Recent Topics
R2C air filters
by Srt20
05/05/16 05:55 PM
Mobil 5000 observations
by tojo1968
05/05/16 05:32 PM
Puro Classics still at WM for 75Cents
by GumbyJarvis
05/05/16 05:09 PM
NAPA Gold start-up clatter
by AZjeff
05/05/16 04:44 PM
Castrol's 5w20 synthetics
by pbm
05/05/16 04:43 PM
Impressed with Xfinity (Comcast) customer service
by Klutch9
05/05/16 03:48 PM
Mobil M1-110 or Fram Ultra XG7317 ?
by Srt20
05/05/16 03:10 PM
Medical Errors No. 3 Cause of U.S. Deathss
by doitmyself
05/05/16 02:29 PM
Top Ten Historic Hotel Lacks Designated MC Parking
by LoneRanger
05/05/16 02:19 PM
Toro 120-4276 Oil Filter Cross Ref?
by AirgunSavant
05/05/16 01:42 PM
Using Smoker Indoors
by racer12306
05/05/16 01:23 PM
Misfire and Stumble under load '01 Focus
by Ifixyawata
05/05/16 01:17 PM
Newest Members
02Maxima, xlittoninjax, Jamer, johaiti, Danielbaja
57803 Registered Users
Who's Online
92 registered (Bandito440, AirgunSavant, Al, azjake, 97K15004WD, 14 invisible), 0 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
57803 Members
66 Forums
248524 Topics
4064635 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 15 of 19 < 1 2 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >
Topic Options
#3296962 - 02/28/14 05:28 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alekhine Offline

Registered: 02/25/14
Posts: 2
Loc: UK
Yes, the 2H-WS2 'nanoparticles' on the market actually have a wild size distribution as proven by optical/electronic microscopy. But I assume everything would be fine if you could mechanically decrease their size to one that doesn't interfere with the filters (my opinion is that the relationship between the size of the nanoparticles and that of the surface asperities is less important than the chemistry involved). This is why I was curious about an approximate size you need to reach..
When you said 'nothing that would be recommended for engine use', do you refer to the lack of current dispersion methods available, or is there any other practical reason against it?
(I apologize for shortly changing the subject from IF to 2H WS2)

#3297357 - 02/28/14 01:26 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline

Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 149
Loc: Pacific NW
Sorry, I don't understand the 2H-WS2 designation. But I would not put anything other than IF WS2 in my engine. This thread is really quite specific about materials within the range necessary for the purpose.

"nothing that would be recommended for engine use" I mean don't use random chunks of any WS2 in an engine (unless you really feel the need and may be annoyed by your engine). If it makes it through the filter it should cause no harm.

You might want to skim through this thread. This sort of thing has been discussed to death. IF WS2 should maintain a fairly consistent Bucky Ball structures less than 100nm. As the structures decrease in size from adhering and being sheared by mechanical forces, the particles will tend to small clusters of molecules. Or individual molecules. Any of this should be invisible to a normal engine oil filter.

I looked at your link, but I am not going to purchase the document. Looking at the brief abstract, I am not sure what they are going to say. From the abstract: "WS2 nanoadditives react with the metal substrate to generate thick chemical tribofilms". I don't understand the term chemical in that context.

There is no chemical reaction with the IF WS2. Direct atomic forces only. The WS2 can be directly applied to materials with fairly low pressure air sprays. In an engine application after it is assembled, the oil delivers the WS2 while dealing with all the other needs of the engine. I have not found any indications that something actually has to be added to WS2 to make it fulfill it's intended purpose. My guess (and that of some others as well) is that engine oil "compatibility" is more about leaving out conflicting materials (e.g., ZDDP, Molly) than adding things to support the WS2 action.

Essentially a modern oil may have a lot of additives that get in the way of the process. The oil film itself works to keep the plating from happening.

