Recent Topics
Do not apply chemicals or lube to ThermQuiet Pads?
by Bill_G
5 minutes 33 seconds ago
Bobcat hydraulic pump
by Donald
Today at 02:02 PM
Viscosity Modifiers Interesting article.
by Koz1
Today at 01:54 PM
Bitog Wall of ... Thank You
by pandus13
Today at 01:37 PM
High compression ratio: is higher octane better?
by wemay
Today at 01:36 PM
Car Rebuilding
by Eddie
Today at 01:04 PM
98 Civic - torque converter lockup?
by wing0
Today at 01:02 PM
16MP camera being used in 8MP mode
by Vikas
Today at 10:50 AM
Solar Battery Chargers
by Tdbo
Today at 10:24 AM
Craftsman Snowblower 247.88955
by Droopy
Today at 09:45 AM
GY Ultra Grip GW-3 or Firestone Winterforce
by Blue_Goose
Today at 09:37 AM
Oriellys MGL51372 cut open
by DSparks
Today at 08:46 AM
Newest Members
DRISSI, kinder, SamBruin7, splatt, Lars65inc
51985 Registered Users
Who's Online
89 registered (440Magnum, 95MarkVIII, 4wheeldog, 1 FMF, 123Saab, 11 invisible), 1847 Guests and 162 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51985 Members
66 Forums
222554 Topics
3522715 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 ... 18 19 >
Topic Options
#2821786 - 12/02/12 07:13 PM IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
OK, I got your attention; but I believe it is true. I have searched the forums here and none of the threads addressing nano-lubricants really seemed to be the right place to discuss this. Too many statements that are, in my opinion simply wrong. I have questions, but first I am going to do a lecture on the stuff. Corrections welcome if I screw something up - but citing a reputable source would be nice if you do.

The ultimate lube is the Inorganic Fullerene like Tungsten Disulphide. The IF in the title was not a question; it is part of the description. W is the correct abbreviation for Tungsten (Wolfram originally). OK, semantics/definitions finished; the substance.

WS2 it the most lubricious material available (Everything credible I have seen confirms this). This material alone would provide better lubrication than MoDS2. A statement in one of the threads I mentioned stated that WS2 is not used in engine oils is because it won't stay in suspension. Similar to moly, the material will bond to surfaces. If it stays suspended long enough to move through the engine n times, much of it will bonded with the metal of the engine. This is a good thing.

Then there is size. Generally moly is not really nano sized. Nano particles need to be less than 100 nanometers. The (normally) larger moly particles can be filtered out of the oil by the oil filters. WS2 can come in most any particle size. At least as large as 1000 nm. They can also be nano sized. But the IF makes a huge difference.

If you don't know what a Buckyball is, you can do a bit of research. The structure is named after architect Buckminster Fuller, the inventor of geodesic building structures. It is essentially a nano scale geodesic (from the atomic level crystalline formation) structure. It was initially observed in carbon. And was thought for a while to be only found there. This may be the base substance in lubricants claiming nano diamonds. I have not been able to get a clear answer to that. Secrecy seems to be rampant in the industry. Like it would keep any competent person with some equipment to determine the contents if they planned to manufacture a copy.

Onward. The F says that the the WS2 is in a Fullerene like structure. The I says it is not organic (e.g., not carbon). I believe the process and inherent structure puts these particles at less than 100 nm. Truly nano particles.

There are several major effects associated with the materials of this size. The simplest and the one that is the basis of the utility of this material; it is so far the most slippery material on earth. Next is the size. The small size enables attraction and bonding processes that appear only at these particle sizes. You get some of this effect in materials (e.g., non-nano moly) but they are much stronger under 100 nm.

But, there is more. The non-IF particles are a superb lubricant, but the process of allowing atomic forces to bond the material so tightly to the surfaces that they make serious effects of filling in the molecular sized peaks and valleys in the surfaces of the materials being lubricated is a function of particle size. The IF particles are constructed rather like an onion (a really really teeny tiny [url=onionhttp://cdn.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/images/icons/default/grin.gif][url=onionhttp://cdn.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/images/icons/default/grin.gif][url=onionhttp://cdn.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/images/icons/default/grin.gif]onionhttp://cdn.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/images/icons/default/grin.gif[/url][/url][/url] ). When they are placed between surfaces under some pressure (e.g., bearings) they adhere to a surface and peel off parts of their structure which greatly enhances the filling of surface voids. In no way I am aware of does this process rely on the Higgs Boson or dark matter. Just sayn.

