Metals & TBN...

Status
Not open for further replies.
SoJ,
been having to remind people of basic chemistry in another realm (waste water treatment and chemical engineers), and have the following question.

One of the problems with Na is that when looking at solubility laws, Na salts are nearly all soluble (for e.g. versus Calcium and Magnesium...Na2SO4 versus CaSO4).

Couple of things that are rattling around.

Re the "abrasiveness" we talked in other threads...does that mean that Na doesn't "make solids", regardless of Moh's and cylinder wall scratchiness being debunked in the other thread ?

When the Ca/Mg precipitate out, they typically carry water of crystalisation (e.g the gypsum is a decahydrate)...if the Na is soluble then there's none of that.
* is there likely a material effect in measured water content in a used oil analysis between the two ?
* would the acidic component be more (or less) "locked up" with the precipitate forming compounds ? (potential for corrosion with "soluble salts" versus precipitates)

Or a dumb sprocket overthinking how these things play in the crankcase
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
SoJ,
been having to remind people of basic chemistry in another realm (waste water treatment and chemical engineers), and have the following question.

One of the problems with Na is that when looking at solubility laws, Na salts are nearly all soluble (for e.g. versus Calcium and Magnesium...Na2SO4 versus CaSO4).

Couple of things that are rattling around.

Re the "abrasiveness" we talked in other threads...does that mean that Na doesn't "make solids", regardless of Moh's and cylinder wall scratchiness being debunked in the other thread ?

When the Ca/Mg precipitate out, they typically carry water of crystalisation (e.g the gypsum is a decahydrate)...if the Na is soluble then there's none of that.
* is there likely a material effect in measured water content in a used oil analysis between the two ?
* would the acidic component be more (or less) "locked up" with the precipitate forming compounds ? (potential for corrosion with "soluble salts" versus precipitates)

Or a dumb sprocket overthinking how these things play in the crankcase



I'm interested in this as well.
 
Apologies for the tardiness of this response. Tuesday is Looking After The Grandson Day which is pretty full on while I'm doing it and leaves me totally shattered afterwards!

Okay, from the top (and please excuse me if I ramble at bit)..

Yes. Sodium salts do tend to be water soluble in a way that Magnesium & Calcium salts aren't. However, it's not necessarily going to impact things in this case.

We've already established that there are two parts to an overbased metallic detergent; the organic detergent bit & the mineral carbonate bit. The carbonate bit provides the acid neutralisation capability while the detergent keeps the carbonate in colloidal suspension in the oil.

In the case of overbased Calcium sulphonate (by far & away, the commonest overbased metallic detergent), the organic detergent is Calcium Alkyl Benzene Sulphonate. You can visualise this stuff as having two 'ends'. The Calcium 'end' which is polar & attracted to other Calcium ions (remember in chemistry, 'like likes like') and the Alkyl 'end' (usually linear C18) which is non-polar and highly oleophilic.

Together, the detergent & carbonate form colloidal micelles structures which are not unlike those diagrams they showed you at school of sperm fertilising an egg! This is important because while the anhydrous carbonate micellular core might have a strong affinity for water (especially in the case of sodium) because it's surrounded by loads of alkyl chains, the structure, taken as a whole, is extremely HYDROPHOBIC (this is why detergents are so good at preventing rust)

All commercial oils have to be subjected to & pass the Engine Oil Water Tolerance (EOWT) test. I've never ever seen a Ca or Mg oil fail this test which says how strongly the carbonate cores are protected from water by the surrounding alkyl chains. I've never tested Sodium-based detergents but the very fact that these have been used (by Valvoline) says to me they have been through & passed EOWT.

Let me backtrack a bit. When you make a overbased metallic detergent, you can't simply dump a whole lot of metal carbonate on top of the organic detergent & stir. All you will get is a nasty, powdery & probably very abrasive goo! To make the trick work, you have to form the carbonate 'in situ', at the molecular level, such that the particles of metal carbonate are small enough to be suspended by the detergent. You do this by making a mix of detergent, base oil & basic anhydrous metal oxide (or hydroxide), heating it & blowing carbon dioxide (CO2) through it. As soon as the carbonate forms, it's zapped by detergent molecules and colloidally trapped.