Just an extraneous thought. If I were to rebuild an engine (or get one that had never been run) I would be tempted to pull the spark plugs, put a low speed electric motor on the engine, flush any residual oil and derbies, then put in IF WS2 in a convenient carrier not likely to generate much in the way of a film (like alcohol). Run that at low speed for a while and then get rid of the working fluid. Then put in the oil and follow normal procedures. That should do something toward plating in a much shorter time frame. Then I would use IF WS2 oil. That could reduce "break-in" wear, which may not be desired.

#3297572 - 02/28/14 05:01 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
Coronamaker Offline

Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 7
Loc: Illinois
alternety the 2H simply designates the WS2 as the platelet type.

Also as far as your thought of using alcohol and IF WS2 to pre-coat, I would suggest instead a clear mineral oil or a maybe a Spectrasyn 4, as alcohol could actually start immediate oxidation of the exposed metals, just a thought. I would not worry about the film that the oil will have as you are only using the oil to get the WS2 to the surfaces to coat. Additionally once the WS2 coats it will hold a layer of oil on the WS2 to further protect the metal surfaces until you actually get the engine fired up and flowing the oil you have filled it up with.

I also would add a slight correction to 67King's last post in this thread about the concern of coating rings, I can state as a fact that this is no problem. In fact when Cadillac brought out their North-Star engine and warranted it for 100K they had initial problems with the rings not lasting. Between the first failures and the re-engineering of the engine, literally hundreds of thousands of rings were spray coated with WS2 to make them last through the warranty period. The WS2 used for this was the spray industry standard 0.5 micron WS2 that is also used to meet the Aerospace and DOD specifications for spray application of WS2 as a dry film lubricant. Additionally many aftermarket rings have been coated with either MoS2 or WS2 going back to the 80s and earlier, and engine builders for decades have no problems with ring seating or break in due to the coatings.

I am surprised to read the comments from the aforementioned paper, which I have not read fully yet, speculating wear from the WS2. Rockwell Hardness of this material is a fraction of that of steel, and lower than that of aluminum, but then again the Rockwell of water is pretty low and look what it can do if it is coursing through the countryside. But then again, the paper references 5% WS2 by weight which if I calculate correctly is an obscene amount of WS2. I would welcome any correction if I made a Friday mental mistake. My math is below.

1 Gallon of 10-30 oil is roughly 7.3 pounds. Divided by four quarts, that makes 1 quart of said oil approximately 1.825 pounds. Five percent of that would be 1.825 * .05 = .09125 pound or 41.39 grams/Qt of oil. I must be making the same mistake over and over here because this is an absolutely ridiculous amount of WS2 in any form to put into oil. Unless the goal is to turn oil into grease! Even if the Gallon was only 5 pounds it would work out to around 28 grams/Qt, still a ridiculously high amount of WS2. That (.09125 Lb) is like 17,000+ square inches of coverage per quart.

Given that the goal of using a product like WS2 regardless of form is to cover the lubrication surfaces. This actually requires planning to coat all of the oil bearing surfaces of the engine, gearbox, etc. because the WS2 will coat it all eventually, and then you would want to have a very small amount excess to recoat trouble spots if needed. Given that every gram will cover over 400 square inches, it is really not that much WS2 required to do the job. And as ASTM Timken testing has shown that while WS2 provides considerable protection over base oil, the difference in the wear protection between 1.775 grams/Qt and 10 grams/Qt of 0.5 micron WS2 in Shell Rotella T is marginal, the question would be how fast 10 grams per quart will coat versus 2 grams per quart, and also how much is too much? So say you split the difference, treating a 6 quart oil system with 5 grams per quart would yield approximately 12.400 square inches of coverage. That is less than 1% by weight, again provided Friday mental defect has not yet set in.

I only added all this coverage info to further show why I question the thought behind a 5% by weight ratio in testing.

#3297627 - 02/28/14 06:13 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline

Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 149
Loc: Pacific NW
Thanks Coronamaker. I was just winging it. My thought was for something with minimal film buildup between parts. Did not think about corrosion. It was just a mind exercise. I have zero interest in rebuilding engines. I have enough things to worry about.