Some formulations for a lubricant need to have two different materials to include both lubricity and surface adhesion. IF WS2 makes doorknob snot look like industrial crazy glue.

OK. That's over. I have been trying for quite a long time to get a small quantity of the IF WS2 to play with. So far my success has been very close to zero. I have found only one source. But they want $330 for 50 grams; the minimum order. There are several sources in Asia. Pricing not really known, but they seem cheaper. Some seem quite questionable. I can't tell if the stuff they would ship is IF WS2 or ground up old dental plates. The ones that seem legit simply do not respond to my request for a small amount.

There may be some US sources, but they have not particularly wanted to talk either. I saw that ApNano (sort of the inventors of the IF WS2) was finally shipping to a specific user in late 2012. Up until this point they has seemed to be in a volume production mode; but that was not necessarily true. Their ApNano IF WS2 is sold (as various mixes) as NanoLube. There is a US company that feels it holds that trademark, so it gets a bit confusing. But, on the bright side, I have found no source of those materials either.

What I am really after is the pure powder. I do not particularly want want it mixed with some unknown oil. I really just want to imbed the material in some high pressure points. If I want (or less likely, need) additional oil I would want to use one I trust from prior experience. Not one they decide is a good thing.

I think this site has a pretty good sprinkling of lubrication savvy people, so after all this, does anyone know where I can get a small amount of IF WS2?

Top
#2821803 - 12/02/12 07:49 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 33986
Loc: New Jersey
Nanoparticles are really tough to make as the milling forces increase exponentially, and DLVO forces cause the need for other surface stabilization to prevent them from re-agglomerating into larger particles.

So the amount of energy required to formulate these particles at that size, and then especially to dry and stabilize them may be excessive in cost an thus not have an industrial relevance as compared to larger particles, regardless of what theory implies of their lubricity.

The cost and scale you see may be all that is practical and to get a smaller amount, you may need to pay the same...

Top
#2821851 - 12/02/12 08:30 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: JHZR2]
Stelth Offline


Registered: 02/24/11
Posts: 1460
Loc: California
Your post inspired me to write a poem:

O Wolfram so slip'ry,
Thy sulfides sublime,
Keep my metals from wearing,
Make my bearings to shine.

Slipping and sliding,
on rough spots and such,
keeping things going
when the going gets rough.

Fullerenes and Buckyballs-
I love them so much!
I'd use them in everything
'cept maybe my clutch.

Wolfram disulfide,
with tungsten so hard
Costs way too much
to use in my car.


Edited by Stelth (12/02/12 08:43 PM)
Edit Reason: spelling
_________________________
Scofflaw

Top
#2821856 - 12/02/12 08:32 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14700
Loc: Iowegia
What exactly are you trying to do? Lubricant chemistry is much more than just concentrating on one component or additive chemistry.

Many times one needs a synergistic co-additive in order to make a specific additive work properly.

RT Vanderbilt has an organotungstate:

http://www.rtvanderbilt.com/VANLUBE_W324_TDS.pdf

and Alfa Aesar may have the powder. I do not know what the particle size might be.



Edited by MolaKule (12/02/12 08:34 PM)
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#2821875 - 12/02/12 09:03 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21541
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: alternety
OK, I got your attention; but I believe it is true. I have searched the forums here and none of the threads addressing nano-lubricants really seemed to be the right place to discuss this. Too many statements that are, in my opinion simply wrong. I have questions, but first I am going to do a lecture on the stuff. Corrections welcome if I screw something up - but citing a reputable source would be nice if you do.

The ultimate lube is the Inorganic Fullerene like Tungsten Disulphide. The IF in the title was not a question; it is part of the description. W is the correct abbreviation for Tungsten (Wolfram originally). OK, semantics/definitions finished; the substance.