I'm raising this because now the metal carbonate, although technically a 'solid', doesn't have many of the properties of a solid. For example, overbased detergents, if they've been properly made are clear & bright liquids which are totally transparent. This is quite amazing when you realise it might contain say 30% of chalk! This stuff is just not abrasive because metal surfaces only see the outer alkyl chains & not the metal carbonate core

The outer layer of detergent alkyl chains won't prevent the alkaline core from reacting with acids. However, because these reactions occur at the molecular level, and all you're doing is trading one metal salt for another (eg calcium carbonate for calcium nitrate or calcium sulphate), the metal-to-metal 'bridge' remains intact so once formed, the new salt is taken into colloidal suspension.

So in direct answer to Shannow's questions...

The normal rules for aqueous solubility of metal salts doesn't apply here.

The metal salts in detergent always start out in their anhydrous form & won't readily form hydrates because of the hydrophobic nature of the micelle structures.

All fresh oils are tested for water tolerance in the EOWT test. I've never tested a used oil on the EOWT but my guess is that it would pass easily.

Acidic species are locked up in the detergent & should not precipitate even in the presence of water. I may be wrong but I suspect this is as true for Sodium as it is for other metals.

I don't believe some metal salts will be more corrosive than others. All the testing I've ever done confirms that detergents are great preventers of corrosion. In fact I'd go so far as to say that even when the detergent's carbonate core has been fully neutralised, that the resultant 'stuff' still has anti-rust properties.

Hope that helps & again apologies for not answering yesterday.
 
Last edited:
Thanks heaps SoJ
So is water in the sump basically managed by the hydrophobic nature described ?

eg, repelled from every direction, so kept small, dispersed and managed ?
 
I'm probably in the minority for having purposely burnt motor oil to see the metallic ash. When all of the oil is gone, the ash is a crumbly and somewhat abrasive substance in that state. Question is: when oil burns in the combustion chamber, is the ash in a similar state? I bet it largely is.
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
Thanks heaps SoJ
So is water in the sump basically managed by the hydrophobic nature described ?

eg, repelled from every direction, so kept small, dispersed and managed ?


If I'm being honest, I'm not entirely sure how water in the sump is managed, or even if it IS managed in the conventional sense of the word.

The basic cycle is that when the engine (and oil) is cold, water vapour in the blow-by will tend to condense out in the sump & that when the engine (and oil) are up to temperature, any condensed water, evaporates into the hot blow-by & taken away from the crankcase via the PCV system.

I suspect that over time, you'll tend to accumulate some water in the sump, & that because of the big difference in density between oil & water, that water will migrate to the lowest point of the sump as a distinct layer. I don't know but suspect that the hydrophobic nature of the oil might actually 'force' this layer separation (as opposed to keeping the oil dispersed as tiny droplets). If you have a separate, low down, water layer that is resistant to re-evaporation, then there's a risk you'll develop a localised rust spot if you have a metal sump, and there's probably nothing the oil can do to prevent that.

What bothers me is that water accumulation in the sump will very likely have a strong correlation with fuel dilution of engine oil. Based on apocryphal evidence, engine designers seem to have dropped the ball on fuel dilution which to me, means they've also probably dropped the ball on water, which might spell problems for some.
 
Originally Posted by JAG
I'm probably in the minority for having purposely burnt motor oil to see the metallic ash. When all of the oil is gone, the ash is a crumbly and somewhat abrasive substance in that state. Question is: when oil burns in the combustion chamber, is the ash in a similar state? I bet it largely is.



In my view, you have to be very careful of how you define the word 'burning'...

If you run a conventional sulphated ash test, if memory serves, you take a sample of oil and run it up to about 800C in air until even the heaviest of organic species has evaporated or burnt off. The ash from this test will be entirely mineral and yes it would be abrasive if it existed in this state in an engine.

However, I'd argue that in a conventional engine it's nigh on impossible to form such a dry, abrasive ash. It sort of depends on how your engine in burning oil. There are three potential routes; (a) Oil leaks directly into the combustion chambers passed leaky valve seals (b) Oil migrating upwards, passed the top ring into the combustion chamber or (c) Oil is stripped out of the sump, into the hot blow-by gas stream & routed via the PCV system, first to the air intake & then onto the combustion chambers.

I'd argue that (a) is the most severe case as you're likely to be burning fully formulated oil that has been sucked (on the intake stroke) into the chamber, probably as swirled, fine mist. That said, the exposure time to high temperature is not high. My gut feel is this would result in the production of sticky, soft soot; not hard dry ash & that the bulk of that soot exits out of the exhaust port. That said, modern valve seal design is such that oil loss via inlet valves is relatively rare.

Route (b) is a fact of life for all engines & is characterised by the oil 'throw-off' you get when the piston reverses direction at top dead centre. I seem to recall this is the predominant route for oil consumption on engines that run at low load/low speed. However I suspect that what happens here is that you throw off relatively BIG droplets of oil into a zone away from the centralised area of combustion. That combination of big droplets and coolish temperatures probably makes for incomplete combustion of the oil and soot formation rather than dry ash production.

Route (b) goes mental if you have a stuck or gunked up oil control ring but that's an extreme case.

Route (c) is the predominant route for oil consumption at high load/high speed. However it's the least likely to result in ash because you will very likely be burning light, additive-free base oil, as opposed to fully formulated engine oil. There's an industry standard engine test called the Sequence IIIG. It runs the engine flat out for 100 hours with the bulk oil temperature controlled at a fixed 150C. If you have a highish Noack oil, it can easily burn up 75% of the contents of the sump. But here's the thing. There's little to no loss of additive from the sump. What you see is the concentrations of metals rise as light base oil is stripped out. Remember additives tend to be significantly heavier than the base oils used in engine oils & resist stripping.

So in short, you shouldn't get dry ash formed in an oil burning engine; only soft soot.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
I feel like this thread should be a sticky.

+1
thumbsup2.gif
 
Does this same formula apply for figuring out the TBN on a UOA as well or would it be a different formula? For instance, the UOA on my Corvette just showed 1032 ppm of calcium and 121 ppm of magnesium. So could I assume the TBN after 5578 miles was around 3.0?
 
Patman,
the elements aren't lost, but have changed their molecular construction through reacting with acids and the like.

SoJ's rules are for virgin additives, that haven't been attacked.
 
Yep, exactly what I was going to say. VOAs only.

Oh, just in case anyone from Industry is following my words of wisdom on detergents, here's an SoJ hot tip for you all...

You go to an awful lot of fuss & bother making separate Calcium & Magnesium detergents. Yet the trend (because of TGDI) is make PCMOs which contain both.

Why not just take dirt cheap, common-or-garden calcined Dolomite...CaMg(CO3)2...and make ONE combined detergent & use that instead? This is God giving you a big clue as to how things should be people, so pay attention!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Shannow
I'm heading off to the garden centre tomorrow...1 tablespoon per quart do you think ?


Hmmmm...maybe hold off on that one!!!!!!
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
Patman,
the elements aren't lost, but have changed their molecular construction through reacting with acids and the like.

SoJ's rules are for virgin additives, that haven't been attacked.


So is there any way to estimate the TBN on UOAs then? I remember Terry Dyson telling me that he could figure it out but he never shared his secret with me.
 
Of the shame of it!

CaMg(CO3)2 is Dolomite. CALCINED Dolomite is CaMgO2. How did I get that one wrong??

Interestingly, I found several references to the potential for using calcined dolomite as a feed for making over based metallic detergents in a number of old patents. However no one ever seems to have followed through on the idea. Time for a rethink maybe?


Also, no, I don't know of a method to convert metals into TBN on a UOA. If Terry genuinely knew, he didn't tell me!
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I was wondering about the CO2 part...hadn't unpacked my Calcinator after the move in houses
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top