and analysis and fleet testing" we all want that. Who wouldn't want that kind of information? But if that's the standard to be met before using an additive, there would be no additives.


I think you are confusing commercial chemical additives and commercial additive packages with Over The Counter (OTC) or Third Party Additives. You are not the first so don't feel bad.

Commercial additives and additive packages are extensively tested using Lab (mostly ASTM) tests, engine teardown/analysis, and fleet testing.

Over The Counter (OTC) and Third Party Additive makers cannot make the same claim.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Upon further reflection, I think I was much too kind. You specifically do not want a soluble form of tungsten or molybdenum in the oil (which seems to be the claimed goal of organo-metallic chemistry, at least your reference).


I think you misunderstand the comment. There was an OR conditional in my sentence.

What I said was I was not comfortable putting dry solid lubricants into a crankcase because of the reasons stated.

Here is what I said:

Quote:
Unless the dry lubricant is specially processed into a colloidal system with polarity additives, the dry lubricant may fall out of suspension and may not attach itself to friction surfaces, OR if it's a specially processed organo-metallic chemistry. Organo-metallic chemistries are only the ones that should be introduced into a formulated oil and only after extensive lab testing, engine teardown and analysis, and fleet testing.


The two conditionals were:

1) a nano-particle dry lubricant incorporated into a colloidal suspension with an additional polar additive chemical is probably functional.

2) OR, preferably the metallic friction modifier is a fully soluble organo-metallic compound such as is found in Molybednum Dithiocarbamates (MoDTC), Titanium organo-metallics, or Tunsten in the form of dialkylammonium tungstate.

But lets say in the case of MoS2 OTC additives, what are you getting? Are you getting a dry MoS2 powder in an oil carrier, are you getting a colloidal MoS2 suspension with polar additives, or are you getting a true completely oil soluble MoDTC? The problems is, most of the OTC additive manf. won't tell you.
 
Last edited:
The tungsten disulfide should be more popular than it is. If the OTC interest had spent the same effort into this substance as they have with MOS2 a product would already be on the market. I do not want to get into the PTFE debacle that we saw in Slick 50. Further I am not in a position to harm my engine.
I work with combustion turbines and I am a strong advocate of the PAG oils from Dow Chemical. So far in the Southeast I am a lone voice in the wilderness. Calpine has solved their varnish issues with this product. I mention this only to show that innovation comes slow.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
... OR if it's a specially processed organo-metallic chemistry. Organo-metallic chemistries are only the ones that should be introduced into a formulated oil


Upon further reflection, I think I was much too kind. You specifically do not want a soluble form of tungsten or molybdenum in the oil (which seems to be the claimed goal of organo-metallic chemistry, at least your reference). As before, small particle size is a suitable fix for settling issues.

If the additive is soluble, it will drain out when the engine stops - just like the oil in the Lucas gear-crank toy mentioned earlier in this thread. In may drain faster or slower - basically the take-away from the Lucas toy. But, once it drains out - no more lubrication. One of the nice features of MoS2 is that it does not drain out. It more-or-less stays put on the bearing surfaces. You get dry-film lubrication at start up, and you can keep driving if you take a bullet in your engine pan. In that narrow sense, MoS2 doesn't make for a 'better oil'. Rather, it's more of an oil substitute, which does not interfere with the motor oil's normal functioning.

But MoS2 (and probably Tungsten Disulfide) is a very slippery substance, it reduces friction, heat and it is highly resistant to extreme pressure. Viewed in that way, it might make a 'better oil'.


I'm interested to see what his reply to this is, as he formulates oils for a living so I'm quite certain he has a solid reason as to why the soluble versions are greatly preferred here.


Me too. But, one thing for sure - a soluble version of either MoS2 or tungsten would be different from a suspension. It has a clear advantage (no settling) but it has a disadvantage (it drains out).

Regardless of how you come down on this, it poses an interesting question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top