It seems like a lot of oils get down to 9cSt under extreme operating conditions, even Euro oils. So, all it really takes for a oem mfg to safely run sae 20 oil is better oil temp control.
Optimal kinematic viscosity for mimimal wear?
- Thread starter CATERHAM
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Rickey
I'm waiting for more engineers to show up and put a stop to the absurdity that is being propagated herein.
If you folks don't mind I'll quote myself and wait for someone to prove otherwise.
"OK sir oil is non compressible,,,granted and agreed.
Please take in to account that journal bearings have side leakage and the rate of leakage is among other things dependent of an oil's viscosity.
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity."
There..... take a stab at that FACT.
The mechanical clearance of the journal bearing is a constant at some given stable temperature ...given it's not wearing, etc.
Assuming the oil pump is a 100% efficient positive displacement device (it really isn't but is close), and if it is not in pressure relief mode, then the same oil volume will be going through the engine circuit regardless of the oil viscosity. In this scenario, there shouldn't be any more bearing leakage with one viscosity vs. another as the engine circuit is basically a fixed flow resistor.
Now assume the pump is in pressure relief mode and produces a max engine oil pressure of 80 psi using either of two different oil viscosities. In this case, regardless of the viscosity, there is still 80 psi oil supply pressure to the engine. Theoretically, the oil pressures at various points in the engine should still be the same (ie, journal bearings, etc) ... but with the lower viscosity of oil the flow volume will be higher at 80 psi vs. the flow volume of the higher viscosity oil at 80 psi.
I'm waiting for more engineers to show up and put a stop to the absurdity that is being propagated herein.
If you folks don't mind I'll quote myself and wait for someone to prove otherwise.
"OK sir oil is non compressible,,,granted and agreed.
Please take in to account that journal bearings have side leakage and the rate of leakage is among other things dependent of an oil's viscosity.
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity."
There..... take a stab at that FACT.
The mechanical clearance of the journal bearing is a constant at some given stable temperature ...given it's not wearing, etc.
Assuming the oil pump is a 100% efficient positive displacement device (it really isn't but is close), and if it is not in pressure relief mode, then the same oil volume will be going through the engine circuit regardless of the oil viscosity. In this scenario, there shouldn't be any more bearing leakage with one viscosity vs. another as the engine circuit is basically a fixed flow resistor.
Now assume the pump is in pressure relief mode and produces a max engine oil pressure of 80 psi using either of two different oil viscosities. In this case, regardless of the viscosity, there is still 80 psi oil supply pressure to the engine. Theoretically, the oil pressures at various points in the engine should still be the same (ie, journal bearings, etc) ... but with the lower viscosity of oil the flow volume will be higher at 80 psi vs. the flow volume of the higher viscosity oil at 80 psi.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
OVERKILL ..can you show me one study that Doug has done on a Ford Escort with a low compression 1.9 engine living a normal life? Honda Civic? Geo Metro? Prius?
Every instance that I can recall, Doug has been on the leading edge of high performance R&D and HEAVY DUTY R&D.
When have you heard him comment on something that didn't spec AT LEAST a 40 grade from the OEM?
This is not at all meant to discount anything Doug says ..since I'm absolutely sure that it's GOLD ..but there's is a whole lot I've never seen him say (I can't hear him, but I can imagine it) ..since ..to tell you the truth, it's of no interest to him. I've never heard him comment on the mundane. That's just about our entire existence for most of us.
We talked about my Expedition. There's a thread on it here somewhere.
OVERKILL ..can you show me one study that Doug has done on a Ford Escort with a low compression 1.9 engine living a normal life? Honda Civic? Geo Metro? Prius?
Every instance that I can recall, Doug has been on the leading edge of high performance R&D and HEAVY DUTY R&D.
When have you heard him comment on something that didn't spec AT LEAST a 40 grade from the OEM?
This is not at all meant to discount anything Doug says ..since I'm absolutely sure that it's GOLD ..but there's is a whole lot I've never seen him say (I can't hear him, but I can imagine it) ..since ..to tell you the truth, it's of no interest to him. I've never heard him comment on the mundane. That's just about our entire existence for most of us.
We talked about my Expedition. There's a thread on it here somewhere.
"The mechanical clearance of the journal bearing is a constant at some given stable temperature ...given it's not wearing, etc.
Assuming the oil pump is a 100% efficient positive displacement device (it really isn't but is close), and if it is not in pressure relief mode, then the same oil volume will be going through the engine circuit regardless of the oil viscosity. In this scenario, there shouldn't be any more bearing leakage with one viscosity vs. another.
Now assume the pump is in pressure relief mode and produces a max engine oil pressure of 80 psi using two different oil viscosities. In this case, regardless of the viscosity, there is still 80 psi oil supply pressure to the engine. Theoretically, the oil pressures at various points in the engine should still be the same (ie, journal bearings, etc) ... but with the lower viscosity of oil the flow volume will be higher at 80 psi vs. the flow volume of the higher viscosity oil at 80 psi."
Not even a good stab...... WHERE ARE THE ENGINEERS?
I stand by my so far undisputed statement...
"OK sir oil is non compressible,,,granted and agreed.
Please take in to account that journal bearings have side leakage and the rate of leakage is among other things dependent of an oil's viscosity.
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity."
Assuming the oil pump is a 100% efficient positive displacement device (it really isn't but is close), and if it is not in pressure relief mode, then the same oil volume will be going through the engine circuit regardless of the oil viscosity. In this scenario, there shouldn't be any more bearing leakage with one viscosity vs. another.
Now assume the pump is in pressure relief mode and produces a max engine oil pressure of 80 psi using two different oil viscosities. In this case, regardless of the viscosity, there is still 80 psi oil supply pressure to the engine. Theoretically, the oil pressures at various points in the engine should still be the same (ie, journal bearings, etc) ... but with the lower viscosity of oil the flow volume will be higher at 80 psi vs. the flow volume of the higher viscosity oil at 80 psi."
Not even a good stab...... WHERE ARE THE ENGINEERS?
I stand by my so far undisputed statement...
"OK sir oil is non compressible,,,granted and agreed.
