OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: dave5358
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.
Looks like we got our reply
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.
Looks like we got our reply