Sunthetic Oils according to Chevron
- Thread starter tig1
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: tig1
https://www.google.com/search?q=molecule...913&bih=963
This is what you get when you click the link...
circles, logs, and cubes, surfboards on rollers...advertising blurbage, just like I said.
Now can you comment on them all being the same size, when clearly, they are made up of different viscosity basestocks...even in PAO...which clearly aren't of the same size ?
https://www.google.com/search?q=molecule...913&bih=963
This is what you get when you click the link...
circles, logs, and cubes, surfboards on rollers...advertising blurbage, just like I said.
Now can you comment on them all being the same size, when clearly, they are made up of different viscosity basestocks...even in PAO...which clearly aren't of the same size ?
Originally Posted By: tig1
See my post on page 2 with the link provided.
That's the problem, tig1. Even if the molecules could all be represented as spheres or logs, you know as well as anyone here that M1, for instance, has a base stock made of a mixture of several base stocks. Obviously, the molecules in the ester portion aren't the same as those from the PAO portion or the Visom portion or whatever. Heck, some are polar, and there's value in that.
There is little doubt about the purity of the synthetic base stocks, but the marketing people really dumbed this one down. The artists never took a chemistry class, or, if they did, they really had to bite their tongues while drawing this stuff.
With respect to comments about two dimensional drawings of molecules, there is a lot of value in that. Chemists will generally know the "real" geometry of the bonds anyhow, and a two dimensional drawing is a very useful way to outline a very complex molecule or to differentiate chirality.
See my post on page 2 with the link provided.
That's the problem, tig1. Even if the molecules could all be represented as spheres or logs, you know as well as anyone here that M1, for instance, has a base stock made of a mixture of several base stocks. Obviously, the molecules in the ester portion aren't the same as those from the PAO portion or the Visom portion or whatever. Heck, some are polar, and there's value in that.
There is little doubt about the purity of the synthetic base stocks, but the marketing people really dumbed this one down. The artists never took a chemistry class, or, if they did, they really had to bite their tongues while drawing this stuff.
With respect to comments about two dimensional drawings of molecules, there is a lot of value in that. Chemists will generally know the "real" geometry of the bonds anyhow, and a two dimensional drawing is a very useful way to outline a very complex molecule or to differentiate chirality.
You have so much patience. Rather than trying to explain science, it's easier to smile, nod, and tell him his cartoons are correct. Lowest common denominator marketing, indeed.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
See my post on page 2 with the link provided.
That's the problem, tig1. Even if the molecules could all be represented as spheres or logs, you know as well as anyone here that M1, for instance, has a base stock made of a mixture of several base stocks. Obviously, the molecules in the ester portion aren't the same as those from the PAO portion or the Visom portion or whatever. Heck, some are polar, and there's value in that.
There is little doubt about the purity of the synthetic base stocks, but the marketing people really dumbed this one down. The artists never took a chemistry class, or, if they did, they really had to bite their tongues while drawing this stuff.
With respect to comments about two dimensional drawings of molecules, there is a lot of value in that. Chemists will generally know the "real" geometry of the bonds anyhow, and a two dimensional drawing is a very useful way to outline a very complex molecule or to differentiate chirality.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
See my post on page 2 with the link provided.
That's the problem, tig1. Even if the molecules could all be represented as spheres or logs, you know as well as anyone here that M1, for instance, has a base stock made of a mixture of several base stocks. Obviously, the molecules in the ester portion aren't the same as those from the PAO portion or the Visom portion or whatever. Heck, some are polar, and there's value in that.
There is little doubt about the purity of the synthetic base stocks, but the marketing people really dumbed this one down. The artists never took a chemistry class, or, if they did, they really had to bite their tongues while drawing this stuff.
With respect to comments about two dimensional drawings of molecules, there is a lot of value in that. Chemists will generally know the "real" geometry of the bonds anyhow, and a two dimensional drawing is a very useful way to outline a very complex molecule or to differentiate chirality.
Last edited:
I made it through all my organic & physical chemistry classes drawing 2D molecules, rough freehand sketches, never had to use a protracter for bond angles or worry about axes with right hand rule, except for stereoisomers which we still represented with simple 2D sketches.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiomer
We had tinkertoy type stuff with sticks & springs with specific angles of holes drilled into different colored balls for different elements to model in 3D back then before the computer revolution.
Crystal structures require more of a 3D sketch approach.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiomer
We had tinkertoy type stuff with sticks & springs with specific angles of holes drilled into different colored balls for different elements to model in 3D back then before the computer revolution.
Crystal structures require more of a 3D sketch approach.
Yep, pretty much. Tinker toys take time, too, and 3d computer modelling wasn't what it is today. They just reminded us to keep in mind what double and triple bonds do to geometry and start off remembering that methane isn't flat as a pancake.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
See my post on page 2 with the link provided.
That's the problem, tig1. Even if the molecules could all be represented as spheres or logs, you know as well as anyone here that M1, for instance, has a base stock made of a mixture of several base stocks. Obviously, the molecules in the ester portion aren't the same as those from the PAO portion or the Visom portion or whatever. Heck, some are polar, and there's value in that.
There is little doubt about the purity of the synthetic base stocks, but the marketing people really dumbed this one down. The artists never took a chemistry class, or, if they did, they really had to bite their tongues while drawing this stuff.
With respect to comments about two dimensional drawings of molecules, there is a lot of value in that. Chemists will generally know the "real" geometry of the bonds anyhow, and a two dimensional drawing is a very useful way to outline a very complex molecule or to differentiate chirality.
Very well-stated Garak
Originally Posted By: tig1
See my post on page 2 with the link provided.
That's the problem, tig1. Even if the molecules could all be represented as spheres or logs, you know as well as anyone here that M1, for instance, has a base stock made of a mixture of several base stocks. Obviously, the molecules in the ester portion aren't the same as those from the PAO portion or the Visom portion or whatever. Heck, some are polar, and there's value in that.
There is little doubt about the purity of the synthetic base stocks, but the marketing people really dumbed this one down. The artists never took a chemistry class, or, if they did, they really had to bite their tongues while drawing this stuff.
With respect to comments about two dimensional drawings of molecules, there is a lot of value in that. Chemists will generally know the "real" geometry of the bonds anyhow, and a two dimensional drawing is a very useful way to outline a very complex molecule or to differentiate chirality.
Thank you. I wish marketers wouldn't muck things up so much. I appreciate that the general public isn't going to know a lot about molecular geometry. But, we have marketers conflating two concepts, purity and geometry, and really making a mess.
We have chemists out there dedicating their entire lives to discerning the shape of complex molecules, and we have marketing people out there (who, incidentally, couldn't draw methane if their paycheques depended on it) claiming that "synthetic oil molecules" (whatever they are) are all the same size and shape, despite the fact that even base oil tends to be a mixture, not a compound, much less a finished oil, which is decidedly a mixture.
We have chemists out there dedicating their entire lives to discerning the shape of complex molecules, and we have marketing people out there (who, incidentally, couldn't draw methane if their paycheques depended on it) claiming that "synthetic oil molecules" (whatever they are) are all the same size and shape, despite the fact that even base oil tends to be a mixture, not a compound, much less a finished oil, which is decidedly a mixture.
Originally Posted By: Garak
Thank you. I wish marketers wouldn't muck things up so much. I appreciate that the general public isn't going to know a lot about molecular geometry. But, we have marketers conflating two concepts, purity and geometry, and really making a mess.
We have chemists out there dedicating their entire lives to discerning the shape of complex molecules, and we have marketing people out there (who, incidentally, couldn't draw methane if their paycheques depended on it) claiming that "synthetic oil molecules" (whatever they are) are all the same size and shape, despite the fact that even base oil tends to be a mixture, not a compound, much less a finished oil, which is decidedly a mixture.
Marketers know exactly what bait to use for catching the most fish.
Thank you. I wish marketers wouldn't muck things up so much. I appreciate that the general public isn't going to know a lot about molecular geometry. But, we have marketers conflating two concepts, purity and geometry, and really making a mess.
We have chemists out there dedicating their entire lives to discerning the shape of complex molecules, and we have marketing people out there (who, incidentally, couldn't draw methane if their paycheques depended on it) claiming that "synthetic oil molecules" (whatever they are) are all the same size and shape, despite the fact that even base oil tends to be a mixture, not a compound, much less a finished oil, which is decidedly a mixture.
Marketers know exactly what bait to use for catching the most fish.
- Status
Similar threads