I have some of the Apnano IF WS2 additive. This is already diluted in the mineral oil carrier. They recommend 25ml/L. I have seen quite low percentages, but I don't remember and I don't seem to have saved that info. You may want to check out the Apnano site, they may have the info there. I did find a saved paper and oddly enough it explained 2H. Anyway, here is a bit if text from that paper that I think people here would find interesting.


It was concluded that impregnation of IF nanoparticles provides
the regime of quasi-hydrodynamic lubrication over
the widest range of loads in comparison to the reference

sample and the sample impregnated with 2HWS2 particles.
FeNi samples were found to exhibit the highest wear resistance
and provide the widest range of quasi-hydrodynamic
lubrication in comparison to the bronze and iron powdered
composites. The effect of IF on the lubrication regime is
explained on the basis of a third-body model. It is expected
that the sliding/rolling of the IF nanoparticles in the boundary
of the first-bodies and in between the wear particles
(third-body) facilitate the shear of the lubrication film and
thus provide a quasi-hydrodynamic regime of friction. It is
suggested that the quasi-spherical shape of the IF nanoparticles
facilitates their forced impregnation into the porous
matrix and allows their slow release from the pores onto
the contact surfaces.

Source: Friction and wear of powdered composites impregnated
with WS2 inorganic fullerene-like nanoparticles
L. Rapoport a,&#8727;, V. Leshchinsky a, M. Lvovskya, O. Nepomnyashchy a,
Yu Volovik a, R. Tenne b
a Department of Science, Holon Academic Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 305, Holon 58102, Israel
b Department of Materials and Interfaces, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel

Edited by alternety (02/28/14 06:15 PM)

#3298327 - 03/01/14 02:28 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline

Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 149
Loc: Pacific NW
A reminder. If you want to buy some IF WS2 in a bit of mineral oil,
go here:

I though at one point they had dropped the product, but they did not. They are however showing a picture of the up to date package from Apnano. Mine came in what appeared to maybe be a container filled from a bulk container. Definitely not a container I saw on the manufacturer's site.

#3302316 - 03/05/14 01:43 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
PhillipM Offline

Registered: 02/04/14
Posts: 72
Loc: UK
FWIW, whilst it's off topic a little, to clear up the little spat.

Anybody that actually works, races or develops/designs 'shocks and struts' will call them dampers, because technically the shock absorber is the spring, and the strut is just a casing with some bearings either end...the bit that does the damping, is a damper...I think the use of 'dampen' is an americanism that seems to have been adopted too (probably why people over there keep calling them dampeners instead of dampers) - 67King is right, originally that term only meant 'to wet something', the correct term for applying damping to a part always used to be simply 'damp' - as in "We need to damp the movement", etc.

Here endeth the damper nonclementure lesson.

#3335042 - 04/06/14 03:03 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline

Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 149
Loc: Pacific NW
A bit of feedback. I put the Millers Oils IF WS2 oil in a 2013 CR-V. It is my wife's car and she has kept a mileage log from day one. I believe the OEM break-in oil had been in long enough and most initial engine wear-in had occurred (my opinion, no fact). I put in 5W30 instead of the suggested 0W20. So there could have been some impact from that.

Net results. She made some note of the predominant driving conditions (local or highway). With her use it is usually one or the other over one or two tanks. The mpg has increases about 2 mpg under both types of driving.

Not a real scientific test; but indicative. YMMV.

#3335189 - 04/06/14 06:31 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline

Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 8546
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Their 0W-30 (or 0W-20) Racing might have been even better, but it may have a slightly lower TBN than their 'street' line up, so possibly not as good for extended drains. frown

I believe the VIs in the same grade are very close between the racing and street labelled oils.
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 180K miles
4L Motul 300V 0W-40, 2L Motul 300V 0W-20
M1-206 oil filter
Motul Gear 300 75W-90
Red Line D4/MTL in the T56

#3335199 - 04/06/14 06:45 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline

Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 149
Loc: Pacific NW
I agree. But they were not available when I made my purchase. Rather annoying actually. I still have a significant amount to use up. The problem with being an early adopter. It is the WS2 I am after.

#3372567 - 05/15/14 02:41 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline

Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 149
Loc: Pacific NW
Actually my last post is not true. My fingers were faster than my brain. I Just did not want the racing additive package.

Next quest. I need some of the real lube guys to suggest a grease I can use to mix in some IF WS2 concentrate.

I have concentrate in a bit of mineral oil. I have an application where I want to replace the grease recommended my a manufacturer with a WS2 alternative. Please do not start a semi-thread of "the manufacturer knows best" :-). The recommended material is LPS anti-seize Part No. #04110 with heavy MoS2 content. The parts are in fast motion, it can be cold, gets fairly hot, and things slide and bang into each other at high energies. The grease is necessary to prevent galling and other impact generated surface deterioration.

What I need is a good quality non-hardening non-runny grease, thick enough to stay in place but not generate a huge amount of drag. Good temp range (0F - a couple of hundred}, and no components that will attempt to attach themselves to the substrate (e.g., MoS2, ZDDP, etc.) and might slow the attachment of the WS2. The WS2 concentrate is in a mineral oil base, which may limit the alternatives.

Come on lube pros - I have to believe you have some great possibilities.

#3379383 - 05/23/14 04:07 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline

Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 149
Loc: Pacific NW
Come on guys. I can hear you squeezing tubes out there.

#3380122 - 05/24/14 03:51 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
Olas Offline

Registered: 12/11/13
Posts: 2468
Loc: Manchester, England
Archoil AR8400 is what you want wink
1982 VW Scirocco
98 bhp
78000 miles
Redline fluids
Mann/Mahle filters

#3380989 - 05/25/14 05:21 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline

Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 149
Loc: Pacific NW
OK. Here is a post I put on another forum. Not scientific. Purely personally perceived results. And I was biased to want them.******

OK. Can you say slicker than snot on a door knob?

I cleaned off the outside while burnishing it with a rag.

Did some burnishing on internals that I could easily reach. Racked the action maybe 30 times. Dry fired around 30 times.

Went outside and put a mag through it. Now this is freshly returned from a Cajun Gun Works full trigger job. When I got it back is was noticeably better than when I sent it.

Better trigger. Smoother and moved rearward for ease of use. CGW lubed the moving parts but not the slide or associated things like that . They used no MoS2 at my direction.

1 Mag. Non-descript ammo. WOW. Slide is very noticeably easier to operate than with original lube. And with un-lubed CGW spring weight reduction. My wife may now be able to operate the slide when she gets home. Trigger action: original, not bad - I could live with it. After CGW, much better - smoother crisper. After IF WS2, WOW WOW. Like glass. Slide, trigger, hammer, everything. And the IF WS2 lube has not really had time to do it's surface bonding thing. As it breaks in is should get better.

This is the greatest stuff since Hoppes #9. Yes, I know, that is not a lubricant. But it was a seminal gun maintenance product. I also seem to be getting new hair growth where it touched my skin. And sex is much better. ;D O0

#3381051 - 05/25/14 07:23 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
JAG Offline

Registered: 10/23/05
Posts: 4550
Loc: Fredericksburg, VA
That's great to hear, alternety. What was the carrier of the WS2?

#3381065 - 05/25/14 07:38 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline

Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 149
Loc: Pacific NW
I just used the mineral oil base straight out of the bottle. The material is pretty thick, so I am guessing there is not a lot of oil.

I was going to try alcohol, but the material, as supplied, seemed to work. I may try another carrier more suitable for thinning oil after I have some experience. I am not sure that the raw material is suitable for creeping into the tight spaces.

Page 15 of 19 < 1 2 ... 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >