Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Gilberttribe
The logic is fairly straight forward purely based on the results.
A x 0.3 + B x 0.7 = average result
B x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = above average result
C x 0.3 + D x 0.7 = average result
D x 0.3 + E x 0.7 = below average result
I think the obvious result you would deduce from the above is that E (RP) resulted in a poor showing. Even given that C appeared to do a good job, so C+D may have been aided by C's good performance, indicating that D is below average, E still doesn't look good. You could argue that the combination of D+E is the problem and not simply E, but that seems like grasping at straws.
I neglected to take into account all the previous mixtures since a tiny amount of A would still be present in the last analysis, but those amounts will be fairly insignificant. In other words, the second line should be
(A x 0.3 + B x 0.7) x 0.3 + C x 0.7 = A x 0.09 + B x 0.21 + C x 0.7 = above average result
If all oils and their components played well together, why do tribologists even have a job? Unless you are one, I don't think you can make any conclusions how well different fluids react to each other. Every oil is different and should be treated as such. Trying to establish a transitive property just makes you look silly.
OK, if you prefer to grasp at some imagined hypothesis rather than the data and simple logic, then this discussion is a complete waste of time. We're not talking about mixing Clorox and motor oil here. We're talking about mixing a little of one oil that was fine with another oil with a majority of RP. You may as well take all of the other RP analysis and dump them in the trash as well because there will be points in every analysis that can be questioned.
Did you disgress from discussing the results to a personal attack. I'm not going there either, and I'm done wasting my time with you.