Please take in to account that journal bearings have side leakage and the rate of leakage is among other things dependent of an oil's viscosity.
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity."
Originally Posted By: Rickey
"The mechanical clearance of the journal bearing is a constant at some given stable temperature ...given it's not wearing, etc.
Assuming the oil pump is a 100% efficient positive displacement device (it really isn't but is close), and if it is not in pressure relief mode, then the same oil volume will be going through the engine circuit regardless of the oil viscosity. In this scenario, there shouldn't be any more bearing leakage with one viscosity vs. another.
Now assume the pump is in pressure relief mode and produces a max engine oil pressure of 80 psi using two different oil viscosities. In this case, regardless of the viscosity, there is still 80 psi oil supply pressure to the engine. Theoretically, the oil pressures at various points in the engine should still be the same (ie, journal bearings, etc) ... but with the lower viscosity of oil the flow volume will be higher at 80 psi vs. the flow volume of the higher viscosity oil at 80 psi."
Not even a good stab...... WHERE ARE THE ENGINEERS?
I stand by my so far undisputed statement...
"OK sir oil is non compressible,,,granted and agreed.
Please take in to account that journal bearings have side leakage and the rate of leakage is among other things dependent of an oil's viscosity.
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity."
That's a lame response. Give me your reasons you think it's wrong.
{Don't make me lock this thing down...}
"The mechanical clearance of the journal bearing is a constant at some given stable temperature ...given it's not wearing, etc.
Assuming the oil pump is a 100% efficient positive displacement device (it really isn't but is close), and if it is not in pressure relief mode, then the same oil volume will be going through the engine circuit regardless of the oil viscosity. In this scenario, there shouldn't be any more bearing leakage with one viscosity vs. another.
Now assume the pump is in pressure relief mode and produces a max engine oil pressure of 80 psi using two different oil viscosities. In this case, regardless of the viscosity, there is still 80 psi oil supply pressure to the engine. Theoretically, the oil pressures at various points in the engine should still be the same (ie, journal bearings, etc) ... but with the lower viscosity of oil the flow volume will be higher at 80 psi vs. the flow volume of the higher viscosity oil at 80 psi."
Not even a good stab...... WHERE ARE THE ENGINEERS?
I stand by my so far undisputed statement...
"OK sir oil is non compressible,,,granted and agreed.
Please take in to account that journal bearings have side leakage and the rate of leakage is among other things dependent of an oil's viscosity.
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity."
That's a lame response. Give me your reasons you think it's wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
Simple: thinner oil is displaced more rapidly by bearing journal pressure as opposed to a thicker by comparison oil.
Picture the boy with his finger in the leaky dike.
More pressure just equals more leakage with with it's attendant problems.
Has modern "education" abolished critical thinking?
Picture the boy with his finger in the leaky dike.
More pressure just equals more leakage with with it's attendant problems.
Has modern "education" abolished critical thinking?
Originally Posted By: Rickey
Simple: thinner oil is displaced more rapidly by bearing journal pressure as opposed to a thicker by comparison oil.
Picture the boy with his finger in the leaky dike.
More pressure just equals more leakage with with it's attendant problems.
Has modern "education" abolished critical thinking?
Yeah, maybe to some degree with gigantic differences in viscosity and/or in journal bearings that had HUGE clearances. I doubt you'd see any real difference in a journal bearing that had a pretty tight clearance and was within spec clearance.
Simple: thinner oil is displaced more rapidly by bearing journal pressure as opposed to a thicker by comparison oil.
Picture the boy with his finger in the leaky dike.
More pressure just equals more leakage with with it's attendant problems.
Has modern "education" abolished critical thinking?
Yeah, maybe to some degree with gigantic differences in viscosity and/or in journal bearings that had HUGE clearances. I doubt you'd see any real difference in a journal bearing that had a pretty tight clearance and was within spec clearance.
And I will agree that some engines will do just fine on an 8Cst @100C product and some require a much thicker product.
Consider that the 8cst product will likely damage the engine requiring a 16Cst product and the contrary is not true.
Yes viscosity matters and too much within reason is far better than not enough.
So there issue settled.
Or carry on as you wish!
Consider that the 8cst product will likely damage the engine requiring a 16Cst product and the contrary is not true.
Yes viscosity matters and too much within reason is far better than not enough.
So there issue settled.
Or carry on as you wish!
Originally Posted By: Rickey
Simple: thinner oil is displaced more rapidly by bearing journal pressure as opposed to a thicker by comparison oil.
Picture the boy with his finger in the leaky dike.
More pressure just equals more leakage with with it's attendant problems.
Has modern "education" abolished critical thinking?
Well, that problem seems to be afflicting both sides of this. Let's look at your critical thinking. You forget that you have to look at both the "in" side (pressure and volume of oil delivered) AND the "out" side of the bearing. If the structure is such that lots of oil can flow out of the bearing, that's one thing. If the structure and fit are such that the bearing space does a better job of retaining oil, that's a different thing altogether.
Your own critical thinking is flawed. You've considered only the "in" side of the problem, and not considered the "out" side of the oil flow. Consider two Dutch boys with fingers in the dike. One boy has a big hole and small finger. The other has a smaller hole and bigger finger. More water gets past the first boy than the second.
Simple: thinner oil is displaced more rapidly by bearing journal pressure as opposed to a thicker by comparison oil.
Picture the boy with his finger in the leaky dike.
More pressure just equals more leakage with with it's attendant problems.
Has modern "education" abolished critical thinking?
Well, that problem seems to be afflicting both sides of this. Let's look at your critical thinking. You forget that you have to look at both the "in" side (pressure and volume of oil delivered) AND the "out" side of the bearing. If the structure is such that lots of oil can flow out of the bearing, that's one thing. If the structure and fit are such that the bearing space does a better job of retaining oil, that's a different thing altogether.
Your own critical thinking is flawed. You've considered only the "in" side of the problem, and not considered the "out" side of the oil flow. Consider two Dutch boys with fingers in the dike. One boy has a big hole and small finger. The other has a smaller hole and bigger finger. More water gets past the first boy than the second.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Well said. The most the thicker is better crew can come up with is some anecdotal tidbit, or a picture of some cam lobe, and say that proves their point.