WS2 it the most lubricious material available (Everything credible I have seen confirms this). This material alone would provide better lubrication than MoDS2. A statement in one of the threads I mentioned stated that WS2 is not used in engine oils is because it won't stay in suspension. Similar to moly, the material will bond to surfaces. If it stays suspended long enough to move through the engine n times, much of it will bonded with the metal of the engine. This is a good thing.

Then there is size. Generally moly is not really nano sized. Nano particles need to be less than 100 nanometers. The (normally) larger moly particles can be filtered out of the oil by the oil filters. WS2 can come in most any particle size. At least as large as 1000 nm. They can also be nano sized. But the IF makes a huge difference.

If you don't know what a Buckyball is, you can do a bit of research. The structure is named after architect Buckminster Fuller, the inventor of geodesic building structures. It is essentially a nano scale geodesic (from the atomic level crystalline formation) structure. It was initially observed in carbon. And was thought for a while to be only found there. This may be the base substance in lubricants claiming nano diamonds. I have not been able to get a clear answer to that. Secrecy seems to be rampant in the industry. Like it would keep any competent person with some equipment to determine the contents if they planned to manufacture a copy.

Onward. The F says that the the WS2 is in a Fullerene like structure. The I says it is not organic (e.g., not carbon). I believe the process and inherent structure puts these particles at less than 100 nm. Truly nano particles.

There are several major effects associated with the materials of this size. The simplest and the one that is the basis of the utility of this material; it is so far the most slippery material on earth. Next is the size. The small size enables attraction and bonding processes that appear only at these particle sizes. You get some of this effect in materials (e.g., non-nano moly) but they are much stronger under 100 nm.

But, there is more. The non-IF particles are a superb lubricant, but the process of allowing atomic forces to bond the material so tightly to the surfaces that they make serious effects of filling in the molecular sized peaks and valleys in the surfaces of the materials being lubricated is a function of particle size. The IF particles are constructed rather like an onion (a really really teeny tiny [url=onionhttp://cdn.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/images/icons/default/grin.gif][url=onionhttp://cdn.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/images/icons/default/grin.gif][url=onionhttp://cdn.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/images/icons/default/grin.gif]onionhttp://cdn.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/images/icons/default/grin.gif[/url][/url][/url] ). When they are placed between surfaces under some pressure (e.g., bearings) they adhere to a surface and peel off parts of their structure which greatly enhances the filling of surface voids. In no way I am aware of does this process rely on the Higgs Boson or dark matter. Just sayn.

Some formulations for a lubricant need to have two different materials to include both lubricity and surface adhesion. IF WS2 makes doorknob snot look like industrial crazy glue.

OK. That's over. I have been trying for quite a long time to get a small quantity of the IF WS2 to play with. So far my success has been very close to zero. I have found only one source. But they want $330 for 50 grams; the minimum order. There are several sources in Asia. Pricing not really known, but they seem cheaper. Some seem quite questionable. I can't tell if the stuff they would ship is IF WS2 or ground up old dental plates. The ones that seem legit simply do not respond to my request for a small amount.

There may be some US sources, but they have not particularly wanted to talk either. I saw that ApNano (sort of the inventors of the IF WS2) was finally shipping to a specific user in late 2012. Up until this point they has seemed to be in a volume production mode; but that was not necessarily true. Their ApNano IF WS2 is sold (as various mixes) as NanoLube. There is a US company that feels it holds that trademark, so it gets a bit confusing. But, on the bright side, I have found no source of those materials either.

What I am really after is the pure powder. I do not particularly want want it mixed with some unknown oil. I really just want to imbed the material in some high pressure points. If I want (or less likely, need) additional oil I would want to use one I trust from prior experience. Not one they decide is a good thing.

I think this site has a pretty good sprinkling of lubrication savvy people, so after all this, does anyone know where I can get a small amount of IF WS2?


Did you try Rosmill Industries? I use TD to coat bullets, and it is the nano size that can also be mixed with oil. I had a long conversation with their chemist about it. IIRC you can get about a pound of it for $60 or so. Don't hold me to that its been a while since I bought it for coating bullets.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2821964 - 12/02/12 10:55 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 33986
Loc: New Jersey
No way Id add a powder to my oil without knowing the wetting characteristics and shear behaviors really well. All you need is a powder semi-dispersed that clogs, or one that shear thickens.

A product in a tried carrier like LM MoS2 is far more trustworthy, and Ill bet it is splitting hairs between ubiquitous and cheap MoS2 and rare WS2. Ill bet the ROI doesnt exist to justify trying it!

Top
#2822017 - 12/03/12 02:06 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: JHZR2]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
JHZR2 - The lubricity of WS2 is not a theory. It is a well known and measured physical property. It is noticeably slipperier than MoS2. I do not believe that milling has any part in manufacturing IF WS2. I suspect, though I have not looked at the manufacturing process, they are formed at these sizes. There are many manufacturers of particles in the nano scale and they are used in commercial and consumer products.

I have not suggested I am intending to use the powder in an engine. Although I suspect if I have enough I would. It takes very little actual material to accomplish the lubrication coating. For my purposes I do not want any contaminating carrier. Alcohol will be the carrier. Or I can simply burnish it on. The IF WS2 will be available as commercial and retail oil, gas, Diesel, and grease additives from NanoLube. The Israeli NanoLube, not the California NanoLube.

Stelth - nice. I am sending a copy to my wife. She has been married to an engineer long enough to appreciate such things but was a Lit major into poetry.

I will check out the leads on finding the material - thanks to both of you.

I agree that many, if not most, lubricants are a mix of assorted things to tailor the overall properties. I believe MoS2 usually has graphite in it plus a base. I am guessing the graphite does a bit of pore filling and then the MoS2 rides on that surface. Although I also believe that the MoS2 also does some metal bonding. IF WS2 needs no carrier in many applications. It can be pressure sprayed, buffed on, or transported by an evaporating carrier. It does not require being suspended in a carrier and passing through the lubricated device on a continuing basis. It bonds to the lubricated surface. After the proper surface forms, oil is no longer necessary for lubrication. If the surface wears it will need to be refreshed. Once bonded the target surface is much harder and more resistant to wear. In an engine, it is probably the simplest solution to add it to the oil or grease. It gets it to where it needs to be and will gradually plate out onto the target surface. Fluids may clearly be present (and can be the carrier) which address other issues such as corrosion (although the IF WS2 has some protective qualities) or simple heat removal.

Temperatures will go down a bit because heat generated from friction in the lubricated parts will go down. This impacts other system components.

And yes - the stuff does sound like magic or snake oil. But it isn't. just good old physics at work down to the molecular/atomic level. It has been entertaining to read through some very long threads in various specialized forums. Apparently it can be very hard to wrap ones mind around some materials characteristics vs the way it has always been.

I also suspect in 6 months or so, this stuff will be relatively easy to find in an auto store or more specialized lubricant vendors. My impression, as I mentioned, is that although there were lots of product "announcements", it was all pending on a small number of manufacturers to get their process up to speed.

But I need some ASAP.

Top
#2822065 - 12/03/12 06:23 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 33986
Loc: New Jersey
I'm not saying ws2 lubricity is a theory. I'm saying practically speaking comparing particle sizes, which has everything to do with coverage and effective fill of voids and the net effect it has in terms of surface lubricity.

The question is one of practicality for reduced friction vs cost. I doubt the benefit is there. I don't deny that ws2 is more lubricious than mos2, but if it is enough so to make a practical benefit is the question.

Just like mos2, if this was the miracle material to reduce friction in everything, it would be used.

Even if ws2 is made with a tight psd at small sizes, some post treatment surely is done, even if just some segregation method. Again, wearability and surface stabilization are also key parameters.

You imply use in lubricants, if that's not the case, state so and how it differs.

I'm very familiar with the physics and chemistry of this, and have spent a ton of time working with fine powders and particles, and am well aware of the practicality of dealing on an industrial level. The physics of it all is understood, but the practical benefit/advantage in a lubricant isn't a linear relationship. 2x lubricity over mos2 ( or whatever the metric is) might manifest itself as 10% more lubricity over mos2 in the lube, which might only benefit lubricity 1% over the standard MoDTc and trivalent moly and other FM adds put in. Then you have to worry about wetting, fallout, acid chemistry in the parent oil, etc. lots of stuff that you can't glaze over when trying to play chemist.

Top
#2822080 - 12/03/12 06:51 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21541
Loc: NY
TD works very well in oil, according to Rosemill. The reasons why it isn't used much is Moly works very well, moly stays in suspension better, and moly is cheaper. Don't let the staying in suspension part bother you, as soon as you turn the key and the engine fires up it goes right back into suspension. It also plates very well, which is why shooters like it for coating barrels and bullets. Talking with the people at Rosemill was quite informative, give them a call and see what they tell you. I'm just passing information along that I gathered a few years back.

The only downside I see to it not staying in suspension is if you have sludge and muck in the oil pan and it falls out of suspension some of it might just become part of that muck. In a clean engine I don't see that as much of an issue. JMO
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2822094 - 12/03/12 07:24 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: demarpaint]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 33986
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
TD works very well in oil, according to Rosemill. The reasons why it isn't used much is Moly works very well, moly stays in suspension better, and moly is cheaper. Don't let the staying in suspension part bother you, as soon as you turn the key and the engine fires up it goes right back into suspension. It also plates very well, which is why shooters like it for coating barrels and bullets. Talking with the people at Rosemill was quite informative, give them a call and see what they tell you. I'm just passing information along that I gathered a few years back.

The only downside I see to it not staying in suspension is if you have sludge and muck in the oil pan and it falls out of suspension some of it might just become part of that muck. In a clean engine I don't see that as much of an issue. JMO


What I bolded IMO is the key thing...

And suspension versus wettability are two different things. You could have clumps of particles that arent fully wetted by the oil, that remain suspended due to density and the characteristics modeled in the link I have below. Now will high shear help wet fine particles and disperse them? Hopefully but it they clog in the filter, it will be a waste. And high shear mixing to fully wet nanoparticles in a stabilized host fluid isnt something that most folks will be able to do in their garage.

Notionally the OP isnt going to dump a mass of powder down the oil fill hole, but wetting fine particles can be a complex challenge in itself, and they can, and will, agglomerate to larger still fine particles if the surface chemistry isnt exactly right.

Staying suspended vs dropping in solution is something that I worked all the equations out for and showed here:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2407575

Of course smaller, dispersed, wetted particles will stay in suspension longer, and Id agree with your coments of no real concern unless the oil pan is filled with muck.

Top
#2822106 - 12/03/12 07:44 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: JHZR2]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21541
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
TD works very well in oil, according to Rosemill. The reasons why it isn't used much is Moly works very well, moly stays in suspension better, and moly is cheaper. Don't let the staying in suspension part bother you, as soon as you turn the key and the engine fires up it goes right back into suspension. It also plates very well, which is why shooters like it for coating barrels and bullets. Talking with the people at Rosemill was quite informative, give them a call and see what they tell you. I'm just passing information along that I gathered a few years back.

The only downside I see to it not staying in suspension is if you have sludge and muck in the oil pan and it falls out of suspension some of it might just become part of that muck. In a clean engine I don't see that as much of an issue. JMO


What I bolded IMO is the key thing...

And suspension versus wettability are two different things. You could have clumps of particles that arent fully wetted by the oil, that remain suspended due to density and the characteristics modeled in the link I have below. Now will high shear help wet fine particles and disperse them? Hopefully but it they clog in the filter, it will be a waste. And high shear mixing to fully wet nanoparticles in a stabilized host fluid isnt something that most folks will be able to do in their garage.

Notionally the OP isnt going to dump a mass of powder down the oil fill hole, but wetting fine particles can be a complex challenge in itself, and they can, and will, agglomerate to larger still fine particles if the surface chemistry isnt exactly right.

Staying suspended vs dropping in solution is something that I worked all the equations out for and showed here:

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2407575

Of course smaller, dispersed, wetted particles will stay in suspension longer, and Id agree with your coments of no real concern unless the oil pan is filled with muck.


I'm not arguing nor disputing what you say at all. I'm sharing what they told me a few years back. They suggested blending it into oil before adding it to an engine. In fact I even think they made a suggestion as to how to do it. I did some experimenting with a small OPE engine, and it looked exactly like MoS2 did on the dipstick several days later, after blending, with a blender paddle mixer, adding it to the sump and running the engine. They assured me it would mix if blended and that they sold it to some oil companies, naturally they wouldn't give the names though. While they said it was OK to add to oil, they also lead me to believe moly was the better choice. Makes sense because if it was as good as some think it is we'd be seeing it in oil, which we're not. Either way the topic interested me enough to give it a shot. That engine is still running strong, several years later. Did it help or hurt? I can't tell you, I did have good results with MoS2 so I stuck with that.

I suggest that the OP call them, if they have the same staff as when I called the OP will get a lot of good info from the call.

I will say this: coating bullets with it is a big help with reducing fouling, and it allows shooting longer strings before cleaning. It also reduces friction so well that you actually have to tweak your load charges up to overcome the drop in velocity due to the friction reduction. At least that is how it was explained to me, because we actually did see a drop in velocity with coating bullets. A slight increase in the powder charge brought it back up. As with anything shooting use caution when increasing powder charges. Sorry to have taken this OT.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2822267 - 12/03/12 10:33 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 33986
Loc: New Jersey
Im not arguing or disputing your claims either. We are in violent agreement... MoS2 seems to be the practical best choice!

Top
#2822324 - 12/03/12 11:35 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: JHZR2]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21541
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Im not arguing or disputing your claims either. We are in violent agreement... MoS2 seems to be the practical best choice!


Violent agreement? Cheers1 Sounds good to me, although I never heard it put that way!

PS I might have to borrow that phrase, I like it!
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2822555 - 12/03/12 03:10 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
As I noted, it appears there will be consumer products that are additives of IF WS2 intended for consumer use entering the market.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cEvwV269JsE

http://www.apnano.com/lubricants/

Someone somewhere in lubricants seems to feel this will work. And be profitable. I have no knowledge sufficient to dispute their thinking. ApNano was founded by the people long involved in advanced nanotech and developed the manufacturing process for IF WS2. They do not seem to imply dispersion is a problem. What limited information I have found on initial composition when used as an additive seemed to imply - mix powder thoroughly with oil or grease. As I have noted earlier, my intent was to use alcohol as a carrier so even if it is difficult it had no real importance to me.

Concerning the bolded items: Moly does work very well (it has been my choice of lubricant for many many years), and moly is cheaper. One more factor to be considered, is that MoS2 has been available from mass production facilities for a very long time. And I believe MoS2 was rather pricy and hard to get way back when. IF WS2 is just becoming available in production quantities.

I believe the post about bullets is significant for a couple of reasons. When I first read it I thought "what an idiot, the bullet won't slow down and should have less of a drop". Then I put the old gray matter to work on it and realized - It is so much slipperier that the bullet is moving so much faster that the burning powder does not have time to provide the normal energy transfer. Think about that as translated to possible results of friction losses in an engine. And I am almost certain he is using big particles of 1000nm and larger (some maybe going down to 500nm range) that are not made with a monolithic particle size. This material may well be milled. It is what amounts to tech grade while IF is more like USP. That is what I have seen for sale for this purpose. It is definitely not IF, but it still bonds nicely as well. There is also significant transfer and bonding to the barrel (e.g.,less fowling).

My major objective was not engines, but I will be using the material in my engines when it is available in suitable form.


Edited by alternety (12/03/12 03:16 PM)

Top
#2822618 - 12/03/12 04:13 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21541
Loc: NY
I would suggest you give the company a call. The TD I'm using, at least according to the person [chemist] I spoke with at Rosemill is bought by a few oil companies for mixing with oil, it safely passes through an oil filter. I'm pretty sure the size of the particles is on their website. It is nano grade. This person claims to mix it into his oil, but he's also selling the stuff so I took that comment with a grain of salt. OTOH I have no reason not to believe him either. This information goes back a few years and I'm working from memory.

As far as the bullets go, I'm glad you understand the concept. Some of the very best Bench Rest shooters coat their bullets. I was very pleased with the results, and have a few thousand bullets coated ready to go. Once it plates the barrel removal of the TD is almost impossible, the coating transfers from the bullet to the barrel. Or you can mix some TD with alcohol and run a few patches of the mix down the barrel, but it doesn't plate as well as the coated bullets do.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 ... 18 19 >