I don't believe one has to look far to find that high-performance cars are almost all spec'd for a heavier grade of oil. Even when they share the same engine family with a lower-performance counterpart.
Ford spec'ing 5w20 for the Mustang GT, but 5w50 for the GT500 comes to mind.
Quote:
But, all the stellar UOA's and the millions of miles with no empirical evidence of engine related failures due to the use of Xw20 weight oils where it's recommended, mean nothing.
I don't recall anybody saying 5w20/0w20 was going to cause catastrophic engine failure. I believe the only argument here is that it provides less protection than a heavier oil.
Quote:
And now the latest argument is you have to have torn down/rebuilt an engine to prove or speak authoritatively that 20 weight oils are not causing premature wear and engine failure.
To provide any SOLID evidence that a heavier or lighter oil in a given application provides more or less wear DOES require tear-down testing.
Quote:
Just coincidentally, those folks, are the same thicker is better folks.
We are? I run 5w20 in both of my parent's vehicles......
Quote:
You see, that way you can ignore the all the stellar UOA's, the lack of empirical evidence to support your case, and the findings, writings and work of Dr. Haas on Xw20 and lighter weight oils.
Rather than spin, I too am waiting for some real evidence.
So, let me get this straight, we have two sources:
Doug Hillary, who is a Tribologist with decades of experience including fleet testing for a number of the major oil companies covering millions of Km, including performing routine UOA's on his fleets of vehicles, numerous recognized lubrication-related publications (one of which I own a copy of) and tear-down testing writes a paper on the value and mis-use of UOA's and posts it on this board.
Dr. Haas, who is a plastic surgeon, writes a paper on the theory of lubrication and the virtues of light oils, backing his information with UOA's in a couple of high performance cars that he owns.
And we are supposed to ignore the former and worship the latter because it supports the mantra that the thin-worshipping crowd preaches?
That makes sense.
How about just running an oil appropriate for the vehicle and its intended use that coincides with the recommendations of the manufacturer?
Oh wait, that's what Doug says, so it must not be correct..........
Exactly.
Some people are just too stubborn... Those people are ignorant.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Well said. The most the thicker is better crew can come up with is some anecdotal tidbit, or a picture of some cam lobe, and say that proves their point.
I don't believe one has to look far to find that high-performance cars are almost all spec'd for a heavier grade of oil. Even when they share the same engine family with a lower-performance counterpart.
Ford spec'ing 5w20 for the Mustang GT, but 5w50 for the GT500 comes to mind.
Quote:
But, all the stellar UOA's and the millions of miles with no empirical evidence of engine related failures due to the use of Xw20 weight oils where it's recommended, mean nothing.
I don't recall anybody saying 5w20/0w20 was going to cause catastrophic engine failure. I believe the only argument here is that it provides less protection than a heavier oil.
Quote:
And now the latest argument is you have to have torn down/rebuilt an engine to prove or speak authoritatively that 20 weight oils are not causing premature wear and engine failure.
To provide any SOLID evidence that a heavier or lighter oil in a given application provides more or less wear DOES require tear-down testing.
Quote:
Just coincidentally, those folks, are the same thicker is better folks.
We are? I run 5w20 in both of my parent's vehicles......
Quote:
You see, that way you can ignore the all the stellar UOA's, the lack of empirical evidence to support your case, and the findings, writings and work of Dr. Haas on Xw20 and lighter weight oils.
Rather than spin, I too am waiting for some real evidence.
So, let me get this straight, we have two sources:
Doug Hillary, who is a Tribologist with decades of experience including fleet testing for a number of the major oil companies covering millions of Km, including performing routine UOA's on his fleets of vehicles, numerous recognized lubrication-related publications (one of which I own a copy of) and tear-down testing writes a paper on the value and mis-use of UOA's and posts it on this board.
Dr. Haas, who is a plastic surgeon, writes a paper on the theory of lubrication and the virtues of light oils, backing his information with UOA's in a couple of high performance cars that he owns.
And we are supposed to ignore the former and worship the latter because it supports the mantra that the thin-worshipping crowd preaches?
That makes sense.
How about just running an oil appropriate for the vehicle and its intended use that coincides with the recommendations of the manufacturer?
Oh wait, that's what Doug says, so it must not be correct..........
Exactly.
Some people are just too stubborn... Those people are ignorant.
Last edited by a moderator:
Respectfully gentlemen (and ladies?) we are talking about a simple journal bearing and an input of oil and a leakage of oil.
Greater pressure or flow within normal boundries on the input side will have little to do with the oil film thickness.
Hydrodynamic laws, including side leakage will dictate the oil films thickness. And given constant bearing dimensions, loading, RPM, and temperature the leakage and film thickness WILL be affected by viscosity.
What part of this lacks understanding?
Greater pressure or flow within normal boundries on the input side will have little to do with the oil film thickness.
Hydrodynamic laws, including side leakage will dictate the oil films thickness. And given constant bearing dimensions, loading, RPM, and temperature the leakage and film thickness WILL be affected by viscosity.
What part of this lacks understanding?
Originally Posted By: Rickey
Oh boy! another thick VS thin "discussion"
May I join in please?
If you must...
Originally Posted By: Rickey
{quoting me}"If you drive a BMW M series car, then 10w-40 or 20w-50 is a dangerously "thin" oil. If you drive a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry, then 30, 40, and 50 wt oils are thick beyond optimal. And your reasoning about "thin" oils being used successfully because they contain EP/AW additives also does not fly. By this reasoning, you would need no such additives in your "thick" oils. But of course, they are most surely there."
OK mental exercise time:
Given new oil, a long steep mountain climb, a modern high performance V6 and a mild climate which of the following would you prefer:
A. Straight 5W oil with no additives.
B. Straight 50W oil with no additives.
Some folks may realize the need for mental floss after this.
You will need the mental floss. This is a specious set of choices. My answer: C. Neither of the above.
What you overlook is that this is not a "reversible" argument. The syrup worshipers believe, and argue, that "thin" oils are, in and of themselves, poor oils. By contrast, I do not think that "thicker" oils are bad oils, just because they are "thick". Hey, a 10w-60 is the cat's meow for an M series BMW, and we have UOA that back that idea.
Originally Posted By: Rickey
{quoting me again}"You also can not generalize that "thicker" oils (whatever those are) do a "better" job separating moving parts than thin oils under "pressure conditions." Oil, like all liquids, is a non-compressible fluid. If a car is designed for, and in proper condition so that it keeps the right amount of oil, in the right place (bearings), and at the right pressure, a "thin" oil will keep parts separated as well as a "thick" one. Obviously, it gets much more complicated than this in the real world. Many factors all come together to determine whether a particular oil will work in a given application. Viscosity is just one of those."
OK sir oil is non compressible,,,granted and agreed.
Please take in to account that journal bearings have side leakage and the rate of leakage is among other things dependent of an oil's viscosity.
Well, of course. That oil being "flung" off is critical to the lubrication of other parts of the engine. I am prepared to assume that the engineers at Ford, Honda, and Toyota made sure that the bearings on their 20-spec engines are fully capable of keeping enough oil in place, even hot 20s, to do the job.
Originally Posted By: Rickey
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity.
I respectfully disagree. That is a "maybe". All depends upon the net effect of oil in and oil out. If the interface is designed so that it holds relatively more oil, no. If it lets too much out, yes. Without more specific info, a definite maybe.
Originally Posted By: Rickey
WHERE ARE THE ENGINEERS ON THIS BOARD ??????
I'm going to be good and not take that bait. . .
Oh boy! another thick VS thin "discussion"
May I join in please?
If you must...
Originally Posted By: Rickey
{quoting me}"If you drive a BMW M series car, then 10w-40 or 20w-50 is a dangerously "thin" oil. If you drive a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry, then 30, 40, and 50 wt oils are thick beyond optimal. And your reasoning about "thin" oils being used successfully because they contain EP/AW additives also does not fly. By this reasoning, you would need no such additives in your "thick" oils. But of course, they are most surely there."
OK mental exercise time:
Given new oil, a long steep mountain climb, a modern high performance V6 and a mild climate which of the following would you prefer:
A. Straight 5W oil with no additives.
B. Straight 50W oil with no additives.
Some folks may realize the need for mental floss after this.
You will need the mental floss. This is a specious set of choices. My answer: C. Neither of the above.
What you overlook is that this is not a "reversible" argument. The syrup worshipers believe, and argue, that "thin" oils are, in and of themselves, poor oils. By contrast, I do not think that "thicker" oils are bad oils, just because they are "thick". Hey, a 10w-60 is the cat's meow for an M series BMW, and we have UOA that back that idea.
Originally Posted By: Rickey
{quoting me again}"You also can not generalize that "thicker" oils (whatever those are) do a "better" job separating moving parts than thin oils under "pressure conditions." Oil, like all liquids, is a non-compressible fluid. If a car is designed for, and in proper condition so that it keeps the right amount of oil, in the right place (bearings), and at the right pressure, a "thin" oil will keep parts separated as well as a "thick" one. Obviously, it gets much more complicated than this in the real world. Many factors all come together to determine whether a particular oil will work in a given application. Viscosity is just one of those."
OK sir oil is non compressible,,,granted and agreed.
Please take in to account that journal bearings have side leakage and the rate of leakage is among other things dependent of an oil's viscosity.
Well, of course. That oil being "flung" off is critical to the lubrication of other parts of the engine. I am prepared to assume that the engineers at Ford, Honda, and Toyota made sure that the bearings on their 20-spec engines are fully capable of keeping enough oil in place, even hot 20s, to do the job.
Originally Posted By: Rickey
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity.
I respectfully disagree. That is a "maybe". All depends upon the net effect of oil in and oil out. If the interface is designed so that it holds relatively more oil, no. If it lets too much out, yes. Without more specific info, a definite maybe.
Originally Posted By: Rickey
WHERE ARE THE ENGINEERS ON THIS BOARD ??????
I'm going to be good and not take that bait. . .
I'm going to be good and not take that bait. . .
Ok so some one speak up.
ME's please.
Ok so some one speak up.
ME's please.
Originally Posted By: Rickey
I'm waiting for more engineers to show up and put a stop to the absurdity that is being propagated herein.
If you folks don't mind I'll quote myself and wait for someone to prove otherwise.
"OK sir oil is non compressible,,,granted and agreed.
Please take in to account that journal bearings have side leakage and the rate of leakage is among other things dependent of an oil's viscosity.
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity."
There..... take a stab at that FACT.
The engineers (and there are plenty of them here) aren't coming to your rescue because they don't want to jump aboard a sinking ship. They know better.
As noted in my previous posts, again, you're overlooking the very simple idea that the OUT side of the bearing is part of the equation too. The design of the con rod, the crank, and the bearing will determine how much oil, of a given viscosity, will go out at a given temp. There -- did I stab it well enough?
I'm waiting for more engineers to show up and put a stop to the absurdity that is being propagated herein.
If you folks don't mind I'll quote myself and wait for someone to prove otherwise.
"OK sir oil is non compressible,,,granted and agreed.
Please take in to account that journal bearings have side leakage and the rate of leakage is among other things dependent of an oil's viscosity.
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity."
There..... take a stab at that FACT.
The engineers (and there are plenty of them here) aren't coming to your rescue because they don't want to jump aboard a sinking ship. They know better.
As noted in my previous posts, again, you're overlooking the very simple idea that the OUT side of the bearing is part of the equation too. The design of the con rod, the crank, and the bearing will determine how much oil, of a given viscosity, will go out at a given temp. There -- did I stab it well enough?
Originally Posted By: ekpolk
Originally Posted By: Rickey
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity.
I respectfully disagree. That is a "maybe". All depends upon the net effect of oil in and oil out. If the interface is designed so that it holds relatively more oil, no. If it lets too much out, yes. Without more specific info, a definite maybe.
I was going to stay away from this silly discussion in which the least qualified are the most vocal. However, I cannot not take the bait.
Ekpolk, you might be the greatest Marine or the most successful lawyer, but you do not understand lubrication.
I posted a few links to SAE papers that empirically PROVED that wear is inversely proportional to oil HTHS under some circumstances. How it is not case closed shut?
Recently, we saw a series of UOA in a car requiring 5W30 in which dino 5W30 produced repeatedly and statistically significant lower wear particles (if UOA can be trusted) compared to synthetic 5W20:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1536598#Post1536598
There was a similar finding in 0W30 GC vs thinner 5W30 PP:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1541866#Post1541866
Elkpolk, you did not comment on those.
Now we are hearing that there in no correlation between viscosity and oil film thickness.
How about this SAE paper: http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/831689
"For a series of seven Newtonian, single-grade oils, film thickness correlated with oil viscosity measured either in a kinematic or in a high-shear-rate viscometer. For a series of fifteen polymer-containing, non-Newtonian, multigrade oils, however, no single measure of viscosity adequately correlated with film thickness for all the oils. By eliminating four multigrade oils from the combined single and multigrade data sets, it was possible to correlate film thickness to the viscosity (of the remaining multigrade and Newtonian oils) measured at 150\mDC and 5 x 10\u5 s\u-\u1, conditions which are believed to be representative of temperatures and shear rates in bearing oil films."
How can you keep ignoring science? Wait, I forgot you were a lawyer.
Originally Posted By: Rickey
So at a given temperature and load a journal bearing will have less operating clearance with an oil of lesser viscosity.
I respectfully disagree. That is a "maybe". All depends upon the net effect of oil in and oil out. If the interface is designed so that it holds relatively more oil, no. If it lets too much out, yes. Without more specific info, a definite maybe.
I was going to stay away from this silly discussion in which the least qualified are the most vocal. However, I cannot not take the bait.
Ekpolk, you might be the greatest Marine or the most successful lawyer, but you do not understand lubrication.
I posted a few links to SAE papers that empirically PROVED that wear is inversely proportional to oil HTHS under some circumstances. How it is not case closed shut?
Recently, we saw a series of UOA in a car requiring 5W30 in which dino 5W30 produced repeatedly and statistically significant lower wear particles (if UOA can be trusted) compared to synthetic 5W20:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1536598#Post1536598
There was a similar finding in 0W30 GC vs thinner 5W30 PP:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1541866#Post1541866
Elkpolk, you did not comment on those.
Now we are hearing that there in no correlation between viscosity and oil film thickness.
How about this SAE paper: http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/831689
"For a series of seven Newtonian, single-grade oils, film thickness correlated with oil viscosity measured either in a kinematic or in a high-shear-rate viscometer. For a series of fifteen polymer-containing, non-Newtonian, multigrade oils, however, no single measure of viscosity adequately correlated with film thickness for all the oils. By eliminating four multigrade oils from the combined single and multigrade data sets, it was possible to correlate film thickness to the viscosity (of the remaining multigrade and Newtonian oils) measured at 150\mDC and 5 x 10\u5 s\u-\u1, conditions which are believed to be representative of temperatures and shear rates in bearing oil films."
How can you keep ignoring science? Wait, I forgot you were a lawyer.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
OVERKILL ..can you show me one study that Doug has done on a Ford Escort with a low compression 1.9 engine living a normal life? Honda Civic? Geo Metro? Prius?
Every instance that I can recall, Doug has been on the leading edge of high performance R&D and HEAVY DUTY R&D.
When have you heard him comment on something that didn't spec AT LEAST a 40 grade from the OEM?
This is not at all meant to discount anything Doug says ..since I'm absolutely sure that it's GOLD ..but there's is a whole lot I've never seen him say (I can't hear him, but I can imagine it) ..since ..to tell you the truth, it's of no interest to him. I've never heard him comment on the mundane. That's just about our entire existence for most of us.
We talked about my Expedition. There's a thread on it here somewhere.
I'm glad he gave a token mention to a light weight oiled engine
This has been fun, as usual - in a +/- way
I would never argue with XS650 ...Doug Hillary ...and someone like Shannow. They're too smart. The only trump card that anyone in the lighter persuasion camp has ..perhaps it's more of a rhetorical trick up their sleeve, is that we're waiting with anticipation for the legions of grenaded and tired 20 weight engine to show up. Those who have been waiting ..well, they've been waiting.
It's kinda like Poole and Bowman pulling the control module from the main antenna array on Discovery due to HAL's 100% flawless determination that it was going to fail in xxhours. Poole and Bowman find nothing wrong with the thing.
We never got to see that test played out ..
Anyway ..since we're not seeing all these grenaded and degraded engines .........AND the physics are allegedly immutable ..the conditions of the real world testing MUST be different than normal givens. That is, assumed conditions just aren't realistic or factual.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
OVERKILL ..can you show me one study that Doug has done on a Ford Escort with a low compression 1.9 engine living a normal life? Honda Civic? Geo Metro? Prius?
Every instance that I can recall, Doug has been on the leading edge of high performance R&D and HEAVY DUTY R&D.
When have you heard him comment on something that didn't spec AT LEAST a 40 grade from the OEM?
This is not at all meant to discount anything Doug says ..since I'm absolutely sure that it's GOLD ..but there's is a whole lot I've never seen him say (I can't hear him, but I can imagine it) ..since ..to tell you the truth, it's of no interest to him. I've never heard him comment on the mundane. That's just about our entire existence for most of us.
We talked about my Expedition. There's a thread on it here somewhere.
I'm glad he gave a token mention to a light weight oiled engine
This has been fun, as usual - in a +/- way
I would never argue with XS650 ...Doug Hillary ...and someone like Shannow. They're too smart. The only trump card that anyone in the lighter persuasion camp has ..perhaps it's more of a rhetorical trick up their sleeve, is that we're waiting with anticipation for the legions of grenaded and tired 20 weight engine to show up. Those who have been waiting ..well, they've been waiting.
It's kinda like Poole and Bowman pulling the control module from the main antenna array on Discovery due to HAL's 100% flawless determination that it was going to fail in xxhours. Poole and Bowman find nothing wrong with the thing.
We never got to see that test played out ..
Anyway ..since we're not seeing all these grenaded and degraded engines .........AND the physics are allegedly immutable ..the conditions of the real world testing MUST be different than normal givens. That is, assumed conditions just aren't realistic or factual.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
OVERKILL ..can you show me one study that Doug has done on a Ford Escort with a low compression 1.9 engine living a normal life? Honda Civic? Geo Metro? Prius?
Every instance that I can recall, Doug has been on the leading edge of high performance R&D and HEAVY DUTY R&D.
When have you heard him comment on something that didn't spec AT LEAST a 40 grade from the OEM?
This is not at all meant to discount anything Doug says ..since I'm absolutely sure that it's GOLD ..but there's is a whole lot I've never seen him say (I can't hear him, but I can imagine it) ..since ..to tell you the truth, it's of no interest to him. I've never heard him comment on the mundane. That's just about our entire existence for most of us.
We talked about my Expedition. There's a thread on it here somewhere.
I'm glad he gave a token mention to a light weight oiled engine
This has been fun, as usual - in a +/- way
I would never argue with XS650 ...Doug Hillary ...and someone like Shannow. They're too smart. The only trump card that anyone in the lighter persuasion camp has ..perhaps it's more of a rhetorical trick up their sleeve, is that we're waiting with anticipation for the legions of grenaded and tired 20 weight engine to show up. Those who have been waiting ..well, they've been waiting.
It's kinda like Poole and Bowman pulling the control module from the main antenna array on Discovery due to HAL's 100% flawless determination that it was going to fail in xxhours. Poole and Bowman find nothing wrong with the thing.
We never got to see that test played out ..
Anyway ..since we're not seeing all these grenaded and degraded engines .........AND the physics are allegedly immutable ..the conditions of the real world testing MUST be different than normal givens. That is, assumed conditions just aren't realistic or factual.
Is that really all you guys have, the lack of grenaded engines? No one can answer Rickey's question because the answer goes against the thinner is better. It's a fact that thicker oil will keep parts separated better in a journal bearing. I don't even want to be a part of this thread it's so retarded. We come up with new facts and proof all the time and every time there's a point being made, you guys go back to the good old "where are all the grenaded 20wt engines?" I see bait after bait being thrown out there and I see people arguing even though they're clearly wrong just to win an argument. I bet if I asked what color the sky was one of you guys would say red just do disagree. I quoted Gary on accident, this isn't just aimed at him.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
OVERKILL ..can you show me one study that Doug has done on a Ford Escort with a low compression 1.9 engine living a normal life? Honda Civic? Geo Metro? Prius?
Every instance that I can recall, Doug has been on the leading edge of high performance R&D and HEAVY DUTY R&D.
When have you heard him comment on something that didn't spec AT LEAST a 40 grade from the OEM?
This is not at all meant to discount anything Doug says ..since I'm absolutely sure that it's GOLD ..but there's is a whole lot I've never seen him say (I can't hear him, but I can imagine it) ..since ..to tell you the truth, it's of no interest to him. I've never heard him comment on the mundane. That's just about our entire existence for most of us.
We talked about my Expedition. There's a thread on it here somewhere.
I'm glad he gave a token mention to a light weight oiled engine
This has been fun, as usual - in a +/- way
I would never argue with XS650 ...Doug Hillary ...and someone like Shannow. They're too smart. The only trump card that anyone in the lighter persuasion camp has ..perhaps it's more of a rhetorical trick up their sleeve, is that we're waiting with anticipation for the legions of grenaded and tired 20 weight engine to show up. Those who have been waiting ..well, they've been waiting.
It's kinda like Poole and Bowman pulling the control module from the main antenna array on Discovery due to HAL's 100% flawless determination that it was going to fail in xxhours. Poole and Bowman find nothing wrong with the thing.
We never got to see that test played out ..
Anyway ..since we're not seeing all these grenaded and degraded engines .........AND the physics are allegedly immutable ..the conditions of the real world testing MUST be different than normal givens. That is, assumed conditions just aren't realistic or factual.
Is that really all you guys have, the lack of grenaded engines? No one can answer Rickey's question because the answer goes against the thinner is better. It's a fact that thicker oil will keep parts separated better in a journal bearing. I don't even want to be a part of this thread it's so retarded. We come up with new facts and proof all the time and every time there's a point being made, you guys go back to the good old "where are all the grenaded 20wt engines?" I see bait after bait being thrown out there and I see people arguing even though they're clearly wrong just to win an argument. I bet if I asked what color the sky was one of you guys would say red just do disagree. I quoted Gary on accident, this isn't just aimed at him.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
OVERKILL ..can you show me one study that Doug has done on a Ford Escort with a low compression 1.9 engine living a normal life? Honda Civic? Geo Metro? Prius?
Every instance that I can recall, Doug has been on the leading edge of high performance R&D and HEAVY DUTY R&D.
When have you heard him comment on something that didn't spec AT LEAST a 40 grade from the OEM?
This is not at all meant to discount anything Doug says ..since I'm absolutely sure that it's GOLD ..but there's is a whole lot I've never seen him say (I can't hear him, but I can imagine it) ..since ..to tell you the truth, it's of no interest to him. I've never heard him comment on the mundane. That's just about our entire existence for most of us.
We talked about my Expedition. There's a thread on it here somewhere.
I'm glad he gave a token mention to a light weight oiled engine
This has been fun, as usual - in a +/- way
I would never argue with XS650 ...Doug Hillary ...and someone like Shannow. They're too smart. The only trump card that anyone in the lighter persuasion camp has ..perhaps it's more of a rhetorical trick up their sleeve, is that we're waiting with anticipation for the legions of grenaded and tired 20 weight engine to show up. Those who have been waiting ..well, they've been waiting.
It's kinda like Poole and Bowman pulling the control module from the main antenna array on Discovery due to HAL's 100% flawless determination that it was going to fail in xxhours. Poole and Bowman find nothing wrong with the thing.
We never got to see that test played out ..
Anyway ..since we're not seeing all these grenaded and degraded engines .........AND the physics are allegedly immutable ..the conditions of the real world testing MUST be different than normal givens. That is, assumed conditions just aren't realistic or factual.
I know for sure that I have never stated that engines would grenade or become prematurely tired running 20-weight oils. In fact, as has already been discussed in great length, the older 30-grades used to readily sheer to a 20-grade anyways.
My only argument is that a heavier oil will provide better protection. I don't think in a lower-HP Ford Modular application, that the extra protection is needed. That is why the engines will rack up obscene mileage on these oils. The bottom-ends are over-built and incredibly rigid, and with the somewhat mediocre BHP they produce stock, and with the low-operating RPM range, a light-oil provides better fuel economy and more than adequate protection.
In the high-HP applications, Ford calls for heavier oil. The reason for this to me seems to be a no-brainer: The intended use is much more akin to ABUSE, and the much higher BHP out of the same displacement means much greater stress on the bottom-end. The heavier oil offers better protection under these circumstances.
The OEM's wouldn't spec a lighter oil if it was going to cause engine failure or noticeable premature wear. On the other hand, the fact that in countries where CAFE isn't applicable, that they spec a heavier oil, means that many of the arguments about being ONLY able to run a light oil are invalid. I bring up the Ford Modular engines again for this example.
If there was a 0w20 or 0w30/5w20 or 5w30 that was built like M1 TDT/D1 5w40, I would definitely give it a run. Viscosity was not my main reason for the choice of that oil, though I do believe it plays a role in the oil's performance, which we know is exceptional.
The recent threads about Redline have me thinking about that. And our own little discussion about SSO a while back as well.
I chose this lubricant because of Doug's extensive experience with it. Slammds15 on here has been running it in his Super Duty and the cleaning it did was unreal. This sort of real-world experience, complete with tear-down testing (had to throw that in there
) are the factors that molded my choice.
In BuickGN's thread, there is mention of a 1,000HP LT-1 with fantastic tear-down results running Redline. When that sort of information is provided, I am all ears.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
OVERKILL ..can you show me one study that Doug has done on a Ford Escort with a low compression 1.9 engine living a normal life? Honda Civic? Geo Metro? Prius?
Every instance that I can recall, Doug has been on the leading edge of high performance R&D and HEAVY DUTY R&D.
When have you heard him comment on something that didn't spec AT LEAST a 40 grade from the OEM?
This is not at all meant to discount anything Doug says ..since I'm absolutely sure that it's GOLD ..but there's is a whole lot I've never seen him say (I can't hear him, but I can imagine it) ..since ..to tell you the truth, it's of no interest to him. I've never heard him comment on the mundane. That's just about our entire existence for most of us.
We talked about my Expedition. There's a thread on it here somewhere.
I'm glad he gave a token mention to a light weight oiled engine
This has been fun, as usual - in a +/- way
I would never argue with XS650 ...Doug Hillary ...and someone like Shannow. They're too smart. The only trump card that anyone in the lighter persuasion camp has ..perhaps it's more of a rhetorical trick up their sleeve, is that we're waiting with anticipation for the legions of grenaded and tired 20 weight engine to show up. Those who have been waiting ..well, they've been waiting.
It's kinda like Poole and Bowman pulling the control module from the main antenna array on Discovery due to HAL's 100% flawless determination that it was going to fail in xxhours. Poole and Bowman find nothing wrong with the thing.
We never got to see that test played out ..
Anyway ..since we're not seeing all these grenaded and degraded engines .........AND the physics are allegedly immutable ..the conditions of the real world testing MUST be different than normal givens. That is, assumed conditions just aren't realistic or factual.
I know for sure that I have never stated that engines would grenade or become prematurely tired running 20-weight oils. In fact, as has already been discussed in great length, the older 30-grades used to readily sheer to a 20-grade anyways.
My only argument is that a heavier oil will provide better protection. I don't think in a lower-HP Ford Modular application, that the extra protection is needed. That is why the engines will rack up obscene mileage on these oils. The bottom-ends are over-built and incredibly rigid, and with the somewhat mediocre BHP they produce stock, and with the low-operating RPM range, a light-oil provides better fuel economy and more than adequate protection.
In the high-HP applications, Ford calls for heavier oil. The reason for this to me seems to be a no-brainer: The intended use is much more akin to ABUSE, and the much higher BHP out of the same displacement means much greater stress on the bottom-end. The heavier oil offers better protection under these circumstances.
The OEM's wouldn't spec a lighter oil if it was going to cause engine failure or noticeable premature wear. On the other hand, the fact that in countries where CAFE isn't applicable, that they spec a heavier oil, means that many of the arguments about being ONLY able to run a light oil are invalid. I bring up the Ford Modular engines again for this example.
If there was a 0w20 or 0w30/5w20 or 5w30 that was built like M1 TDT/D1 5w40, I would definitely give it a run. Viscosity was not my main reason for the choice of that oil, though I do believe it plays a role in the oil's performance, which we know is exceptional.
The recent threads about Redline have me thinking about that. And our own little discussion about SSO a while back as well.
I chose this lubricant because of Doug's extensive experience with it. Slammds15 on here has been running it in his Super Duty and the cleaning it did was unreal. This sort of real-world experience, complete with tear-down testing (had to throw that in there
In BuickGN's thread, there is mention of a 1,000HP LT-1 with fantastic tear-down results running Redline. When that sort of information is provided, I am all ears.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
. . .
I was going to stay away from this silly discussion in which the least qualified are the most vocal. However, I cannot not take the bait.
Ekpolk, you might be the greatest Marine or the most successful lawyer, but you do not understand lubrication.
I posted a few links to SAE papers that empirically PROVED that wear is inversely proportional to oil HTHS under some circumstances. How it is not case closed shut?
Oh fer Pete's sake, what do you think I've been doing here myself for the last five years??? It's not as if I've haven't pulled a few of the many very interesting SAE (and other source) papers and such myself. You might try some Freudian psychology -- you're projecting your lack of understanding on me. First off, a couple of papers published by the SAE do not constitute "proof" at all. Hey, the cigarette companies have backed the publication of a bazillion papers showing all sorts of neat things, like smoking is not addictive, and does not cause cancer at all. I guess those things are "proven" too...
More fundamentally, you misconstrue the what the papers you cite really mean. I'm sure if you sat the authors down, they'd agree that in the real world, what happens to any given engine is the result of ALL factors operating together in a very uncontrolled manner. These studies SUGGEST things, they do not constitute conclusive "proof" at all. Least qualified? College was almost 30 years ago, but I do recall something of statistics and scientific method.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Recently, we saw a series of UOA in a car requiring 5W30 in which dino 5W30 produced repeatedly and statistically significant lower wear particles (if UOA can be trusted) compared to synthetic 5W20:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1536598#Post1536598
Again -- scientific method. It's ONLY one car. You can NOT make any broad conclusions from one car. That's why I posted twenty links to good 20 wt UOAs. If I blindfold you, have you pull a ball from a tub with a thousand balls, and you have a red one, would you conclude that all the balls are red? Maybe they are. Maybe half are red. Mabye 10%. Maybe you lucked out and got the only one. My "sample" of 20 doesn't reach any measurable level of statistical significance, but it beats the shorts off using ONE CAR, to draw global conclusions. Did you ever consider that the ONE car you're citing may simply have something like a loose or worn bearing which makes it, in its own way, favor slightly heavier oil??? Show me a couple dozen cars that do the same thing, and then I'll be impressed. I'm not right now.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
There was a similar finding in 0W30 GC vs thinner 5W30 PP:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1541866#Post1541866
Again, way too many uncontrolled variables. Both are great oils, but both have different add packs, base oils, etc. Compare two very similar oils, that differ ONLY in vis, and then you can draw some conclusions.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Elkpolk, you did not comment on those.
Is that better?
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Now we are hearing that there in no correlation between viscosity and oil film thickness.
Are you having an auditory hallucination?
Quote:
How about this SAE paper: http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/831689
"For a series of seven Newtonian, single-grade oils, film thickness correlated with oil viscosity measured either in a kinematic or in a high-shear-rate viscometer. For a series of fifteen polymer-containing, non-Newtonian, multigrade oils, however, no single measure of viscosity adequately correlated with film thickness for all the oils. By eliminating four multigrade oils from the combined single and multigrade data sets, it was possible to correlate film thickness to the viscosity (of the remaining multigrade and Newtonian oils) measured at 150\mDC and 5 x 10\u5 s\u-\u1, conditions which are believed to be representative of temperatures and shear rates in bearing oil films."
How can you keep ignoring science? Wait, I forgot you were a lawyer.
Oh that's special. When you yourself run out of good reasons to support your position, resort to personal attack. It doesn't matter whether I shovel horse manure for a living, poking holes in this misplaced reliance on isolated data points, and studies is child's play.
. . .
I was going to stay away from this silly discussion in which the least qualified are the most vocal. However, I cannot not take the bait.
Ekpolk, you might be the greatest Marine or the most successful lawyer, but you do not understand lubrication.
I posted a few links to SAE papers that empirically PROVED that wear is inversely proportional to oil HTHS under some circumstances. How it is not case closed shut?
Oh fer Pete's sake, what do you think I've been doing here myself for the last five years??? It's not as if I've haven't pulled a few of the many very interesting SAE (and other source) papers and such myself. You might try some Freudian psychology -- you're projecting your lack of understanding on me. First off, a couple of papers published by the SAE do not constitute "proof" at all. Hey, the cigarette companies have backed the publication of a bazillion papers showing all sorts of neat things, like smoking is not addictive, and does not cause cancer at all. I guess those things are "proven" too...
More fundamentally, you misconstrue the what the papers you cite really mean. I'm sure if you sat the authors down, they'd agree that in the real world, what happens to any given engine is the result of ALL factors operating together in a very uncontrolled manner. These studies SUGGEST things, they do not constitute conclusive "proof" at all. Least qualified? College was almost 30 years ago, but I do recall something of statistics and scientific method.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Recently, we saw a series of UOA in a car requiring 5W30 in which dino 5W30 produced repeatedly and statistically significant lower wear particles (if UOA can be trusted) compared to synthetic 5W20:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1536598#Post1536598
Again -- scientific method. It's ONLY one car. You can NOT make any broad conclusions from one car. That's why I posted twenty links to good 20 wt UOAs. If I blindfold you, have you pull a ball from a tub with a thousand balls, and you have a red one, would you conclude that all the balls are red? Maybe they are. Maybe half are red. Mabye 10%. Maybe you lucked out and got the only one. My "sample" of 20 doesn't reach any measurable level of statistical significance, but it beats the shorts off using ONE CAR, to draw global conclusions. Did you ever consider that the ONE car you're citing may simply have something like a loose or worn bearing which makes it, in its own way, favor slightly heavier oil??? Show me a couple dozen cars that do the same thing, and then I'll be impressed. I'm not right now.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
There was a similar finding in 0W30 GC vs thinner 5W30 PP:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1541866#Post1541866
Again, way too many uncontrolled variables. Both are great oils, but both have different add packs, base oils, etc. Compare two very similar oils, that differ ONLY in vis, and then you can draw some conclusions.
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Elkpolk, you did not comment on those.
Is that better?
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Now we are hearing that there in no correlation between viscosity and oil film thickness.
Are you having an auditory hallucination?
Quote:
How about this SAE paper: http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/831689
"For a series of seven Newtonian, single-grade oils, film thickness correlated with oil viscosity measured either in a kinematic or in a high-shear-rate viscometer. For a series of fifteen polymer-containing, non-Newtonian, multigrade oils, however, no single measure of viscosity adequately correlated with film thickness for all the oils. By eliminating four multigrade oils from the combined single and multigrade data sets, it was possible to correlate film thickness to the viscosity (of the remaining multigrade and Newtonian oils) measured at 150\mDC and 5 x 10\u5 s\u-\u1, conditions which are believed to be representative of temperatures and shear rates in bearing oil films."
How can you keep ignoring science? Wait, I forgot you were a lawyer.
Oh that's special. When you yourself run out of good reasons to support your position, resort to personal attack. It doesn't matter whether I shovel horse manure for a living, poking holes in this misplaced reliance on isolated data points, and studies is child's play.
No,that ain't it. It's that some people think that their opinion is fact,and that just ain't so,is it? There are lots of people with hundreds of thousands of miles on the clock that don't even know what weight oil they are running. Some of us just like to get the basics of less friction = lower temperature equation right,now what's wrong with that?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked