Recent Topics
Let's talk about stolen cars
by MalfunctionProne
11/27/14 09:42 AM
Very Tempted but Sailun Tires
by rjundi
11/27/14 09:38 AM
Spicing up my chili
by racer12306
11/27/14 09:13 AM
AAP $50 off $100+ first 2000 customers.
by sayjac
11/27/14 09:05 AM
help me decide
by marine65
11/27/14 08:39 AM
Ingersoll Rand 780 ft lb cordless 1/2in impact WOW
by Traction
11/27/14 07:52 AM
Posting oil filter pics
by Lubener
11/27/14 05:23 AM
Great Moments in Sports
by montero1
11/27/14 04:30 AM
Magnefine 1/2" Magnetic Inline Transmission Filter
by David1
11/27/14 04:10 AM
Optimal pressure in closed central heating system
by chrisri
11/27/14 03:44 AM
Poor aftermarket drive axle fit
by slowdime
11/27/14 03:13 AM
Aus Ford Falcon I6 clean, under rocker cover pics
by 19jacobob93
11/27/14 02:55 AM
Newest Members
marine65, Focality, zimmersci, Tigersmith, Visco
52009 Registered Users
Who's Online
96 registered (1foxracing, 3800Series, 67lemans, 123Saab, 808Soldier, 04SE, 7 invisible), 1268 Guests and 155 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
52009 Members
66 Forums
222676 Topics
3525107 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: 34022
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: 1461
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: 14706
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: 21560
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: 34022
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: 34022
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: 21560
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: 34022
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: 21560
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: 34022
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: 21560
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: 21560
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
#2822660 - 12/03/12 05:03 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
I wonder if this is one of the 'proprietary' AW addpack ingredients in the new, VERY costly, Millers Nanodrive racing oils??
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#2822719 - 12/03/12 05:35 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I just went looking for a quick check of coefficient of friction and found some interesting comparisons. I tend to graze when I am doing searches.

http://www.ws2oil.com/what-is-ws2.html

A bit about milling and dispersant - but not for IF.

http://144.206.159.178/ft/718/598181/12404566.pdf

Testing but this time with IF. An interesting point I had missed previously was that added oil improves performance.

http://144.206.159.178/ft/1095/52257/917041.pdf

Rose Mill Industries - Tungsten Disulfide Powder (0.89-1.7µm) 1/2 lb. It is not IF nor is it nano.





Edited by alternety (12/03/12 05:41 PM)
Edit Reason: Rose Mill

Top
#2822730 - 12/03/12 05:42 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 34022
Loc: New Jersey
OP: there have been, and are a ton of companies specializing in "nano" and are long out of business. Just because someone came up with a process, or has a patent, or whatever, doesnt mean that the stuff is good, best, or practical.

I applaud you with wanting to learn about the stuff and try to use it.

I also recommend reading up keenly on PPE, as nanoparticles can be a lot more hazardousthan bigger stuff.

I am still of the mind that practically speaking, there may be no real benefit over usin MoS2. Even the charts at apnano were fairly nondescript and generic, nothing indicating any relevant part of the real physics at play here.

I am fully aware that the frictional characteristics are known and that WS2 is more lubricious. I have experience with its use.

But again, now youre talking about milling. Are you going to mill it? Milling is an art in and of itself. I spent a lot of time working with R&D engineers on this... The power input to get the particles down to size is enormous and exponentially grows.

And just mixing something in doesnt mean much. Ever put hot chocolate powder into water and it "kind of" mix. Youll need a high shear mixer.

And again, be careful of PPE if truly working with nano powders, even if dispersed.

Top
#2822766 - 12/03/12 06:14 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: JHZR2]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I do understand failure of start-ups. In the meantime, the material can be purchased. A small amount goes a very long way. I still have MoS2 that I probably bought 50 years ago. And sample quantities of a few other exotics that have lasted at least 30 years.

Thanks for the warning about nano particles and humans. I am aware of the possibilities and will be careful. Short of an isolation box with exhaust air going through maybe an electrostatic filter, being careful is about all I can do. Sort of like having to live with Diesel exhaust. Although I do wear an NBR breathing mask while on the tractor.

My intent is to put it in a carrier (alcohol) rather than simply play with powder. But once that evaporates and I am burnishing? Some, if not all, will wind up in specialized lubricants as an additive. They will not be as prone to evaporation.

The only reason I mentioned milling is that you brought it up earlier. I have no interest in it.

Top
#2822855 - 12/03/12 07:13 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Quote:
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.


MoS2 doesn't not have graphite as it's base if you're talking about the powder form. Much as been written about MoS2 in the early papers in the periodical WEAR and it forms flat sliding surfaces like slick shingles sliding over each other.

MoDTC is a soluble version that has been extensively used in all modern lubricants as a friction modifier and antioxidant, and it is synergstoc with ZDDP.

Personally, I am betting on the newer polmers such as the polymer esters and ionized vegetable esters, and the dibutyldithiocarbamates as the better friction modifiers and anti-wear additives as the next generation multifunctional additives.


Edited by MolaKule (12/03/12 07:17 PM)
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#2822916 - 12/03/12 07:54 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: MolaKule]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I was thinking about end-user products for graphite. Many do. I understand that graphite is a bad thing to be used in a high pressure interface between stainless and aluminum. A galling issue. The base I was talking about was the grease/oil it is suspended in. I was looking for a MoS2 without graphite for a while. That is the investigation that led me to WS2 then IF WS2. As my wife will gladly explain, I just never know when to stop. I have an information gathering disease and and an annoying habit of wanting an optimal technical solution. She is silly though. She objects to having to dance naked widdershins on the first Tuesday of the month before an alter with burned bacon to get the heating system, house lights, and VOIP telephones to function simultaneously.

Anything interesting that may be a good match for IF WS2?

So far, still no IF WS2 source.

Top
#2823520 - 12/04/12 11:41 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
Kestas Online   content



Registered: 06/04/02
Posts: 10870
Loc: The Motor City
WS2 is an excellent solid lube on par with MoS2. It was used in some older lube formulations. I'm guessing WS2 fell out of favor as an additive when the price of Mo came down some 30 years ago.

A new Mo mine was discovered I think in S. America. The Climax Molybdenum Research facility of AMAX in Ann Arbor closed down at that time when the price of Mo dropped significantly. The AMAX Mo mine in Colorado was idled about the same time. Many of my colleagues had to look elsewhere for work.

Top
#2823860 - 12/04/12 04:38 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
How do you mine MoS2 without falling off?

Top
#2836445 - 12/15/12 11:35 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I just can't get any vendors in Asia to answer any queries about buying a small quantity of IF WS2. I have been using Alibaba and a couple of direct emails. Anyone have suggestions about getting their attention?

Top
#2840050 - 12/18/12 10:10 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
GMorg Offline


Registered: 01/29/06
Posts: 2350
Loc: Mizzou-land
Inorganic Fullerenes (IFs) are synthesized chemically. They are not milled or ground.

IFs of WS2 or even multilayered WS2/MoS2 IFs appear to work through three mechanisms.

Under low loads (especially as a dry lubricant), with smooth surfaces of even clearances, they simply roll. This action appears to be hindered when suspended in fluids due to local molecular interactions. The down side of nanoparticles in fluids is that they begin to act more like solutes instead of particles. Brownian motion alone can keep particles of this size in suspension. In other words, the vibration of molecules is enough to keep these particles "mixed up" in the fluid.

Under medium loads, they can be begin to provide lubrication through deformation. This action is practical in fluids and because of the difficulty in maintaining sphericity and narrow size distribution during synthesis, it more practical in general.

Lastly,under high loads (and more important in PCMO applications) multilayered IFs can act through exfoliation, much like MoS2. In other words, the layers peel off and are deposited onto the surface. Think deck of cards.

Since the surface layers that are formed from exfoliation are very similar to those formed from soluble Zn, Mo, Ti, etc, the soluble additives have tremendous cost advantages for essentially very similar end-results.

The big question is whether large quantities of similar sized, primarily spherical IFs ca be made economically and whether the physical ball bearing effects can be routinely observed in a fluid carrier.

Personally, I don't think that plating through simple surface interactions or even through van der waals forces can hold IFs on surfaces within a liquid and more importantly if these forces can hold the particles on sliding surfaces.

I search on google scholar with the terms "IF WS2" will yield a lot of papers on synthesis.

http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en

If you add the term "friction" you will get a lot of papers about the topic at hand.




Top
#2840152 - 12/19/12 12:24 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Thanks for the info. I have seen the one feature you mention discussed in terms of cost savings because of IF WS2 being able to provide proper surface adhesion without additional additives needed to create deposits with just WS2. There are a bunch of reports on WS2 in oil and grease that show significant lubricity improvements.

I believe I saw a statement in one paper that the effects are actually enhanced in fluid. That did not seem quite right to me, but this is not what I do. If I got inexpensive enough nano scale powder I will probably try some in engines. I have ordered some at around 600nm and much of that will probably wind up in engines and less critical operations. At the very least it will be somewhat better than MoS2 in the same applications. With powder, I can choose my own carriers. Some of the applications have specialized lubricants already available and I can use the WS2 to enhance them. The solutions hitting the market are all of unspecified (secret)fluids. The base fluid may simply not be the best solution for specialized applications.

There are at least two products that appear to be bringing IF WS2 to engine oil additives at your neighborhood parts store. But I have found no sources. I am guessing that the manufacturing process probably has not reached high volume/yield yet (or just recently).

The uses I want to try with IF WS2 will mostly involve non-suspended operation. Alcohol (or a solvent without water content) and the powder. Possibly just burnished on.

Do you perhaps have any ideas of where I might source some IF WS2? Please PM me if you can help. My wife keeps wandering by mumbling obsessive compulsiveness. She has other projects identified.

Top
#2841386 - 12/19/12 09:44 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
GMorg Offline


Registered: 01/29/06
Posts: 2350
Loc: Mizzou-land
You cannot get IFs at the following link, but it looks like you can get other goodies to play with. They are selling nano sized WS2 derived from sonication. The silvery suspension appears to become green in color as you reach the nano scale.

https://graphene-supermarket.com/WS2-Ultrafine-Powder-5-Grams.html

Top
#2841538 - 12/20/12 05:50 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
bigjl Offline


Registered: 09/06/12
Posts: 1710
Loc: London, England
Millers do indeed procure "Nano" oils for racing.

Big dosh but can be found on Opieoils.

With any new technology somebody has to either go first or be the first to take it main stream.

The oil meets lots of stringent Acea specs so can't be bad.

I wouldn't think a company with the reputation of Millers Oils would be trying to sell snake oil.

There are some very good oil firms that have little presence in the US.

In the same way as some US companies have little presence in the UK and Europe.

Comma and Morris oils are two off the top of my head.
_________________________
06 Clio1.5DCi,141k 6kOCI Shell Extra 5w40
08 Pathfinder 2.5 Dci Sold with 125k
12 Jaguar XJL 3.0 D Luxury 120k 8kOCI Mob 1 ESP 5w30

Top
#2841617 - 12/20/12 07:41 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
GearheadTool Offline


Registered: 03/31/12
Posts: 1711
Loc: Boston, MA
Most everyone that has examined the WS2 "powders" has come away buying, and then subsequently using, this.



It is at NAPA, and online (Amazon.com)
_________________________
"Listen, Walter, just because you shot Jesse James... don't make you Jesse James."

2000 Volvo V70 XC AWD - 138k mi. - SOLD! 2/16/03, Redline 0W-20

Top
#2841983 - 12/20/12 01:12 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Gearhead - why do they subsequently switch to less lubricious MoS2? Where have they been finding WS2 powders to examine? Particularly any that might be the desired IF WS2.

I am really only interested in the IF WS2 and possibly some normal structured particles below 100nm.

Top
#2842157 - 12/20/12 04:17 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: bigjl]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: bigjl
Millers do indeed procure "Nano" oils for racing.

Big dosh but can be found on Opieoils.

With any new technology somebody has to either go first or be the first to take it main stream.

The oil meets lots of stringent Acea specs so can't be bad.

I wouldn't think a company with the reputation of Millers Oils would be trying to sell snake oil.

There are some very good oil firms that have little presence in the US.

In the same way as some US companies have little presence in the UK and Europe.

Comma and Morris oils are two off the top of my head.


There IS one distributor stateside who will be carrying Millers oils (and their Nanodrive racing) in the spring.

My question was NOT where/how to get it, but whether or not they use this IF WS2 as their primary, nano sized, AW agent. wink

We may NEVER know without a FULL VOA, and gas chromatography performed on it, as I'm SURE that they will plead the old, tired, tried and true, "propriatary info" if asked. frown
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#2842392 - 12/20/12 07:07 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
GMorg Offline


Registered: 01/29/06
Posts: 2350
Loc: Mizzou-land
alternety wrote: "I am really only interested in the IF WS2 and possibly some normal structured particles below 100nm."

The link I provided above is for a mean size of 90nm.

I don't recommend either product.

Top
#2842686 - 12/21/12 02:20 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
GMorg - I have sent an email to them asking what they are actually selling. They are small particles, but they say nearly spherical. Spherical sort of indicates IF. I believe non-IF appears as a planar material. Pricing is in the range of IF. So I am waiting for a response from them. Non IF at that price is not necessarily a good deal. I believe that the characteristics are sufficiently different to try real hard for IF.

I am interested in your comment about not recommending either product. Technical reason or just CYA?

dailydriver - I looked at Opieoils and Miller. Not any indication of WS let alone nano particles. The point with those is I DO NOT WANT OIL. I need powder or an evaporating carrier.

Thanks for all the responses. Any assistance appreciated. I am going out now to seriously annoy some local windmills.


Edited by alternety (12/21/12 02:22 AM)

Top
#2843480 - 12/21/12 04:26 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: dailydriver]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: bigjl
Millers do indeed procure "Nano" oils for racing.

Big dosh but can be found on Opieoils.

With any new technology somebody has to either go first or be the first to take it main stream.

The oil meets lots of stringent Acea specs so can't be bad.

I wouldn't think a company with the reputation of Millers Oils would be trying to sell snake oil.

There are some very good oil firms that have little presence in the US.

In the same way as some US companies have little presence in the UK and Europe.

Comma and Morris oils are two off the top of my head.


There IS one distributor stateside who will be carrying Millers oils (and their Nanodrive racing) in the spring.

My question was NOT where/how to get it, but whether or not they use this IF WS2 as their primary, nano sized, AW agent. wink

We may NEVER know without a FULL VOA, and gas chromatography performed on it, as I'm SURE that they will plead the old, tired, tried and true, "propriatary info" if asked. frown


A few points. I'm with the US distributor of Millers. Have been meaning to get on there and seek out threads about Millers, but have been pretty slammed with several things.

First thing I want to address is Millers, itself. You are indeed correct about the company. Millers is about 130 years old, having started out making industrial lubricants. It has resisted the consolidation that the industry has seen over the years, and to this day remains in control of the Millers family. bigjl obviously gets that, but I know that Millers is unknown to the majority of folks here. I could keep going on about this, but I'd point to the recent technical development partnership Millers and Bryan Herta Autosports (Barracuda Racing) have formed. Not a sponsorship, MIllers is developing some proprietary oils for their IndyCar efforts, and will be supplying their lower tier teams, as well. But no, not snake oil.

On to the oil, itself. The NT content and additives are proprietary. I apologize that we can't make this info public, but given the performance capabilities, it is indeed a valuable technology. The gear oils have been out since 2008, and the motorsports users in places like WRC and BTCC are seeing 3-4 times the life out of it. The F1 team that has been working with Millers for the past couple of years has seen the wear after a 5 Grand Prix simulation on a dyno fall off drastically (they were slated to bring it in this year, but due to the tight points race, waited, and should be using it next year). There are efficiencies gained, as well. So teams are seeing gearbox oil temperatures in closed systems drop 20-25 degrees F.

Second point is that the engine oils took years to develop. The same technology won a pretty prestigous award in 2009. It has been nominated for the 2012 award which will be presented next month at teh World Motorsport Symposium in the UK. Point with that is that it took years to develop the oil, even though Millers had a very strong fully synthetic racing engine oil with which to start. I know most folks here are smart enough than to think that they could just get this stuff and add it in, but to end up with a truly optimized blend takes a long time, with a lot of resources. And again, the base oil is very robust, so that is more than half of the story.

The NT additives serve very, very well as an EP additive, which is why Millers set out to develop the gear oils first. The main benefit seen in engine oils is in boundary lubrication, so primarily near TDC and BDC on the cylinders. Valvetrain, as well. But its mechanisms are more similar to an EP additive than to ZDDP (note that the racing oil still contains high levels of ZDDP, too high to meet SN ratings - the NT did enable Millers to reduce it by about 10%, but it is still about 1100ppm).

We actually currently have the motorsports stuff in stock. Have had it for several months. We are setting up some dealer networks, and are starting to see more and more interest. We hvae recieved very good feedback, particularly with the gear oil. Yes, the motorsports stuff is very expensive, but it is not out of line with other high end motorsports oils. Most is $20/L, just like Motul 300V or Joe Gibbs XP#. The 0W20 and 0W30 are $22.50/L. But the important thing to note here is that it isn't the NT additives that drive up the cost, it is the good, high quality base stock (again, just like some of the better racing oils out there). While the road oils will command a premium when they come out, they won't be priced at the same kind of levels as the Motorsports stuff. The current longlife road oils are priced pretty close to Motul 8100.

Will try to start watching stuff here and answer questions as they arise. Feel free to shoot me an e-mail at hking@performanceracingoils.com if you would like to know some stuff. I can post some more info on the oils, but I don't want to come across as advertising it.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2844301 - 12/22/12 01:54 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
^^^THANK YOU for finally coming on here! thumbsup

Do you have spec sheets for any of these products yet (ESPECIALLY the gear oils and the 0W-XX egine oils)???

What weights are the gear oils offered in?

ANY speculation on the weights the street oils are going to be released in, and is there ANY possibility they will have higher VIs than the race oils??

Sadly, from what I remember you had told me during our phone conversation, many on here will BLAST/DISS the engine oils for having a low VI, even though they are made for RACING, and labelled as such.
Some on here feel that the VI spec is the be all, end all of ANY premium synthetic oil, EVEN racing oils, especially in this price range, and they even have me half convinced about this. frown
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#2844309 - 12/22/12 02:08 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: dailydriver]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21560
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: dailydriver


Sadly, from what I remember you had told me during our phone conversation, many on here will BLAST/DISS the engine oils for having a low VI, even though they are made for RACING, and labelled as such.
Some on here feel that the VI spec is the be all, end all of ANY premium synthetic oil, EVEN racing oils, especially in this price range, and they even have me half convinced about this. frown


I'm no longer buying into the "VI spec" as the "be all, end all" either.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2844391 - 12/22/12 03:57 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
The magic material in Millers appears likely to be IF WS2. Look at the paragraph under the picture in the first post in this thread. http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/ra...nsor-intro.html Reference to the soccer ball form points to IF WS2. I could be carbon, but for hi temp and pressure I would lean toward WS2. I have seen advertising for additives based on diamond. I don't think Moly comes in this structure; but could very well be wrong. Some potions use hexagonal Boron Nitride and refer to ceramic.

Overall the picture and text make me think IF WS2. I may get some and play with it, but I still really want powder.

There is a product called NanoLube that appears to be sort of on the market. I have found no sources and the manufacturer/distributor/? in Singapore does not answer my emails. I am fairly certain it is IF WS2.

For use in engines, something like Millers NT is just what you want. I do not believe there is anything with better lubricant properties on the horizon. You can put powder in your regular oil if you just get an additive version.

I also found this in the same thread - http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/...-a-bottle.aspx. Performance would be consistent with IF WS2 but could also be just nano WS2 or some other nano material.

Top
#2844549 - 12/22/12 07:01 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
GMorg Offline


Registered: 01/29/06
Posts: 2350
Loc: Mizzou-land
From the link above:
"The nanoparticles in the Millers Oils have multiple layers of nested spheres, and are less than 1/10th of a micron in size (0.000004”). The nested spheres resemble onion layers, which can exfoliate under extreme pressure and form a protective tribofilm on the metal surfaces. Due to the tremendous surface area, the nanospheres will migrate to and “stick” to the walls of lubricated components."


This discription sounds like fullerenes to me. If the core technology is not a buckey ball, then they should get some sort of award for marketing speak.

As for my lack of recommendation for sheet type-solid additives (MoS2 or WS2), it is not a CYA. I don't care for the idea of a suspended solid that can aggregate within all of the other material that collects in heat damaged oils. In addition, planar crystals can also approach wear surfaces on the perpendicular. Some graphite preparations can increase wear in certain circumstances by this mechanism. The analogy with playing cards still holds up, but instead of making contact on the flat side and sliding, the particles hit edgewise and create the equivalent to a paper cut.

I'm intrigued with the fullerenes. However, I am concerned that with extended use, disturbed spheres will become sheets. Luckily, they will still be much smaller than anything that starts as a sheet-type crystal.

Top
#2844571 - 12/22/12 07:18 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Thanks GMorg. When I first found these things, I saw the issue of "peeling the onion" but more research resolved that question. What I have seen about the Buckyballs behavior in this environment is that they do indeed laminate (if that is really the proper term) in high pressure service. But what they are saying is that these "onion" shells form much smaller particles that are more effective at bonding to the surface of the target material and are more likely to penetrate into the pores of the substrate. With the Buckyball already around 60nm, they can be quite petite (and possibly pretty in pink if they could be made pink).

The indications I had were that starting with Fullerenes, the overall lubrication effect was significantly enhanced.Non-Fullerene products would need something else for surface imbedding for similar (but less effective) results.

As I think I mentioned much earlier in this thread, it is really interesting searching through threads from various interest groups. There is a whole lot of "snake oil" references and there is no way in *ell that can be true even though they provided test results. They are clearly lying scum bags.

To this I answer with a quote from one of the great SciFi writers: Technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic. Nano tech is the closest thing for a while that embodies that statement. Ignoring things like quantum phenomenon (which could include this) and 50 billion transistors on 1/4 sq in.

Top
#2845209 - 12/23/12 12:55 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: alternety
The magic material in Millers appears likely to be IF WS2. Look at the paragraph under the picture in the first post in this thread. http://forums.rennlist.com/rennforums/ra...nsor-intro.html Reference to the soccer ball form points to IF WS2. I could be carbon, but for hi temp and pressure I would lean toward WS2. I have seen advertising for additives based on diamond. I don't think Moly comes in this structure; but could very well be wrong. Some potions use hexagonal Boron Nitride and refer to ceramic.

Overall the picture and text make me think IF WS2.



I may just have to tear away from the "VI is EVERYTHING" crew, and try their 0W-30 Racing for the spring/summer OCI, despite the low VI. wink thumbsup
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#2845662 - 12/23/12 07:48 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
dailydriver - not my area of expertise, but the mechanism is rather different for this stuff than "oil". It takes place at the atomic or molecular bonding level of pretty small particles to make a film that is probably thinner, certainly more effective, than the relatively huge molecules of slippery polymers et al. If I remember from very long ago, high VI says "sticky". IF WS2 don't need no stinking sticky.

If it was not so expensive I would try some in my two cars (plebeian old guys transportation) a 90 Honda and a 1999 Audi. And my tractor.

Top
#2846268 - 12/24/12 11:34 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
I believe that Millers uses a VERY high content group 4/5 base stock, with the resultant naturally high VI, (as far as BASE STOCKS go), and also the resultant high polarity of that type of base stock.

The NANO part ONLY comes in for their add pack/AW compounds.
THIS is why I was asking if their add pack AW compound could be these IF WS2s.
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#2846654 - 12/24/12 05:26 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I got an email back from Ran-Up additive about IF WS2. They have no idea what is in the product. They are probably a smallish middle man which seems quite common in the Asian market.

Top
#2849602 - 12/27/12 04:57 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I have some large particle WS2. I need to make up a small amount for small household lubrication. My thought was to use 99% alcohol but some other non-residual solvent with no water in it seems like a good idea for this. Any suggestions for a solvent. It needs to evaporate quickly and not attack things like paint and plastic. No residue.

Top
#2852480 - 12/30/12 12:32 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
In looking for a carrier for the WS2 I have been calling it a solvent. It is obviously a carrier. Sorry for the lack of rigor.

Top
#2875750 - 01/18/13 06:19 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
martinq Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 1023
Loc: ON, Canada
I found this topic quite interesting. Has there been any updates?

Top
#2875769 - 01/18/13 06:35 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: demarpaint]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7672
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: dailydriver


Sadly, from what I remember you had told me during our phone conversation, many on here will BLAST/DISS the engine oils for having a low VI, even though they are made for RACING, and labelled as such.
Some on here feel that the VI spec is the be all, end all of ANY premium synthetic oil, EVEN racing oils, especially in this price range, and they even have me half convinced about this. frown


I'm no longer buying into the "VI spec" as the "be all, end all" either.

I think that a high vi matters at start up. Once the oil is up to operating temp it becomes much less of a factor.
Jmo.
I've got millers fb page and get updates on my wall. The nano tech stuff is absolutely amazing. It's not even attainable in canada yet. I tried.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#2876544 - 01/19/13 03:04 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
^^^Yes, I am seriously considering trying their 0W-30 Nanodrive oil in the spring/summer, DESPITE it's relatively low V.I.!! wink
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#2876691 - 01/19/13 04:50 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: dailydriver]
skyship Offline


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 2071
Loc: Tettnang, Baden-Wurttemberg, G...
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
^^^Yes, I am seriously considering trying their 0W-30 Nanodrive oil in the spring/summer, DESPITE it's relatively low V.I.!! wink


This is a fairly new oil, so if you ask Blackstones they might do a free VOA for you, as that would be interesting to see, along with your VOA.

Top
#2879280 - 01/21/13 05:33 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: skyship]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7672
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: skyship
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
^^^Yes, I am seriously considering trying their 0W-30 Nanodrive oil in the spring/summer, DESPITE it's relatively low V.I.!! wink


This is a fairly new oil, so if you ask Blackstones they might do a free VOA for you, as that would be interesting to see, along with your VOA.


The company is called Blackstone. And in the past they have helped the bitog community add to the knowledge base,so it might be a possibility they contribute again.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#2879483 - 01/21/13 07:52 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
If you get an oil analysis, I would be very interested in the presence of Tungsten. Given the text of some of their literature; if it has Tungsten, it is very likely to be the IF WS2.

I sent a message a couple of days ago asking if there was any information on consumer versions of the nano.

Top
#2886696 - 01/28/13 10:14 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Gents (and ladies if present),

I apologize for not following this thread as much as I should have. Just been a very busy time of the year, etc. and all of that. Can't comment specifically on some of the things mentioned here, as it gets into proprietary stuff, I apologize for that.

But I do have some good news to address some concerns raised here. First, Millers just introduced their first four road oil products wtih nanotechnology. Two 5W30 fully synthetics, a 10W40 semi, and a 75W90 gear oil. Pricing is not as cheap as Mobil 1 at Wal-Mart, but it is notably less than our race oils. All that said, on the race oils, the stuff lasts a very long time. Not sure how the road oil stuff will last, it is a Longlife formulation (the fully synthetics), but the race oil lasts much, much longer than most of the stuff out there. Two anecdotal points. We did a longevity study on one of our race cars, which we have published on our website, but basically, 5 race weekends, about 1700 race miles, in the season, and had analyses done after every weekend. The only thing after the full season that was even a blip was the aluminum content at 17ppm (normal is 15 or under). The other anecdotal point was the Director of Technology at Millers who runs 20,000 mile drain intervals on his diesel Jag.

We have used both Blackstone and Polaris for VOA and UOA. We have an agreement with Polaris for two reasons - one, frankly, they offered us a better package, but second, we've seen more of the strange outliers from Blackstone than Polaris. On the above mentioned longevity study, we sent the samples to England where they also did an HFRR test (the NT's greatest benefit is reduction in boundary condition friction, which the HFRR test measures better than more commonly used tests). I'll see if I can dig up some VOA from either Blackstone or Polaris.

Also, there is a dealer in Canada, specifically in Ontario, and we are very close to adding a second in Vancouver, BC. The one in Ontario is Gabriel Maintenance, Ltd.

Also, we are going to be placing an order for either several pallets or a container here within the week. If anyone is interested in something other than our race oil, please get in touch with me, and we can make sure we have it brought over.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2887161 - 01/28/13 04:45 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
King, could you perhaps list MSRP here?

I guess my question at this point is race or not race. Do you have any info on the nano action on the two oils. Sure wish they had done a 10W40 or 5W40 full synthetics. I think my Audi specs 5W50, but I usually don't use that. An additive would be slick (sorry).

The major activity I am looking for is the lubricity and surface protection/build up of the nano component. Are the proportions the same for both road and racing? Are there other details of the oil blends that favor the road in domestic engines vs racing oil?


Edited by alternety (01/28/13 04:48 PM)

Top
#2887294 - 01/28/13 06:50 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
Mystic Offline


Registered: 03/05/03
Posts: 7575
Loc: Colorado
I think I would wait for a motor oil to come out with this stuff in it, assuming a motor oil ever does come out with it. It might be too expensive as a lubricate except for special purposes. If the stuff improves fuel mileage by 5% but if it costs too much money it simply would not be worth it.

There may be some special racing oils already using it and that racing would be used for testing also.

Top
#2887365 - 01/28/13 07:33 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
My post was quite thread specific. A few posts above the distributor (67King) announces the motor oil products to supplement the existing racing oils.

Top
#2887758 - 01/29/13 07:44 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Mystic - Millers does indeed use nanotechnology in their engine oils. Will not elaborate on the chemical specifics of it beyond that.

Real quick:
IMEP - Indicated Mean Effective Pressure, which is how much torque the engine makes before mechanical losses (normalized - i.e. not a function of displacement)
FMEP - Fricton Mean Effective Pressure, said mechanical losses
BMEP - Brake Mean Effective Pressure, IMEP - FMEP. Multiplied by displacement, and you get brake torque.

The technology has reduced the coefficient of friction in the neighborhood of 50%, give or take a fair amount (range 30% to upper 60's, off of memory). The benefit it provides is primarily in boundary lubrication. That primarily is near TDS and BDC in the swept area of the rings. If you figure FMEP of an engine is about 15% IMEP, and ring friction is 40% of that, then you are looking at 6%, max. But, it does not take long before you start getting out of boundary, and into viscous, at which point the coefficient of friction doens't do much for you.

So how does this impact fuel economy? To date, we do not have enough direct data. A few Sequence Six tests have been performed, and it is largely dependent on drive cycle (frictional losses are a constant, so at low load, they are a large portion of indicated power). I know the results, but the sample size is too small to publish with any confidence. That said, we are awaiting the impending release of fleet oils with NT. If we can make an improvement of merely 1%, the case for conversion to the NT oils is very, very strong at first glance. We are hoping to have some discussions in the near future with some fleet operators to get some level of validity around our assumptions of operating costs. A 5% improvement in fuel economy would be enormous, but it isn't realistic. OEM's would pay BIG time money for that kind of fuel economy improvement (see below for some more info).

However, the horsepower improvements that have been measured are pretty darn impressive. And since the same mechanisms apply, we do have confidence that a measurable improvement in fuel economy will be realized. Most testing has shown a 2-3% improvement in power, with a range of about 1% to 5%, but I personally question the assumptions made when that 5% was measured (measured wheel power improvement was 2.3%, which I trust). Basically, they attempt to measure driveline losses by cutting fuel and letting the dyno wind down while taking measurements. Those driveline losses should not have changed, but they did. Still, 2.3% is impressive for a mere oil change. Here are some links if you wish to see some: http://performanceracingoils.com/dynofriction-ezp-9.html

That said, as oils are getting thinner and thinner, boundary conditions are actually showing up in the bottom end, a bit surprisingly to me, but that's what is being seen* (see bottom of post for elaboration).

Having said all of that, we know from testing the oil, primarily the 4 ball wear test, that the NT cuts wear pretty drastically, ceteris paribus. We are hoping over the course of the year to compare the capabilities of a lower weight NT oil with a higher weight non-NT oil, to see if we can provide equivalent protection with a lower weight oil. If we can do that, we know that we can reduce total FMEP by an even greater amount, as we'll be reducing viscous friction, as well.

Alternety, I don't have the pricing finalized. I got the pricing from Millers just yesterday, and am sorting through it. It looks to be about 7% more expensive than the non-NT version of the oil. It is still not cheap, but this is the extended drain stuff we are talking about, rather than a regular oil. Right now, looks like somewhere between $13-15 per liter, depending on which version. 5L jugs will be notably less on a per liter basis.

Road oils are made to meet OEM specifications, which
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2887796 - 01/29/13 08:27 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Sorry, I inadvertantly hit the Submit button before I was ready. Here's the full text (is there a way to edit or delete a post?)

Mystic - Millers does indeed use nanotechnology in their engine oils. Will not elaborate on the chemical specifics of it beyond that.

Real quick:
IMEP - Indicated Mean Effective Pressure, which is how much torque the engine makes before mechanical losses (normalized - i.e. not a function of displacement)
FMEP - Fricton Mean Effective Pressure, said mechanical losses
BMEP - Brake Mean Effective Pressure, IMEP - FMEP. Multiplied by displacement, and you get brake torque.

The technology has reduced the coefficient of friction in the neighborhood of 50%, give or take a fair amount (range 30% to upper 60's, off of memory). The benefit it provides is primarily in boundary lubrication. That primarily is near TDS and BDC in the swept area of the rings. If you figure FMEP of an engine is about 15% IMEP, and ring friction is 40% of that, then you are looking at 6%, max. But, it does not take long before you start getting out of boundary, and into viscous, at which point the coefficient of friction doens't do much for you.

So how does this impact fuel economy? To date, we do not have enough direct data. A few Sequence Six tests have been performed, and it is largely dependent on drive cycle (frictional losses are a constant, so at low load, they are a large portion of indicated power). I know the results, but the sample size is too small to publish with any confidence. That said, we are awaiting the impending release of fleet oils with NT. If we can make an improvement of merely 1%, the case for conversion to the NT oils is very, very strong at first glance - this for a financial incentive for only the fuel economy improvement. We are hoping to have some discussions in the near future with some fleet operators to get some level of validity around our assumptions of operating costs. A 5% improvement in fuel economy would be enormous, but it isn't realistic. OEM's would pay BIG time money for that kind of fuel economy improvement (see below for some more info).

Another reason to look at fleets is the rebuild interval. Like racing, rebuilds are a source of expense. On the gear oils, some of the WRC and BTCC guys are seeing as much as four times the life of the gearbox. Our typical wear reductions are 40-50%, with some as high as 80%, and a low of 14%. This again compared to the closest comparator from Millers (i.e. a BMW LL04 spec 5W30, and not just viscosity). This will likely not apply to anyone here, but it is all related. Less friction, less heat, less waste (fuel), and less wear.

Though we don't have a large enough dataset to quantify an expected fuel economy gain, the horsepower improvements that have been measured are pretty darn impressive. And since the same mechanisms apply, we do have confidence that a measurable improvement in fuel economy will be realized. Most testing has shown a 2-3% improvement in power, with a range of about 1% to 5%, but I personally question the assumptions made when that 5% was measured (measured wheel power improvement was 2.3%, which I trust). Basically, they attempt to measure driveline losses by cutting fuel and letting the dyno wind down while taking measurements. Those driveline losses should not have changed, but they did. Still, 2.3% is impressive for a mere oil change. Here are some links if you wish to see some: http://performanceracingoils.com/dynofriction-ezp-9.html

That said, as oils are getting thinner and thinner, boundary conditions are actually showing up in the bottom end, a bit surprisingly to me, but that's what is being seen* (see bottom of post for elaboration).

Having said all of that, we know from testing the oil, primarily the 4 ball wear test, that the NT cuts wear pretty drastically, ceteris paribus. We are hoping over the course of the year to compare the capabilities of a lower weight NT oil with a higher weight non-NT oil, to see if we can provide equivalent protection with a lower weight oil. If we can do that, we know that we can reduce total FMEP by an even greater amount, as we'll be reducing viscous friction, as well.

Alternety, I don't have the pricing finalized. I got the pricing from Millers just yesterday, and am sorting through it. It looks to be about 7% more expensive than the non-NT version of the oil. It is still not cheap, but this is the extended drain stuff we are talking about, rather than a regular oil. Right now, looks like somewhere between $13-15 per liter, depending on which version. 5L jugs will be notably less on a per liter basis.

I need to verify the base stocks of the road oils. I thought that they were Group III, per OEM specifications, but I just reviewed my notes, and I do not know if that applies to this line (it does our Trident line, which to this point has been the only road oil line we've carried - but these are modified XF oils, which are more expensive). The race oils are mostly Group IV with a fair amout of V (tri-ester), and the balance III to enhance lubricity that is lost with the PAO.

* - I used to do engine development with Ford. I did engine systems, which was the whole thing, including budget and timing, as well as the engineering. My primary focus on the engineering end was performance, which was more upper end/breathing. But, one of my good friends and most trusted resources is still one of the experts at Ford in bottom end lubrication. He was where I heard that boundary conditions are being seen on the bottom end. Also along those lines, fuel economy was even more important than horsepower during my later years, and the amount of money paid for a small fuel economy gain at the OEM level was insane. I saw an increase of 30% of the cost of an engine to achieve about a 3% fuel economy improvement. When I left, I was one of the few big proponents of direct injection, which is one of the few things that can get a couple percentage poitns - everthing else short of full blown powertrain changes was in the tenths of a percent.

I'll see if I can get some pricing information together in the coming week or so.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2888467 - 01/29/13 06:22 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
martinq Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 1023
Loc: ON, Canada
Originally Posted By: 67King
Sorry, I inadvertantly hit the Submit button before I was ready. Here's the full text (is there a way to edit or delete a post?)

After you make a post there is an [Edit] button available for a period of time.



(right down here beside the [Reply] button) -->


Edited by martinq (01/29/13 06:24 PM)

Top
#2888538 - 01/29/13 06:59 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
Mystic Offline


Registered: 03/05/03
Posts: 7575
Loc: Colorado
Well, this technology is finally finding its way into motor oils. I heard about this nanotechnology a long time ago and I wondered when and if it would ever really be used in motor oils.

It would probably be useful in other things too like guns.

Top
#2888582 - 01/29/13 07:26 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: Mystic]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21560
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: Mystic
Well, this technology is finally finding its way into motor oils. I heard about this nanotechnology a long time ago and I wondered when and if it would ever really be used in motor oils.

It would probably be useful in other things too like guns.


I use Tungsten Disulfide and sometimes Moly powder, both nano particles to tumble bullets. It reduces barrel temps, allows to shoot longer strings without fouling, extends throat and barrel life. IIRC it reduces friction so much so that you actually have to slightly increase the powder charge of the coated bullet to get the same velocity from an un-coated bullet of the same caliber and weight. Like everything else in life there are people for and against it. I tried it, I'm hooked.

It actually burnishes itself into the barrel and is very difficult to remove, if not impossible.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2888642 - 01/29/13 08:15 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Yes, using moly and WS2 bullet lubrication helps a lot. You are probably not actually using nano particle for lubrication. None of the sources I have seen provide a particle size in the nano range. A simple test is price. But it still works very well.

One of the things I want to do is lubricate the guns themselves. There are very tight (in a good gun) tolerance sliding interfaces under high pressure and stress. For that you want a "dry" lubricant. I much prefer a lubricant that does not attract and hold dust, sand, and other nasty things. For this you need IF WS2 with a penetration carrier that fairly rapidly evaporates and leaves behind the actual lubricant. The naked powder could be rubbed into the material, but the fluid insertion is simpler and probably more effective.

That is the basis of my quest for IF WS2 powder.

And I would like to apply it to engines and other things. It is probably the ultimate three-in-one oil.

Top
#2888877 - 01/30/13 03:56 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21560
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: alternety
Yes, using moly and WS2 bullet lubrication helps a lot. You are probably not actually using nano particle for lubrication. None of the sources I have seen provide a particle size in the nano range. A simple test is price. But it still works very well.

One of the things I want to do is lubricate the guns themselves. There are very tight (in a good gun) tolerance sliding interfaces under high pressure and stress. For that you want a "dry" lubricant. I much prefer a lubricant that does not attract and hold dust, sand, and other nasty things. For this you need IF WS2 with a penetration carrier that fairly rapidly evaporates and leaves behind the actual lubricant. The naked powder could be rubbed into the material, but the fluid insertion is simpler and probably more effective.

That is the basis of my quest for IF WS2 powder.

And I would like to apply it to engines and other things. It is probably the ultimate three-in-one oil.


I season the barrels with a mix of Tungsten Disulfide and alcohol which evaporates very quickly and leaves a nice coat on the barrel. The coated bullets burnishes it into the barrel. I've been doing it for quite some time now and it works very well. I forget what I paid I bought it a few years back, I recall it not being cheap though. I won't argue with you over it being Nano particles, smile since I bought it the company has changed their wording on the products, and hiked the prices. I just checked because this thread peaked my curiosity.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#2889587 - 01/30/13 05:05 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Mr. King;

There is definitely a Millers NT RACING 75W-140 gear oil now available here, correct??

I AM going to try this if so, and will be making an order shortly.
The L.A.T. 75W-140 I am currently using has a higher VI (199) than the Millers gear oils, so I want to keep that in the rear axle while there is still a chance of 0*-10*F ambient temps. wink
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#2889594 - 01/30/13 05:14 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
yes there is a 75/140 NT. Torsen diff, right? Think I still have an SLP takeout somewhere. Anyway there is an LS modified version that would only apply to clutch type diffs. Wish we had a suitable ATF but the NT isn't good with the planetary gearsets. Hope with some growth in the States, we can develop some for the T5 and T56 trannies. The Nissan GT-R uses some sor of ATF too

oh yeah - I prefer to be addressed as "Harry" smile


Edited by 67King (01/30/13 05:21 PM)
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2890914 - 01/31/13 09:59 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
friendly_jacek Offline


Registered: 05/04/03
Posts: 5505
Loc: southeast US
Originally Posted By: alternety

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.


Interesting! G-oil boasts this revelation:

Quote:
G1 Racing Oil's unique proprietary ingredient called NANO GEODESIC BEARINGS are tiny spherical shaped particles that are postulated to spin at unimaginable high speeds to support adjacent oil molecules to squeeze more precious horsepower out of the engine.


I thought it was totally insane or at least tongue in cheek, but maybe they are serious?

Top
#2891006 - 02/01/13 01:49 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
That comment from G1 is a bit off. That is not really how it works. They don't spin at unimaginable speeds. They likely do not spin much at all.

My post you quoted may be a bit misleading in the context of this thread . Simply being a Buckyball does not necessarily make it IF WS2. Other things (e.g., carbon) can be found in this configuration.

Top
#2891340 - 02/01/13 11:50 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: alternety
King, could you perhaps list MSRP here?


Alright, looks like we have pricing worked out.

The Long Life ECO 5W30 (http://www.millersoils.co.uk/automotive/tds-automotive.asp?prodsegmentID=986&sector=Car) MAPs at $13.45/L, or $55.95/5L jug.

The Long Life C3 5W30 (LL04 for BMW, 229.51 for MB, Dexos2 for GM) (http://www.millersoils.co.uk/automotive/tds-automotive.asp?prodsegmentID=987&sector=Car) MAPs at $14.45/L, or $59.95/5L jug.

There is a semi-synthetic 10W40 and a 75W90 gear oil that we don't expect to sell much/any of, but if this interests you, please let me know. Those should be in the neighborhood of $12 and $22. Honestly, our race gear oil is only $25/L and for the extra cost, definately worth it.

If anyone wants to try any of this stuff, please e-mail me at hking@performanceracingoils.com. Please do it ASAP, as we are placing an order very, very soon (like within days). At present, we've got no dealers carrying this stuff, so I can probably work out an incentive until we do.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2891517 - 02/01/13 01:50 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Which of the oils is most appropriate for a 1999 A6 Quatro 2.8l? I will also feed a 1990 Honda accord.

Top
#2891615 - 02/01/13 03:18 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: alternety
Which of the oils is most appropriate for a 1999 A6 Quatro 2.8l? I will also feed a 1990 Honda accord.


The EE Longlife C3, with a change interval of approximately 9,000 miles or 12 months (that is a baseline recommendation from Millers - my company will recommend a UOA to determine chagne interval).

The semi-synthetic at 7500 mile (baseline) intervals would be recommended for the Accord.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2891756 - 02/01/13 05:14 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Thanks. Both cars have always use a full synthetic so I would go with that. I just want to get the nano particles in there. I normally use 10W40 or 5W50 in the Audi so I wanted to be sure 5W30 is OK. That is what I use in the Honda.

Top
#2892726 - 02/02/13 02:44 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Sorry, I grow confused again. I am not an oil person. Looking at the Millers site they show different percent of friction numbers for each of the two nano oils.

The C3 says:
A reduction in friction of up to 27% providing a reduction in wear of up to 14% compared to other 5w30 C3 grades.

The ECO says:
A reduction in friction of up to 47% providing a reduction in wear of up to 50% compared to other 5w30 ECO grades. Backwards compatible with previous M2C913-B specification.

Is that just a typo or a comparison to a different oil? In comparison to Mobile 1 (or maybe Amsoil) which of these would provide the best friction reduction? IS it additives making a difference. A brief explanation/tutorial would help a bunch because I do not want to miss ordering some.


Edited by alternety (02/02/13 02:56 PM)

Top
#2894295 - 02/03/13 05:15 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I am thinking I should state more clearly my question.

The C3 costs more than the ECO. The vendor documentation says C3 has less reduction in friction then the ECO. Why is this the case and how does it impact product selection for automobile use. Is one of the race oils a better choice? Is the percentage of nano particles in C3 and ECO different? If so which has the most?

An added question; I have a small diesel (around 30 HP). Is there a nano oil suitable for use in this engine?

Top
#2894970 - 02/04/13 08:51 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Each one is compared to its non-NT counterpart, so there isn't a comparison against another brand. So the C3 will be compared to the XF Longlife C3 product designed to meet BMW LL04 and MB 229.51, et al. http://www.millersoils.co.uk/automotive/tds-automotive.asp?prodsegmentID=49&sector=Car is the info on the C3. The ECO is compared to this product: http://www.millersoils.co.uk/automotive/tds-automotive.asp?prodsegmentID=45&sector=Car

Unfortunately, with the proliferation of different fuels around the world, and OEMs pushing things closer and closer to the edge, and different ones seeking different drain intervals and sump capacities, we've seen a drastic increase in the types of oils that are out there. Frankly, on my end, it borders on maddening. I'm more of an airflow guy from my engineering time at Ford, but have gotten to know abotu race oils pretty well. Now I'm trying to learn about road and fleet oils, and I'll be honest - y'all are an intimidating bunch, and I'm sure there are folks here that know more about oil than me.

Anyway, so what that has all done is driven an insane number of products. Just looking at fully synthetic, extended drain interaval oils, there are SIX different ones that Millers sells in just the XF Long Life line (there are more in the Trident line, as well as the NT stuff). There is the base, ECO, C1, C2, C3, and C4 (note this is largely driven by ACEA requirements - http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20090105_081211_ACEA_Oil_Sequences_Final.pdf for info). The ECO is the C5, which is a fuel economy requirement.

The ECO was designed most to meet Ford/C5 requirements, and the C3 to meet most of the other ones. The C5 designation is for improved fuel economy from what I have read.

In both cases, they are designed to be used with diesel applications, low/mid SAPS, etc. I'd speculate your 30hp diesel isn't that demanding, in that you don't have to worry abut DPF's and all that that drives additional requirements on the oil. I've got 5W30 in my wife's R320 CDI right now, but I'll be changing to a 5W40 soon, as I just prefer the heavier weight oil in the diesels (MB just specs 229.51, not viscosity). So overall, if your diesel can run a 5W30, either of these should be fine. If they need a 10W40, you'd need the semi synthetic. If they need heavier, your only option is our race oil.

By the way, the race oil uses Groups IV and V - it does use some III, as well. It offers better lubricity than PAO, and doesn't impede ZDDP's funtion like Ester, so it turns out that a small amount gives the best blend. That said, there's no reason you can't run it in a diesel, the highet ranking tech guy at Millers uses it in his daily driver (diesel Jag).

The race oils all use API SM base additive packs, but the lower viscosity variants do not meet the requirements due to elevated ZDDP content (Phosphorus is the controlled element). So they are quite robust as street oils, though the EPA is concerned that very high mileage cars that consume oil will over a prolonged period of time will contribute to catalytic converter degradation. As a result of said ZDDP conent, they will not meet the API certification (though the 5W40, 10W50, and 10W60 will).


Edited by 67King (02/04/13 08:52 AM)
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2895018 - 02/04/13 09:33 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
By the way, I apologize that I should have posted this in regards to the question of comparator oils. I do not have a CF comparison to street oils versus the competition, but I do have it for some race oils. Again, this is an HFRR test - the test was originally designed for testing diesel fuel injectors, but works incredibly well for CF measurements in boundary lubrication conditions. Millers is listed by name, and 5 of our more common competitors are shown, we well. Left Y-Axis (blue line) is temperature in C (red line), right Y-Axis shows both CF and % oil film thickness (green line - measured resistively, where 100% is no conduction and 0% is perfect conduction). X-Axis is time.

Scroll down past the dyno curves to the Bench Testing section for the friction curves. http://performanceracingoils.com/dynofriction-ezp-9.html
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2895098 - 02/04/13 10:21 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
skyship Offline


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 2071
Loc: Tettnang, Baden-Wurttemberg, G...
Is the Audi race tuned or something because 5/50 is kind of thick for normal use and it will shear down faster than the 10/40 if it's of the same type.
If economic nano particle additives worked one of the major oil companies would buy the rights or the company involved.

Top
#2895146 - 02/04/13 10:50 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: skyship]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: skyship
If economic nano particle additives worked one of the major oil companies would buy the rights or the company involved.


There are two reasons I disagree with your statement:
1. The biggest oil companies are like Nike - a whole lot more about marketing than about product. This board is more technically focused than 99.9% of our customer base. When certain companies give away oil to OEMs to have their stickers under the hood, the owners of the cars will tell you "My OEM's engineers say to ONLY use their recommended product." I can sell stuff to people who subscribe to Race Tech Magazine, it is a lot harder to sell to people who buy Car and Driver. I could go one all day about the stuff I deal with trying to convince people to even listen to me.

They have no incentive at this point to change.

2. Millers is privately owned. Acquiring a privately owned company isn't as simple as buying a controlling interest in a publicly traded one.


This isn't even addressing the technical merit. As wtih a great many technologies, they all start in motorsports. Here is an interesting article from SAE about the technology - http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/11201


Edited by 67King (02/04/13 10:53 AM)
Edit Reason: Didn't know the "C" word was censorsed
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2895322 - 02/04/13 01:43 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Just found the brochure when it was launched, if any of you is interested in reading a little more (less technical). http://www.performanceracingoils.com/PDF/Auto_Nanodrive_Brochure_2012.pdf
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2895373 - 02/04/13 02:32 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I mentioned this somewhere in here before. There is at least one oil additive I am sure is IF WS2 in retail packaging out there somewhere. Just not here. There are a couple of others I have found that have a high probability of IF WS2; same problem. One in Hong Kong (or Singapore) only for Asian distribution, another in South America. Neither of them ever responded to my emails requesting a source.

The Additive would probably be my preference over oil that included the material. Just more flexible.

One thing possibly interfering with at least one of these products is a (small I think) US company claiming to own the trademark on the name of the foreign product.

Top
#2895411 - 02/04/13 03:05 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I just read the brochure. They did good work.

If I understand correctly, the C3 just relates to pollution standards in Europe. Thus, being in the US, it does me no good. So I should buy the non-C3.

While looking in the brochure I also came across fuel additives. The Ecomax versions state they are using the nano particles. The main Millers Oils site uses the same name but does not mention the nano. Will you be getting some of the gas and oil additives? I would probably buy some of those if the price was decent.

Re my Audi. Just a regular old Audi family station wagon. The mechanic I have change the oil always puts 5W50 in. He insists that that is what Audi intended. Looking at their chart, that is not quite true, but it makes him happy. Before turning oil changes over to him I always used 10W40.

Top
#2895440 - 02/04/13 03:27 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: 67King
Originally Posted By: skyship
If economic nano particle additives worked one of the major oil companies would buy the rights or the company involved.


There are two reasons I disagree with your statement:
1. The biggest oil companies are like Nike - a whole lot more about marketing than about product. This board is more technically focused than 99.9% of our customer base. When certain companies give away oil to OEMs to have their stickers under the hood, the owners of the cars will tell you "My OEM's engineers say to ONLY use their recommended product." I can sell stuff to people who subscribe to Race Tech Magazine, it is a lot harder to sell to people who buy Car and Driver. I could go one all day about the stuff I deal with trying to convince people to even listen to me.

They have no incentive at this point to change.

2. Millers is privately owned. Acquiring a privately owned company isn't as simple as buying a controlling interest in a publicly traded one.


This isn't even addressing the technical merit. As wtih a great many technologies, they all start in motorsports. Here is an interesting article from SAE about the technology - http://www.sae.org/mags/aei/11201


^^^VERY well put!! thumbsup

THIS is my answer to all of those on here who say the oils I use are "overkill", and "just lightening my wallet", or that I should just use an off the shelf Sino-Mart oil, since the LSxes in Vettes came with that as the factory fill. LOL
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#2895454 - 02/04/13 03:36 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
C3 was developed for European cars, but it meets specs for cars sold here - BMW's LL04 is a bit odd, as they still list the US as having "dirty" gasoline, but in realize, ours is a whole lot closer to Europe's. Millers has been working to try to get BMW to reconsider its recommendation of LL01, which is meant for dirtier (i.e. higher sulfer content) gasolines. But it also meets MB 229.51, BMW 502.00 and 505.00, and also GM's Dexos2.

At present, we do not intend to bring in the fuel additive; however, if I can get an order ahead of time (like this week), we'll bring in some. That pretty much applies to everything. Please call at (865)200-4264 if you want to place an order.

Unfortunately, I just got pricing for the oil last week, just sent a note asking about pricing for the fuel additive. hope to get that very quickly for anyone here.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2895458 - 02/04/13 03:38 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: dailydriver]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: dailydriver

THIS is my answer to all of those on here who say the oils I use are "overkill", and "just lightening my wallet", or that I should just use an off the shelf Sino-Mart oil, since the LSxes in Vettes came with that as the factory fill. LOL


The frustrating part is that the engineers don't always get much input! When I was at Ford, they started putting the BP starburst on the fuel caps. No one in engine knew anything about it, it just happened.

About a week later, a report came out (may have been CR?) with a recommended list of fuels - Texaco, Chevron, Shell, etc. BP was not on the list
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2913911 - 02/20/13 05:59 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
[RT] ProjUltraZ Offline


Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 1053
Loc: Honolulu, HI
67King, in your opinion how credible are the benefits touted by the ceramic oil additive companies?

Your work on this IF tungsten additive is exciting

Top
#2913945 - 02/20/13 06:24 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
If I may comment. Ceramic is something else. It may be a nano particle (or may not). It is probably Hex Boron nitride. It works. It is not in the same league as IF WS2.

Hex boron = lubricant

IF WS2 = LUBRICANT!!

Top
#2913974 - 02/20/13 06:35 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
[RT] ProjUltraZ Offline


Registered: 12/16/04
Posts: 1053
Loc: Honolulu, HI
Yes, thank you. i was looking for a yes/no answer to not hijack this thread... if anyone else could comment on the ceramics thread too. thats all

Top
#2913991 - 02/20/13 06:41 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
In another vein. I just lubricated a new semi-auto pistol with normal WS2 with a nominal particle size of 600nm. Results from simple "play with it" test. Not live fire. And the gun is essentially unfired. Slide effort does not feel like it has changed. I was really hoping it would. But the gun is not broken and is built to very close tolerances. Trigger is noticeably better. Second identical unfired gun was used as an A/B comparison.

I put some WS2 in 99% alcohol and used a hypodermic to put it in all the usual places. Let it dry. Operated action. I would shoot it, but have you tried to find any ammo or reloading components?

I have ordered some of the Millers Oils 10W30 nano consumer oil. I will try that on another identical gun. I don't particularly want the oil, but I can remove it after a while.

All this presumes it will still be legal for me to have guns after the anti-gun crazies are done. Aaargh - I will not discuss politics per conditions of use.

A note to people trying this (with any version of WS2) - it is messy. If you have dealt with liquid formulations of Molybdenum Disulphide, you know what to expect. Newspaper (or something), paper towels, gloves, careful not to get it on things you do not want to change color. I suggest blue masking tape. Blue masking tape is second only to duct tape as a universal tool.

I once built an entire TV set to tape a cooking show series with nothing but cardboard, duct tape and cans of spray paint. In two days. And they loved it. And they were shocked. Ah, the power of duct tape.

After I posted this I saw a request to post responses in another thread. Perhaps you could just include a link to this thread in the other thread.


Edited by alternety (02/20/13 06:43 PM)

Top
#2914372 - 02/21/13 07:21 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: alternety
In another vein. I just lubricated a new semi-auto pistol with normal WS2 with a nominal particle size of 600nm. Results from simple "play with it" test. Not live fire. And the gun is essentially unfired. Slide effort does not feel like it has changed. I was really hoping it would. But the gun is not broken and is built to very close tolerances. Trigger is noticeably better. Second identical unfired gun was used as an A/B comparison.

I put some WS2 in 99% alcohol and used a hypodermic to put it in all the usual places. Let it dry. Operated action. I would shoot it, but have you tried to find any ammo or reloading components?

I have ordered some of the Millers Oils 10W30 nano consumer oil. I will try that on another identical gun. I don't particularly want the oil, but I can remove it after a while.

After I posted this I saw a request to post responses in another thread. Perhaps you could just include a link to this thread in the other thread.


A couple of quick points. First, a question. 600nm is about an order of magnitude larger than the NT in our engine oils - was that a typo? That feature size is getting pretty large, not sure it would be as effective.

Second, our engine oils have a thermally activated aspect to them. I'm not sure of the mechanism, perhaps it is to force some of the outer layers to exfoliate and create the "tribofilm," I'm not certain. Regardless, the engines have to run for about 15-20 minutes to realize the full benefits. The term Millers uses is "plate out." It may be inherent to the technology, or it may be specific to Millers, but it may explain why you weren't able to relize the benefit as much as you'd hoped.

Was the request to link this thread directed to me? I found another one I want to add to, regarding startup friction, wear, but I'm still waiting to hear back from Wayne about sponsorship. Perhaps I should comment in there and see what I can work out with Wayne when he gets a chance to answer my questions.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2914937 - 02/21/13 03:26 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Yes 600nm nominal is correct. It is not IF which is inherently in the 60nm range. I suspect heat may help, but the mechanism is basically being burnished into the surfaces. It can actually be applied with just fairly low pressure air to create the necessary surface. I actually would not be surprised if the oil actually slows the process. It is busily at work trying to keep interfering surfaces apart and the closer they are to each other, the better the take up of the IF WS2.

The less than hoped for results on the gun are most likely because the springs are the dominant factor or there still needs to be a bit of wear in of the base surfaces. Right now the surfaces are close tolerance but still have the gross fitment issues caused by machining the surfaces. It is known that the guns "loosen up" after the first 100-200 rounds are fired.

It will be interesting to see how the second gun reacts to the nano oil. It will probably take a while. I will probably need to use it; strip the oil and see how it works and repeat as needed. I am not a fan of wet gun lube. One of the reasons that started me on this whole thing. And 9mm ammo is essentially non-replaceable at this time. I don't have a lot of plinking sort of ammo.


Edited by alternety (02/21/13 03:30 PM)

Top
#2915521 - 02/22/13 06:35 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Ah, okay, that makes sense.

I'm with you on the ammo, as well. Recent new gun owner - Sig SP2022 in 9mm. APparently I need to break it in, but can't find ammo and the range ammo is pretty expensive. Will be interested to read what you find out as you play with it, more.

Also need to keep this in mind for when my son gets a little oder and starts doing the pinewood derby thing - graphite was also the dry lube of choice when I was a kid smile
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2915894 - 02/22/13 12:20 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Actually one of the places online that sells a large particle regular type WS2 markets to the pinewood derby people. It has all the advantages of the molly, really nasty black dirty and so you retain the experience of cleaning up your son, and it is a better lubricant. You could do some experiments on derby cars and see if the speed of two identical cars is different with WS2 vs Moly. And maybe open a new market for your racing oil :-).

Top
#2950072 - 03/24/13 03:49 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Just to expand on the IF WS2 thing. It would probably work better if you could just get the raw WS2 powder and stick in a [censored] oil or some solvent). Probably the worse the lubricity of the carrier the better. You want the WS2 to get between the two wear/friction parts. Good oil would (I presume) slowdown this process.

If the engine would live through it, I suspect something like kerosine or other minimally lubricious fluid would work best to plate the appropriate surfaces. Perhaps one of the sludge treatment products plus WS2.

It would be interesting to see some experimental results from IF WS2 and an non-lubricious (i.e., cleaner) carrier. How long to run it. Damage evaluation. If the engine could make it through without damage; it would seem like the best approach. Going this way, one would get out anything currently being carried by the oil or condensed on the surfaces (changing filter at least once in the process) and thoroughly purging the existing oil during a change (like flushing with kerosene).

Top
#2950311 - 03/24/13 06:40 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
HerrStig Offline


Registered: 08/24/11
Posts: 3128
Loc: Boston, MA
Hmm, I suspect it will be turning up in Pinewood Derby cars shortly.

Top
#2950355 - 03/24/13 07:08 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: HerrStig]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I believe it (the non-IF WS2)has been around for at least a year in the little racer market. Maybe some racers have kept it a secret and used it as secret sauce.

Top
#2988390 - 04/29/13 02:33 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
Coronamaker Offline


Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 6
Loc: Illinois
alternety - I am curious if you have ever run across anything that compares Nano IF-WS2 to Nano Sublimated WS2 (The other way to get nearly spherical WS2) to the standard Nano Lamellar WS2 (Crystal Platelet) in the same size range? I have seen reports comparing Nano IF-WS2 to Lamellar WS2 of unspecified size but they are typically in the order of "We compared our product to the results seen in report X" to make their determinations, but I can never find a side by side with the same sizes at the same test facility.

I ask the above because I always find myself questioning and often grinning at how some manufacturers describe their product as, and bear with me here, a spherical ball bearing like material that fills voids and sticks to the surface and may exfoliate under high pressure to provide a sheet like film coating. You may ask yourself, why do I find some humor in my mental image? It is because I envision a bunch of BB's spot welded to one steel sheet, with another steel sheet placed on top, that is then placed under enough high pressure to crush said BBs into a new sheet like film which now provide a platelet wear barrier and friction reduction surface. I always have to ask myself how these "stuck" ball bearings are providing friction reduction in that mental image even if only at low pressure.

And to follow up on my mental image I have to ask, when WS2 in its various forms has a Rockwell of 30-40, how high (Or low) is high enough pressure to cause said exfoliation? We know that it does take a bit for the oils fluid film layer to fail to the point of metal on metal contact which is where the bonding or burnishing of WS2 in its forms will occur, and where having the WS2 surface coating is beneficial. So how high is the “High Pressure Exfoliation?” Or is it possible that maybe, the actual exfoliation pressure just slightly higher to or the same as the pressure required for bonding the WS2 to the friction surfaces in the first place? If that is the case, then the actual friction reduction and wear protection would not really differ in method (Exfoliated sheets) from standard Lamellar WS2, but the spherical design may provide for better oil suspension due to the possibility of entrapped air in the “Onion Layers” of both IF and Sublimated WS2 morphologies.

I am not knocking IF-WS2 or Sublimated WS2 as a lubricant, but I am curious if in your reading you have found what I haven’t been able to in that kind of side by side testing that shows one of the three morphologies to be a superior material? As a stateside manufacturer of WS2 in its standard lamellar form, I have looked everywhere I could think of and maybe I have just not clicked that last search link that will give me my answer. I would also note that there are three ways to make WS2 so the various properties of the WS2 will vary there as well.

As far as the gun lubrication, I notice a small difference between the slides and triggers of my H&Ks using 0.5 micron (500 nm) and 0.07 micron. But I did notice a larger difference using a 600 micron material, coating the surface and running 100 or so rounds through it and then feeling the action of both slide and trigger. The same holds true in many rougher tolerance applications such as gearboxes. It would appear that the action of the slide & trigger as well as burnishing of the gear teeth actually mills the WS2 to size in the application providing a nice fill and protection. Granted, way too big for an engine or filtered application though so best to stick to Nano material there as the higher surface area allows for the best suspension, as well as ability for filter pass through.

Well, just some thoughts on WS2 but more importantly a serious inquiry for any study info or reports if you have seen them.

Top
#2988538 - 04/29/13 04:20 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Another silly mind view is of little bitty engagement rings being crushed by the products advertising they use diamonds.

Regarding your question. I do not recollect ever seeing a comparison between various forms of WS2. It has always been between WS2 and some form of oil. That makes the results spectacular; particularly if you have figured out how to make commercial quantities of IF WS2. Nor have I seen good information of the "effectiveness" of the Fullerenes structure delaminating vs other surface bonding approaches.

The following is purely my thinking on the subject. I have never seen corroborating data.

One thing I have thought would improve the results of the IF is the resultant size of material. The Bucky balls seem to run about 60nm. Now comes the guessing/assumptions. When a 60nm BB (see your mind image might have more validity than you thought) breaks up it seems to do so in layers. It does not really "peel" the onion. I suspect the forces necessary to cause this onion slicing is less that to remove a smaller piece (mill off) of a monolithic form. Now, if the diameter of the entire BB starts at 60nm, you can get some very small particles from this process. The net result is that it is easier for the pieces to bond in the roughness of the surface to be lubricated. A 60nm particle is not going to fall into a 2nm surface imperfection. But a destroyed BB part will. So you get a smoother plating of the target substrates with a mix ranging from 60nm and down.

Conclusion: IF works better because it delivers much smaller particles resulting in smoother mating surfaces. And probably sooner than any long term performance of "lesser" particles.

You also raise a point that I have been curious about:oil. Inherently oil (shorthand here for anything being used as a lubricant) is designed to get between the substrate surfaces and add a slippery film. When you put in WS2, it will be a lot harder for the surface burnishing to take place because it is being insulated from the pressure and contact it really wants to have. It has to be real bad oil to result in the metal-to-metal interface you would like to have for plating. If the BBs slice with less force than normal particles, it could then improve time to improved performance in an oil carrier.

In an operating engine or gears etc. there has to be an oil to carry the WS2. The best and fastest results would be achieved by the part manufacturer initially plating the surfaces. The material can be sprayed and will bond at relatively low pressures.

Now - guns. For anything that can be used without oil for a bit; the WS2 should be delivered as a powder suspended in an evaporating carrier. Then operated a few times to embed the WS2. That was my thinking for my gun. Alcohol with WS2. I have not fired the gun since I treated it. But I did work the slide and action many times. I have multiple identical guns and the second one will get some Millers Oils nano oil. It will not be a completely fair result because I am going to replace the trigger group on the second one before lubing it. I will exercise the slide and trigger like I did with the first one (dry fire is OK). And when we can buy ammo again, I will do some shooting. These guns are known to be built to very tight tolerances (they are a work of art) and will change significantly after a few hundred rounds. This means it is not really a good testbed because there are more than one changed factor involved in results. But what I mostly care about is getting them operating as well as I can. I could take a third one and break it in before applying anything; but I won't. There are a few parts inside that the manufacturer recommends be lubricated with a MoS2 grease because of extreme pressures on the surfaces. They are so lubricated from the factory. He uses a grease with Graphite in it - which I don't like. This may mask some of the WS2 effects on those parts. I clean all of that off before I use them. And they probably have not fired more than 7 rounds during factory test. Plus maybe 14 rounds of mine (standard pressure) through the one I have lubed. I could ask them how many they fire. Further violating the basic rules of experimentation, the second gun is black and has a "self lubricating" finish. It will be awhile before I figure out if I am improving anything. If nothing else, I do not think I am doing any harm.

Top
#2988792 - 04/29/13 08:49 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: Coronamaker]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: Coronamaker
I ask the above because I always find myself questioning and often grinning at how some manufacturers describe their product as, and bear with me here, a spherical ball bearing like material that fills voids and sticks to the surface and may exfoliate under high pressure to provide a sheet like film coating. You may ask yourself, why do I find some humor in my mental image? It is because I envision a bunch of BB's spot welded to one steel sheet, with another steel sheet placed on top, that is then placed under enough high pressure to crush said BBs into a new sheet like film which now provide a platelet wear barrier and friction reduction surface. I always have to ask myself how these "stuck" ball bearings are providing friction reduction in that mental image even if only at low pressure.


They stick due in large part because of their size. I believe van der waals forces drive it. But the point about them sticking is that they don't end up just in the sump, the concentration required for them to do anything would be huge if not for the fact that they stick to the metal surfaces.

A way I envision this is they fill low points to make asperities less prone to shearing. You have to remember, they are 60-100nm. I'm not sure what the roughness on bearings is, but it is on the order of microns. By having the BB's there sticking (magnetic would probably be a better mental picture, but they are free to rotate)in the low points would even out the surface to a point where it would almost be as if it were polished to a feature size two orders of magnitude smaller than it currently is. As for the exfoliation, the nanoparticles are manufactured in layers, and they do exfoliate in sheets. Not sure if you are familiar with graphene, but that would be the best analogy I would have. I'd expect that it is the nanoparticles that are in the film separating the two adjacent (moving) parts that would be the ones to exfoliate. But again, the difference is that at the nano level, you've got particles that are small enough to settle into the low spots. With conventional solid lubricants, they would still be on top of the asperities.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2989233 - 04/30/13 10:36 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
Coronamaker Offline


Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 6
Loc: Illinois
Interesting thoughts on the lubrication mechanics folks.

I did read about an ongoing project to try to actually watch the lubrication mechanism in a variety of situations regarding Fullerenes. If published openly it will be interesting to see how this all works.

As far as needing to stick to a surface to avoid ending up in the sump, I would offer that the Nano WS2 we work with, even in platelet form, can achieve almost complete suspension in Synthetic Base Stocks which lack the Dispersants found in engine oils. We don't see the Nano materials having any problem with settling out in engine oil. We also see that in the PAO Base Stocks the small amount that may settle after a few weeks only takes a small agitation to remix whereas larger materials like the 0.5 micron in the same ratios take more agitation.

Sticking to the metal surfaces is certainly desireable for several reasons as WS2 in all forms even when not acting in it's capacity to reduce friction, will hold an oil film on the surface which is beneficial for both cold start lubrication, as well as providing an oil barrier on the metal to prevent oxidation if needed. Also, in any area where it has been applied such as by burnishing or air impingement like valves, piston crown, heads, etc. it will reduce carbon and varnish build up by 50% or more acting as a release agent.

I guess I will have to wait for the answer about what differences, if any, are seen in actual lubrication quality between the various forms and methods of production of Nano WS2. It seems that the folks at Apnano have their oil and grease products, but I haven't seen powder offered by them. The folks in Canada with their $330 per 50 gram material which I can only presume they get from their Chinese sources are the only Nano WS2 powder I have really seen actually available in the "Nearly Spherical" form, which makes me think Sublimated since they do not call it IF.

Will the differences be enough to warrant the currently higher prices for IF or "Nearly Spherical" material over the less expensive milled Nano WS2 in Lamellar form?

Maybe my question is really just an extension of the Nano WS2 vs. soluable MoDTC / MoDTP vs. Nano Ceramic price/performance debate?

Top
#2989263 - 04/30/13 10:59 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: Coronamaker]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: Coronamaker

As far as needing to stick to a surface to avoid ending up in the sump, I would offer that the Nano WS2 we work with, even in platelet form, can achieve almost complete suspension in Synthetic Base Stocks which lack the Dispersants found in engine oils.


Sorry, I may have not been clear on that. The nature of the NT is the opposite. It does NOT stay in suspension, van der waals forces will have it migrate to the surfaces. Now, I'm not the expert chemist here (have a couple of degrees in Materials Engineering, but did ME work for Ford), so this is my interpretation of the info that Millers has shared with me. But the point is that as it flows through the engine, it will more or less "settle" onto the metal surfaces, and NOT remain in suspension. If it did, it wouldn't be able to work very well. And again, I'm pretty sure it is van der waals forces that cause the attraction, which is an atomic level bond, meaning the size of the nanoparticles is what enables it (and why it isn't attracted to dispersants).
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2989288 - 04/30/13 11:23 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
Coronamaker Offline


Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 6
Loc: Illinois
Regarding your comment on oil film and WS2 burnishing.

Some thoughts:

In a perfectly designed and maintained lubrication system, there would always be enough oil being pumped at the right pressures and rates of the right viscosity to provide full Hydrostatic Lubrication. Bearings would rarely if ever have to worry about asperity contact during normal running, but they would still be subjected to apsperity contacts at certain times such as startup where oil is not pumping at sufficient volume and pressure to provide that hydrostatic boundary. In this situation, WS2 which has stuck to the surfaces, be they metal or plastics, or others, will burnish in at this time for a hard bond versus the weaker Van der Waals forces 67King mentioned.

The unpressurized bearings in a system would, again if perfectly designed and maintained, would be protected instead by Hydrodynamic Lubrication. Again though this oil film dies when bearings are stopped or even reversed and the WS2 burnishing of material already stuck to the surface by the Van der Waals forces can again occur at movement restart prior to the film being reformed providing that hard bond if you will.

Most systems though sooner or later have some level of Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication where there is occasional asperity contact. During this phase of Lubricant Film failure to keep the surfaces apart, WS2 will be burnished into the asperities, and smaller particles may start to fill in pits, valleys, scratches, etc as previously mentioned by way of Van der Waals forces.

I have never worked on the perfect system. I know from experience that WS2 in a system such as a lawn mower which relies primarily on Hydrodynamic Lubrication and perhaps not as well designed, benefits much more and coats up much more quickly than does an engine with a nice oil pump, well designed oil passages, the proper oil, and bearings with good tolerances. The well designed engine will still benefit because none are perfect, but it may not have as much asperity contact that will benefit from the WS2 application as quickly or as frequently.

In any event, my point is the oil does not necessarily have to be "real bad oil" for any of these to occur. Elastohydrodynamic Lubrication can happen in a good system when, for example, a novice with their manual transmission pulls from a stop at low RPM lugging the engine which sends load shock waves to the bearings, at a time they are being fed with reduced oil pressure and volume due to engine speed. I have worked on semi trucks which have experienced near fatal bearing galling and deformation due to this particular combination. But it would result in burnishing if you had WS2 in that bearing oil or held by Van der Wall force at the time. There are many similar scenarious where fucntional design and reality can collide, thankfully it is not typically for a long enough duration to kill the components in most cases, it is long enough though to burnish in the WS2 one event at a time.

Just some thoughts.

Top
#2989330 - 04/30/13 12:02 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
Coronamaker Offline


Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 6
Loc: Illinois
Your reference initially to not ending up in the sump is one I have heard frequently regarding WS2 in a non Nano size which is a concern to many as far as sludge formation. That is where I initially thought you were going with the comment. I was not disputing the van der Waals attraction, causing it to stick to the to the substrates, I was only pointing out that in our work with the material, that settling to the sump was a non issue with Nano WS2 as it will in fact stay suspended in oil due to it's much higher surface area until it bonds with a substrate.

I will have to agree to disagree with the comment about Dispersants though as we have observed absolutely zero settling from the PAO Base Stocks we work with when we introduce even the most mild dispersant package to the mix. Similarly in standard engine oils that we have tested, which of course have a variety of packages, we have observed no settling. The amount of setteling of the Nano material in the straight Base Stock is so low that we do not typically worry about it but it does occur in very small amounts over time.

As far as the van der Waals forces it is actually a molecular interaction and this is the primary working mechanism of all WS2 and MoS2 type lubricants, regardless of size. We have done testing with material from our first pass milled material at 600 micron and smaller, down to the Nano sized material at 70-90 nm. All of them will bond to the substrates not just the Nano materials. The industry standard size for Air Impingement application as specified by NASA, the military, and all of the major users of WS2 is 0.5 micron and I can assure you that it bonds completely as well as providing the friction reduction for which WS2 was developed so many years ago. In burnishing situations when the 600 micron material is made into a paste with alcohol, it can be hand burnished onto subtrates as well and has no bonding problems.

These are just our observations from almost ten years of working with WS2 in general, and over the past year Nano WS2 all in Lamellar form.

Top
#2989480 - 04/30/13 03:32 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
I think we are talking about two different phenomena. Van der waals forces are basically molecular interaction, unless my chemistry is even rustier than I thought (entirely possible!). When I say that the NT doesn't remain in suspension, I'm not saying it settles out, but rather it remains adhered to the surfaces. This is the case even after the oil is drained, the benefit remains for some time, even if the NT oil is replaced by a non-NT oil. I only mention dispersants, as one might have inferred that if it "sticks" to metal, it may be suspended due to the presence of dispersants.

Boundary lubrication occurs in running engines in the cylinder walls near TDC and BDC, as the piston changes direction, until a wedge can form. WIth the thinner and thinner oils, it is also becoming more common in the bottom end.

Note that bulk material milled down to 70-90 nm still has a non-fullerene molecular structure.

Here are observed start up friction charts. Starts high with virgin oil. Drops as the NT despites, or "plates out," as Millers likes to say. NT remains in place, allowing subsequent start ups to observe reduced friction.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2989484 - 04/30/13 03:36 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
BTW....I'm sorry I'm not being thorough. Really busy, trying to scan and address as I can. If I misread something or completely overlook it, I apologize.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2990543 - 05/01/13 04:48 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: 67King
BTW....I'm sorry I'm not being thorough. Really busy, trying to scan and address as I can. If I misread something or completely overlook it, I apologize.


Off-topic, but, did Millers ever get the HTHSV/viscosity index values of their Nano Drive oils (particularly, the 0W-20/0W-30, and 5W-40 weights) to you??
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#2990992 - 05/02/13 07:31 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: dailydriver]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: 67King
BTW....I'm sorry I'm not being thorough. Really busy, trying to scan and address as I can. If I misread something or completely overlook it, I apologize.


Off-topic, but, did Millers ever get the HTHSV/viscosity index values of their Nano Drive oils (particularly, the 0W-20/0W-30, and 5W-40 weights) to you??


Ug, I'm sorry. Yes, we've had that, our web lackey finally got some updates done yesterday. I checked the first two, and those changes were made. But the numbers are:
0w20 >2.6
0w30 >2.9
5w40 >4.4
10w50 >5.1
10w60 >6.0
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#2998566 - 05/10/13 06:54 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW

Top
#3061936 - 07/11/13 02:54 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Apnano is now actually selling an additive that specifically says is a Fullerene like WS2. http://www.apnano.com/products/lubricants/ These are the people that I think were one of the very first to productize this stuff. The minimum order for a small amount of the pure material was around $500. They provide no information that I could find on what the difference is between the multiple "products" they are selling now. If I knew that I would probably pick the one with the most WS2/$. They do, however, require a minimum order of case lots. A bottle is most likely a lifetime supply.

If enough people want to try it I would be willing to buy a case and resell it at cost plus shipping to the buyer.

Top
#3061978 - 07/11/13 03:17 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I have sent an email to Apnano asking for some differentiating characteristics on their additive products. I am not expecting much but I will keep you informed.

Top
#3070422 - 07/19/13 04:18 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
WMSmotorhead Offline


Registered: 05/15/11
Posts: 876
Loc: Cleveland OH USA
The Apnano site is interesting... But so is just about any other "New Technology" web site.

It could be great, It could be miracle plus.

Top
#3133414 - 09/23/13 12:34 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I have now sent 2 or 3 emails to Apnano. Zero response.

Top
#3146293 - 10/05/13 09:28 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
lparker Offline


Registered: 12/05/05
Posts: 4
Loc: Illinois
Check out a web site called the oil Hub they carry the product. Earlier this spring I purchased a small 250ml bottle for $25.00 plus shipping and have been running the product in my 2001 f150. Several months back I purchased the 1 liter bottle for $70.00 plus shipping and I am in the process of using it in my 2013 RDX.
The Oil Hub

Top
#3146375 - 10/05/13 10:51 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 34022
Loc: New Jersey
I'd really like to see some real data indicating that these 50 or 70 nm particles are truly that size.

In that range, DLVO forces cause agglomeration of particles, and so unless they are surface stabilized with a surfactant or polymer of some kind, probably are actually half micron or larger particle agglomerate s made up of these smaller crystallites.

Where is the actual data and microscopy to validate these are truly separate particles, fully self-stabilized?

Top
#3146407 - 10/05/13 11:31 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
JHZR2 - On the particle size thing - well documented if you do some research. These are not individual particles per se. They are a spherical structure made of individual particles. They look like carbon based Fullerenes. That is why they are so large. They will delaminate under pressure to produce smaller particles. To the best of my knowledge there are no other materials necessary before you dump them in oil.

lparker - thanks. I went to the Oil Hub site. They carry a lack of information to new heights. Worse than Apnano. Apnano has now posted information on their MP-X products with actual information on how much to use. But not for sale in their store. Previously they only said one bottle/vehicle for the RX. It would appear that the RX products have a much lower IF WS2 content. For the MP products it is 2-4% of the treated material. Oil Hub does not even tell you if it is mineral or synthetic oil based.

Can you tell me what the use rate is from the bottle you have? How much product per quart or Liter of engine oil.

Top
#3146523 - 10/06/13 06:39 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
lparker Offline


Registered: 12/05/05
Posts: 4
Loc: Illinois
You are correct about the lack of information on the product. From what I can remember from my first order I was told to use 1oz per quart of oil. When I ordered the liter they sent me a little more information about the usage rate. I will look for the info in my paperwork [censored] and get back to you later.

Top
#3146645 - 10/06/13 09:46 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 34022
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: alternety
JHZR2 - On the particle size thing - well documented if you do some research. These are not individual particles per se. They are a spherical structure made of individual particles. They look like carbon based Fullerenes. That is why they are so large. They will delaminate under pressure to produce smaller particles. To the best of my knowledge there are no other materials necessary before you dump them in oil.

lparker - thanks. I went to the Oil Hub site. They carry a lack of information to new heights. Worse than Apnano. Apnano has now posted information on their MP-X products with actual information on how much to use. But not for sale in their store. Previously they only said one bottle/vehicle for the RX. It would appear that the RX products have a much lower IF WS2 content. For the MP products it is 2-4% of the treated material. Oil Hub does not even tell you if it is mineral or synthetic oil based.

Can you tell me what the use rate is from the bottle you have? How much product per quart or Liter of engine oil.



In the particle science and engineering space, 50nm is small.

Doing TEM on highly dispersed crystallites, we may see 5-10nm, but that is a fully stabilized particle with possible SMSI intractions.

Id be inclined to believe that the "nanopartcles" are 50-70nm, but they rapidly agglomerate into a structure that is more like a half micron. That would be consistent with DLVO and numerous studies of milled fine particles that Ive done.

Top
#3146719 - 10/06/13 11:55 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
JHZR2 - I don't want to start a fight here, but I am not providing opinions or beliefs here. This is hard and proven reality. The Fullerenes are not milled. This is nano technology. The structures are built. At nano sizes, materials take on characteristics unlike anything at the macro scale. Think magic.

They are the size stated. The stated size is the size of the spherical structure (Fullerene)that the WS2 molecules are made to form. The Bucky balls can further delaminate (as I said) under shear forces and allow the constituent WS2 molecules to disperse and bond to surfaces at a significantly smaller particle size in the several nanometer range. Look up Inorganic like Fullerene Tungsten Disulphide(IF WS2).

You arguing about this because you are "inclined to believe". Respectfully, I don't understand why you don't just go and study the technology instead.

Top
#3147163 - 10/06/13 07:24 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 34022
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: alternety

You arguing about this because you are "inclined to believe". Respectfully, I don't understand why you don't just go and study the technology instead.


I have studied particle stability and means of stabilizing fine particles after milling and to retain fine structure when put into other solutions. Ive done the experiments, made the calculations, and we see a sharp agglomeration after particles reduce to sub 500nm because of the surface energetics.

Im not trying to pick a fight with you, but it still doesnt make sense to say that there is some molecule that is 70nm, or that the particles stay that small - have SEM/TEM to prove this? Why not give the proof rather than saying its out there to believe but not citing?

Sorry, Im really not fighting, I just dont believe it. Particularly based upon first hand R&D experience (with other nanoparticle systems, now WS2) and my quick review of the literature.

A C60 Fullerene is around 1.1nm at the longest dimension.

Qiao, Rui; Roberts, Aaron P.; Mount, Andrew S.; Klaine, Stephen J.; Ke, Pu Chun. "Translocation of C60 and Its Derivatives Across a Lipid Bilayer". Nano Letters. Retrieved 4 September 2010.

A WS2 nanotube with 4-7 walls thickness is less than 20nm

Scheffer, L., Rosentzveig, R., Margolin, A., Popovitz-Biro, R., Seifert, G., Cohen, S. R., & Tenne, R. (2002). Scanning tunneling microscopy study of WS2 nanotubes. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 4(11), 2095-2098.

Here they found 120nm fullerenic WS2 nanoparticles but they were found to be allomerates of multi-layer sheets.

Moshkovith, A., Perfiliev, V., Lapsker, I., Fleischer, N., Tenne, R., & Rapoport, L. (2006). Friction of fullerene-like WS2 nanoparticles: effect of agglomeration. Tribology Letters, 24(3), 225-228.

These structures in that size are multiwall or multi-arranged in this trigonal prismatic structure.

So how "a" fullerene of WS2 is 70nm when the atoms and bonds are on the order of pm (and a C60 fullerene, with no dimension that different is on the order of 1nm) is beyond me.

A simple wikipedia search yields an SEM with bundles of nanotubes (5-8 wall typically) that together make bunches of ca. 20nm.



Again, agglomerated. I have no doubt the "nano" particle is somewhere around 70nm, but it cannot exist in that size regime by itself due to external electronic forces of various types, or a LOT of stabilizing chemistry. So the subcomponents (which consist of thousands or millions or billion of WS2 molecules) may be 70nm in their "particle", but that particle agglomerates with others so it exists stabily in a particle of 500nm or more.

That's all Im saying.

Im happy to be wrong and learn something new - but until Ive seen actual peer-reviewed basis for claims, and preferably the reports from calibrated analytical equipment and SEM/TEM, its difficult to believe any claims...

Has anyone run WS2 in oil through a particle scan in a UOA at least?

Top
#3147327 - 10/06/13 09:55 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: JHZR2]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: alternety

You arguing about this because you are "inclined to believe". Respectfully, I don't understand why you don't just go and study the technology instead.


I have studied particle stability and means of stabilizing fine particles after milling and to retain fine structure when put into other solutions. Ive done the experiments, made the calculations, and we see a sharp agglomeration after particles reduce to sub 500nm because of the surface energetics.

Im not trying to pick a fight with you, but it still doesnt make sense to say that there is some molecule that is 70nm, or that the particles stay that small - have SEM/TEM to prove this? Why not give the proof rather than saying its out there to believe but not citing?

Please reread what I have said. I have repeatedly said the 60-70nm structure is NOT a molecule. Review the definition of a Bucky Ball or Buckminsterfullerenes (the original Carbon structure is a Buckminsterfullerene (C60)). A simple search of Wikipedia will explain this to you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fullerene. It is a structure constructed (occurring) in a pseudo spherical form, sometimes created by humans. Being carbon based, it is referred to as an organic Fullerene. It was once thought that this form could only be attained with Carbon. Not so much. Hence the IF (Inorganic Fullerene like) prefix to IF WS2. The individual components of this structure are much smaller. Probably single digit nm. I have not really paid attention to that point. But really isty bitsy teeny weeny.

I have not provided references because they are readily available with Google. I am not going to go back and reread this thread, but I suspect there are some hints about references; maybe not. No one has really questioned the reality.


Sorry, Im really not fighting, I just dont believe it. Particularly based upon first hand R&D experience (with other nanoparticle systems, now WS2) and my quick review of the literature.

A C60 Fullerene is around 1.1nm at the longest dimension.

A C60 Fullerene does not, by definition, have a longest dimension. I believe you are confusing this with a Carbon nanotube. And that feels like a diameter.

Qiao, Rui; Roberts, Aaron P.; Mount, Andrew S.; Klaine, Stephen J.; Ke, Pu Chun. "Translocation of C60 and Its Derivatives Across a Lipid Bilayer". Nano Letters. Retrieved 4 September 2010.

A WS2 nanotube with 4-7 walls thickness is less than 20nm

Scheffer, L., Rosentzveig, R., Margolin, A., Popovitz-Biro, R., Seifert, G., Cohen, S. R., & Tenne, R. (2002). Scanning tunneling microscopy study of WS2 nanotubes. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 4(11), 2095-2098.

Again, nanotubes. Not the discussion.

Here they found 120nm fullerenic WS2 nanoparticles but they were found to be allomerates of multi-layer sheets.

Moshkovith, A., Perfiliev, V., Lapsker, I., Fleischer, N., Tenne, R., & Rapoport, L. (2006). Friction of fullerene-like WS2 nanoparticles: effect of agglomeration. Tribology Letters, 24(3), 225-228.

These structures in that size are multiwall or multi-arranged in this trigonal prismatic structure.

So how "a" fullerene of WS2 is 70nm when the atoms and bonds are on the order of pm (and a C60 fullerene, with no dimension that different is on the order of 1nm) is beyond me.

Again, I believe there is a mix of Bucky balls and nanotubes in play here. THEY ARE NOT NANOTUBES!

A simple wikipedia search yields an SEM with bundles of nanotubes (5-8 wall typically) that together make bunches of ca. 20nm.



Interesting, but Fullerenes are not nanotubes.

Again, agglomerated. I have no doubt the "nano" particle is somewhere around 70nm, but it cannot exist in that size regime by itself due to external electronic forces of various types, or a LOT of stabilizing chemistry. So the subcomponents (which consist of thousands or millions or billion of WS2 molecules) may be 70nm in their "particle", but that particle agglomerates with others so it exists stabily in a particle of 500nm or more.

That's all Im saying.

Im happy to be wrong and learn something new - but until Ive seen actual peer-reviewed basis for claims, and preferably the reports from calibrated analytical equipment and SEM/TEM, its difficult to believe any claims...

OK. Here is what I am saying. You do not believe they exist. Sort of like elves and pixies. Fine. You may purchase these non-existent structures from Apnano. With real cash; they are not particularly inexpensive. This reference has, I am fairly certain, been made in this thread.

Has anyone run WS2 in oil through a particle scan in a UOA at least?


I have no idea what that means. I am not an oil person. Tests - yes. Look around. Apnano, Millers Oils, etc.


Edited by alternety (10/06/13 10:02 PM)

Top
#3147370 - 10/06/13 10:58 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 34022
Loc: New Jersey
You're missing my point. It's not about being a "believer" or not. I've never said that WS2 doesn't exist or tht the claimed structure is wrong. You're mixing up crystallographic structure with actual phase and arrangement of materials.

Until there is XRD and some real particle count data to prove otherwise, the claimed form doesn't exist as-is. This doesn't mean that 70nm or whatever size nano particles don't exist . Heck, I'm making 5-10nm nano particles in my lab, and have done XAS, XPS, TEM, etc to identify and understand the structure and disorder of the particles. But mine are supported, on a particulate substrate.

And btw, a C60 fullerene is around 10 Angstroms, or 1nm as I said before, and so a WS2 of similar form will have a "ball radius" of around the same size. This is well known, and their (WS2) formation into cheers of these structures is well known, per my references above. Also see here: https://sesres.com/PhysicalProperties.asp

Again, this is all about surface science and stability of dispersed particles. And I've yet to see anything that indicates that the PSD of these things in solution is what you're claiming. We make lots of nano particles that are made of true nano particles smaller even than 70nm. But they aren't surface stable, so they agglomerate into slightly larger particles (which would still fit through an oil filter - what a ridiculous test) which is the ONLY thing that I'm implying in all of this. NOT that these 70nm particles are false, not that they are fake or made up, but that they are not 70nm particles when in solution. Instead that they are larger agglomerates of some particle 20-70nm in size, up to a size where they can be easily surface stabilized and still remain in solution. Anyone can make a nano particle with some assumed size, dump it in a liquid of whatever kind, and say "hey, I have an oil with x nm particles I'm it!" Doesn't mean it is truly what is in there.

Burden of proof is on you. I'm perfectly happy to be wrong and learn something new. But as of now there is no basis, including from what I've seen of the vendors you've mentioned and the literature. I'm talking as an engineer with experience with dispersed fine particles and particle and powder processing, not some claims from a salesman or Internet snippets.

I may be wrong - no pride of being right here. Just looking for factual data to verify form and structure, which Im not seeing.

Top
#3147757 - 10/07/13 11:39 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Originally Posted By: alternety
JHZR2 - I don't want to start a fight here, but I am not providing opinions or beliefs here. This is hard and proven reality. The Fullerenes are not milled. This is nano technology. The structures are built. At nano sizes, materials take on characteristics unlike anything at the macro scale. Think magic.

They are the size stated. The stated size is the size of the spherical structure (Fullerene)that the WS2 molecules are made to form. The Bucky balls can further delaminate (as I said) under shear forces and allow the constituent WS2 molecules to disperse and bond to surfaces at a significantly smaller particle size in the several nanometer range. Look up Inorganic like Fullerene Tungsten Disulphide(IF WS2).

You arguing about this because you are "inclined to believe". Respectfully, I don't understand why you don't just go and study the technology instead.


Alternety,

Surface science is an interesting yet complex field of investigation with many turns and twists when it comes to nano distances and the forces encountered at those distances.

Perhaps you could supply us with some papers to support your statements.
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3147797 - 10/07/13 12:15 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
I'm going to show this thread to my wife the next time she says I'm argumentative. Of course she was cursing me last night since I haven't figured out how to set my "private" time on my phone, so I don't get e-mail in the middle of the night (which I should do since I get a lot of e-mail from England!).

I don't see how the points each of you is saying are mutually exclusive. They can be built up in layers. As their size increases, they can agglomerate. Is there anything other than van der waals forces attracting the ~70nm layered spheres together? If so, then the outer layers shed and react with each other.......but is the internal fullerene not preserved? If they are just van der waals forces, the fullerene structure would certainly be preserved. I'm sure if my advisor from grad school were reading this, he'd disown me, but it has been probably 15 years since I've been in this environment (and I was a poor student!!!!).

We know the stuff likes to stick to metal surfaces. So it makes sense to me that it wants to stick to itself.

ON the size, though, molecular layers are nearly 10A.....I don't know how many layers are built up, but I'd assume the spacing increases as the layers build. All that said, I assure you all of this stuff is very proprietary, so you aren't likely to find academic papers on what is going on. I also assure you it works. Unfortunately, most of the objective stuff behind that is also proprietary/confidential. When you've got one brand of oil on the side of your car, you aren't going to advertise to the world that you are using a competitor's product, especially at the F1 level.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3147891 - 10/07/13 01:37 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I researched this material over a period of many months.When I found information I read it, but had no real reason to retain it. I was trying to find out sufficient information to determine I wanted it. Then many more months searching for sources.In a number of cases, what appeared to be a good piece of information was behind a pay wall or required membership in some organization. I did not pursue those sources.

Hard information was fairly tedious to find. Following lots of links to finally find info. One of the best sources of information is the (I believe) principals of the company I have referenced for product; Apnano. They were behind a lot of the information I did find. They apparently were/are quite prominent in the development of the technology and basic research.

I appear to have misconstrued the point of the posts from JHZR2. As I noted, I am not an oil guy. Different kind of engineer entirely. I believe I was distracted by the discussion repeatedly reverting to nanotubes. But I read a lot and joust with windmills at every opportunity. As my wife will attest, I will see some little bit of information that intrigues me and I will hare off for many many hours in pursuit of more information on that little interesting bit. This one has consumed a lot of time.I have a few things that I would like to have as little friction as possible, improve the lifetime of surfaces meeting each other (at high speed, temperature, and pressure), and maybe control surface corrosion to some extent. Hence my quest for IF WS2.

I have one product here that includes IF WS2. I will buy another if I can verify what that stuff The Oil Hub has is. I believe I know; just want to verify dosage rate.

I also have some regular old WS2 (600nm). I have used it a few places and it is similar to Molybdenum Disulphide. Nasty to get off things and slippery. But without Graphite added as is popular in readily available consumer Moly. Do I notice the WS2 is better than the Moly; no. The effects are simply too small for me to just sense with normal tools (e.g., Mark I eyeball, standard arms and hands). But I know what it is doing. And it makes me happy.

A note on the 600nm (actually I believe a range of sizes as I am sure you know) WS2. I an using alcohol for a carrier. I can't go get the bottle right now, but I believe it does settle when it sits. A little shaking and it suspends nicely. I have no way to examine what it does at the scale of the particle size. But it does not seem to make big lumps at the macro level. I understand that that comment is not particularly meaningful for the discussion.

Top
#3148090 - 10/07/13 04:44 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
For citing, you might want to look at this link I posted previously. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11249-005-3607-8

You may be interested enough to buy the document. But you can read the first page and it is rather interesting.

Top
#3148135 - 10/07/13 05:18 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
martinq Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 1023
Loc: ON, Canada
I may have asked this before, but is the the same/related to the WPC coating/treatment?

http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/ID/3152/WPC-is-Neat-Stuff.aspx


Top
#3148251 - 10/07/13 06:45 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
marting, I read their short post on the web site. If what they say is anyway near correct, I do not think it is IF WS2. Or even plain old WS2.

Reasons:

Powder appears to be white (e.g., baby powder) - WS2 is very black.

The description of what it does seems to be excessive, for any lubricant I am familiar with (which is not all that much).

Shotpeening effects would strike me as completely wrong if it is WS2. Even most of the others. Nothing I mentioned depends on altering the surface from impact. It happens because of attractive forces that let the material fill in surface irregularities and then rub on each other (or base material) on the interfering surfaces. Granted, in moving machinery those forces are likely to be present.

There are a couple of problems with their guess at additional components. If Moly was added it would likely be black(ish) in useful quantities. Adding Zinc, Tin, or Moly to IF WS2 would be superfluous. The IF WS2 is better at the desired properties than any of those materials separately or in combination.

They guess it is probably some sort of ceramic like stuff. That is likely. Possibly Hex Boron Nitride.

IF WS2 can be applied by burnishing or spraying at a fairly low pressure. It does provide some corrosion protection. It will also work with non-metallic materials (as will some of the others).

The molecular weights of B+N and WS+2S are significantly different. With the right tools you might be able to make a gross exclusion of one or the other in your sample.


A side note: Supplying IF WS2 as a powder could be dangerous in that breathing it is not a good idea. WS2 is not specifically toxic, but particles of that size are not going to be filtered out by simple masks and consumers are not likely to use even that much protection. This is true of a lot of stuff at that size. We are still real early in understanding the hazards of nanotechnology.

Top
#3154364 - 10/13/13 01:38 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Anyone look at the Springer link and pay to read the document?

Top
#3170667 - 10/28/13 08:30 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
No one seems to have followed up on that link (or confessed doing so).

Here is some more stuff. The material is finally entering the commercial (actually retail) stream. I have ranted on about this in several threads, Tungsten Disulphide (WS2) works better than just about anything else (it is physics, look it up). It is now becoming available in the civilian (proletariat masses) market place. It is in oil (Millers Oils, IF WS2), in additives WS2, (http://lowerfriction.com/product-page.php?categoryID=1), IF WS2 (http://www.apnano.com/), and as a powder in various forms. As a component of various lubricants; all of the above. Industrially it has been available as a coating service or various lubrication products for some time. There are several molecular structure forms, all better than MoS2. It is physics/chemistry, not marketing. Browse those sites. Refrain from demanding citations while disregarding published information. Do your research. The physical data is indisputable. Nano scale materials are different. WS2 is just simple physics. Together they rock.

I have had a brief communication with one of the senior people involved in the researching and productizing nano-forms of WS2. It was interesting that his current examination indicates that laminar forms of WS2 may be a better lubricant material. My research (online, not in a lab)favored the Fullerene like structure. The examination of surfaces (with the various esoteric nano imaging technologies) seemed to favor the effect of the delamination of the spherical IF structure to provide filling of very small surface imperfections; hence further reducing friction effects. I have not found a lot of data on the sheet version in terms of providing a smoother surface for the interface. I am currently assuming the sheets must disassemble in similar way to provide the surface smoothing effect.

I currently have IF WS2 in oil, largish WS2 nano particles, and
IF WS2 as an additive. I would still like to get some IF WS2 powder for direct surface impregnation. I am not sure that trying to get some of the sheet form is worth the trouble.

What I am having problems with is why this thread contains so much "philosophical debate" when the physical characteristics of the material are well known. It is not like I got the information from the Easter Bunny.

Top
#3170693 - 10/28/13 08:47 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
JHZR2 Offline



Registered: 12/14/02
Posts: 34022
Loc: New Jersey
Originally Posted By: alternety
Anyone look at the Springer link and pay to read the document?


I have the article open on my computer right now. No time to discuss. Will later.

Top
#3170769 - 10/28/13 09:45 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Great. Always ready to absorb info - even if it disagrees with what I think is correct.

Top
#3205170 - 12/03/13 04:06 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
There are now two available sources for WS2 in the preferred format Inorganic Fullerene like WS2. Both sources are Buckyballs of around 60nm. They are comprised entirely of a matrix of WS2. They are superior in every way to MoS2. Under use, the Fullerene structure can be sheared under pressure forming even smaller fragments of WS2. Thus improving its' ability to penetrate and bond to much smaller surface imperfections in the lubricated material. The nano-scale sizes tends to keep it suspended. It is too small to be removed by oil filters. I have never seen a reference indicating it needs any treatment or complementary materials to make it work in oil.

Originally MoS2 was cheaper and it became the most commonly used lubricant of the general type.

Sources for IF WS2: As a high grade motor oil containing the WS2 - A British firm named Millers Oils. It is available in a couple of different weights. Imported by performanceracingoils.

As an additive: Earlier in the year APnano in Israel began offering some product online. It had minimum orders and expensive shipping. They were a major developer of the technology for bulk production of IF WS2. A number of fundamental researchers in the field were founders or participants. The concentrated additive is now available in the US from http://www.theoilhub.com/.

Top
#3205587 - 12/03/13 11:13 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: alternety
The concentrated additive is now available in the US from http://www.theoilhub.com/.


^^^Is this the same exact stuff that's in the Millers oils' add packs, or can't we know that due to 'proprietary' info issues??
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3205609 - 12/04/13 12:06 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: dailydriver]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21560
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: alternety
The concentrated additive is now available in the US from http://www.theoilhub.com/.


^^^Is this the same exact stuff that's in the Millers oils' add packs, or can't we know that due to 'proprietary' info issues??


That would be very interesting to find out.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#3205633 - 12/04/13 01:47 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
The additive is documented on the APnano site as IF WS2. That is their primary business. Go to apnano and browse.

demarpaint - thank you for your tag line. If only that had been the attitude during the Nam fiasco.


Edited by alternety (12/04/13 01:49 AM)

Top
#3205640 - 12/04/13 02:09 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I did not pay enough attention to the words in dailydrivers post.

Millers Oils had additives packaged. My information was that they would not be imported to the US. I went back to their site just now and no longer found the product on their site. Maybe I just missed it.

Bottom line; IF WS2 should be IF WS2. It is a specific structure of WS2 molecules. Not any real wiggle room. That is the material used in both the cited products. These are the only two I currently feel confident stating that they really are IF WS2. For what that is worth.

Top
#3207579 - 12/05/13 04:49 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
jake88 Offline


Registered: 06/27/12
Posts: 141
Loc: MO
So... say you buy a dispersed WS2 nanoparticle in a carrier fluid. Who wants to put that milky, opaque suspension in their car? There will be some people that take the plunge, but the average consumer is going to look at it and think it is wet oil. Same goes for Boron Nitride dispersions. MoS2 suspensions may get a little more default acceptance because they have been around for so long and everyone has seen moly greases - they know what they are looking at.

The beauty of organometallic FMs is that these products are perfectly clear and bright because they are actually soluble in oil. Moly dithiophosphates decompose to deliver MoS2 upon heating, but when you pour it in your engine it doesn't look like [censored].
_________________________

'13 Mazda 3 Touring 5DR, 2.0L
'12 Ford Fiesta SE 4DR, 1.6L

Top
#3207728 - 12/05/13 06:42 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
The WS2 carrier is simply oil. Looks like MoS2.

You could be right. I don't pretend to know how the average car owner will respond. On the other hand, they won't know what it looks like until they buy it.

Top
#3207787 - 12/05/13 07:28 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: alternety
I did not pay enough attention to the words in dailydrivers post.

Millers Oils had additives packaged. My information was that they would not be imported to the US. I went back to their site just now and no longer found the product on their site. Maybe I just missed it.


Yes, I now remember Mr. King (from this thread) stating that it WAS actually available in England, but he was not sure IF it would ever make it over here.

He also was not sure if they would ever produce an MTL fluisd with ester base stock blends and the Nanotech add pack. frown

I wonder IF the stand alone additive is still available, even over there, if it has disappeared from their site? shrug
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3207827 - 12/05/13 07:53 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: dailydriver]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: alternety
I did not pay enough attention to the words in dailydrivers post.

Millers Oils had additives packaged. My information was that they would not be imported to the US. I went back to their site just now and no longer found the product on their site. Maybe I just missed it.


Yes, I now remember Mr. King (from this thread) stating that it WAS actually available in England, but he was not sure IF it would ever make it over here.

He also was not sure if they would ever produce an MTL fluisd with ester base stock blends and the Nanotech add pack. frown

I wonder IF the stand alone additive is still available, even over there, if it has disappeared from their site? shrug


Millers procures the additives commercially. They import a lot of the content in their oils (some base stocks, some additives, etc.). Millers will NOT sell the NT additive as any kind of stand-alone oil treatment. Sorry for the ambiguity, hope that clears it up. We (Performance Racing Oils) import the oils and sell them both directly and through some dealers.

There is a manual transmission fluid available, but the viscosity is of a typical gear oil (75w90). I've been talking with them about trying to make a case to bring in an ATF type gear oil for T-56 and other similar applications that spec an ATF. Can't put NT in a true ATF because it would be too slick for the bands. But I'm trying! smile
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3207843 - 12/05/13 08:03 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I don't believe the additive was ever available from King. It was on the site in England, but as I said above, I could not find it now. But I did not look all that hard. The other product above is a stand-alone product with the same active ingredient.

To give you a sense of real cost, the additive is used at 25ml/L of oil. They sell two sizes. More won't hurt, but may be a waste. The amount needed to plate is quite small. Personally, I am going to use it through at least two oil changes. Then maybe once in a while. The material actually bonds to the metal in the engine. It can be used directly in concentrated form as almost a lifetime coating in some uses. You just burnish it on or spray it. If you have ever seen a suitably magnified of what we would view as a finely polished surface, you will see that it looks rather like a 3D topo map of the Rocky Mountains. The Ws2 will fill the valleys. Your engine will knock off the peaks.

This is purely a gut feeling, but I am not sure I would immediately drain the manufacturers "break-in) oil when I get a car. But I would like to. There is probably a little friction needed for all the parts to settle in and kind of adjust the clearances. Not as much as it used to be; but some.

I have a Honda, and I am told (?) that the original oil is loaded with MoS2. The two materials will compete with each other for filling holes in the surface. Again, a pure guess from a mental picture, is that the WS2 will eventually displace much of the MoS2. It is much harder, and probably much smaller particles. I am going to change at under 2K miles. I would have done it earlier but I just found/got the additive.

I am still looking for powder. The product referenced uses mineral oil for a carrier. I would have preferred a synthetic. It is such a small amount of oil it won't matter for gross applications (engines, gears, etc.) but I have some applications where I would like to apply it dry.

In the powder form it is used for treating bullets. The IF form is probably not necessary for this. You can get fairly large particles for much less money.

Top
#3208770 - 12/06/13 04:52 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: jake88]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
[quote=jake88]So... say you buy a dispersed WS2 nanoparticle in a carrier fluid. Who wants to put that milky, opaque suspension in their car? There will be some people that take the plunge, but the average consumer is going to look at it and think it is wet oil.

I did not think sufficiently about what you said about appearance. The IF WS2 oil looks just like regular oil oil. I have some in a jar and some in a hypodermic (IF WS2 must be good for me to take intravenously. The necessary concentration is quite low.



Edited by alternety (12/06/13 04:53 PM)

Top
#3209600 - 12/07/13 03:27 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: 67King
I've been talking with them about trying to make a case to bring in an ATF type gear oil for T-56 and other similar applications that spec an ATF. Can't put NT in a true ATF because it would be too slick for the bands. But I'm trying! smile


Then just try to get them to produce a manual transmission (MTL/MTF) type fluid, which is slightly heavier than a Dex 3 ATF, and GL-4 rated, and FORGET about the dual use/rating. wink
Unless they feel the nano add pack would be too slick to let the synchros/blocker rings engage properly?? shrug
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3209607 - 12/07/13 03:36 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Quote:
There is a manual transmission fluid available, but the viscosity is of a typical gear oil (75w90). I've been talking with them about trying to make a case to bring in an ATF type gear oil for T-56 and other similar applications that spec an ATF. Can't put NT in a true ATF because it would be too slick for the bands. But I'm trying!


Are they using any tungsten components in the MTL?

My own research has shown that any MoS2 or titanium or tungstate additives in a MTL tend to interfere with conventional FM additives in MTLs.

Most of these FM additives don't have the correct dynamic coefficient of friction to operate standalone in either MTLs or ATFs.

As with any additive component, once the cost of producing the tungstates decrease, I think we will see them used in more lubricants, assuming they demonstrate a distinct advantage over conventional additives.
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3209661 - 12/07/13 04:48 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Yes they do.

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

Sorry that is not the correct link. That is for additives that can be used in transmissions.

Wrong company.

http://www.millersoils.co.uk/searchresults.asp?psearch=transmission&search=


Edited by alternety (12/07/13 05:00 PM)

Top
#3209693 - 12/07/13 05:20 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
The 75W90s have a rather high viscosity for MTL's.

Any indication they are actually using the WS2's? They only say they are using a nano additive echnology which could be anything from boron nitride ceramics to zirconium oxides.
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3209759 - 12/07/13 06:22 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I believe that everything labeled nano is the same stuff. If you open one of the PDFs for a particular oil, it might have it there.

When they started marketing this line (all the IF WS2) they would not tell anyone what it was. From what they did say I deduced IF WS2. They later changed how they look at things and now specify.

King may chime in. I think he is pretty busy and does not look in here all that often. But he would be the best source of info. He in the US importer of Millers Oils.

Top
#3209771 - 12/07/13 06:40 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
If you look at their nano engine oils I believe those also tend to be rather high VI. They really were intended for racing initially. I have mixed emotions in putting it in one of my cars for mileage considerations. That is why I am putting additive in the new car with the recommended 0-20 rather than my 5-30 Millers Oils nano.

I have also seen vendors using WS2 or other "nano" materials in fuel additives. I would like to do that but there I have some serious concerns about catalytic converters. It feels right from a direct result point of view. If deposited in the cylinder it should help shed carbon deposits. The oil will get some of the cylinder walls, but not the upper parts. It would probably also benefit fuel injectors and maybe even spark plugs by reducing the tendency for things to stick. But on that one I will wait until I find better system level impact information. I also have a question about the effects of any particles get out of the exhaust system and into the air. WS2 is not listed as toxic, but like Diesel exhaust, particles that small can cause mischief in the lungs.

Even with my rather coarse WS2 powder I take great care in handling it. I got sloppy once, and I think I could feel the effect in my lungs. If I can ever score some IF WS2 powder, I might build a exhaust hood for working with it because I want to apply some of it using burnishing. Even my CBR rated mask filters would most likely be ineffective.

Top
#3210516 - 12/08/13 02:56 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Another question to implement my personal lubricant plan.

The reason I am doing an oil change and adding IF WS2 at around 2K miles on the CR-V, is information I saw that the Honda installed oil is high in Mo additives. Let me say, I understand the issues with taking a sample of one, of an unsubstantiated comment. But the available information density on some issues can be rather sparse. I have other things I also need to spend time on.

I had some concerns about Zinc additives as well. I was going to post a request for an good 0-20 oil with little or no Mo content. Then I wandered around some threads, as I am prone to do. It appears that the Zinc additives (e.g., ZDDP), while synergistic with the favored forms of Mo, also form a surface deposit. That is what I thought, but may have underestimated the impact. I really want to get the WS2 into the base metal surface.

The oil my mechanic wants to use (IDEMITSU) seems to have a lot of Mo in it and is probably what Honda re-brands. Mobile one also seems to have high Mo content.

I would appreciate it if anyone could recommend a quality 0W-20W synthetic oil that has neither of these additives. Or at least minimal amounts. My thought is that they will tend to interfere with the formation of the desired IF WS2 surface layer. Probably in the long term, the IF WS2 would "win" because it is probably harder than most, if not all, of the other things. Although one description I saw about the Zinc additive described it as a "glass". I have not looked at relative hardness or bonding forces, but that seem like it might be an issue.

I thought I would ask this here, where I am already know as being somewhat crazy, before asking on the general oil forum. I really don't want to go through talking about IF WS2 all over again.

Any input appreciated. Including opinions that I am simply crazier that you thought.

Top
#3210707 - 12/08/13 07:03 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: alternety
If you look at their nano engine oils I believe those also tend to be rather high VI.


They are in the better Mobil 1 lineup ranges, but they are NOT in the 'CATERHAM faves', 0W-20; Sustina/TGMO/Mazda High Moly VI ranges. frown

But, this was done on purpose, since they are still considered 'racing oils' first and foremost, and their tribologists STILL believe in not dumping a lot of even the 'super duper, shear stable, latest and greatest, high tech' asteric polymer VIIs into a racing oil. wink
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3210726 - 12/08/13 07:27 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Sorry I have been out of town with my daughters at a swim meet. Just pulled in. Saw the thread notifications on my phone, but wasn't able to log in and clear up some misconceptions that are obviously there. Will try to spend some time answering things tomorrow, and posting up some ASTM test results. Didn't want y'all to think I wasn't keeping up with this.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3210788 - 12/08/13 08:39 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11756
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: alternety
I would appreciate it if anyone could recommend a quality 0W-20W synthetic oil that has neither of these additives. Or at least minimal amounts.

That's a very good question. Without looking at a bunch of VOAs, I'd surmise that most 0w-20s would have very robust AW and AF packages in the first place, due to limited HTHS and the drive for fuel economy.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3210851 - 12/08/13 09:40 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Yeah, that would be my feeling as well. But hope springs eternal.

Maybe I should start squeezing avocados.

Top
#3210922 - 12/09/13 12:18 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11756
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Fuchs Titan popped into my mind, and I mentioned it in another thread. Not sure about moly, but I believe their ZDDP is next to nil.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3211175 - 12/09/13 11:51 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Alright, hope I have some time to put together a reply to answer all questions.

On the actual NT additive Millers uses - it is proprietary. Do I know what it is? Yes. However, I am not an employee of Millers, so while I can give them feedback from my customer base, I have no ability to influence whether or not they'll tell folks what it is. That said, I have to agree with them that keeping it proprietary is advisable, even though it has taken years to determine the right amount with other additives.

As for the interaction of various additives to one another - this is apples and oranges. Or more appropriately, cake to cornbread. The NT isn't just dumped in. It largely replaces conventional friction modifiers. It does so because it doesn't shear down over time, and while others may protect on the "microscopic" level, the NT would be more appropriately described as on the molecular (no pun intended) level.

So how well does it work? Since gear oil is one of the things in question here, here is what it does for coefficient of friction versus load - basic gear oil, gear oil + conventional moly EP additive, and basic gear oil with NT instead:


Okay, so it reduces coefficient of friction. What about load bearing capability? Here are a couple of SRV Oscillation tests (I believe it is ASTM D5706):
Baseline w/ conventional additive:


With NT additive ILO conventional:


As you can see from the above, the non-NT version with conventional EP additive fails shorty before the load increase from 1100N to 1200N. That is the green line. This compares to a failure slightly after the load increased to 1600N on the NT version. The red line is the CF, so even before the failure, you can see the (qualitatively) better performance of the NT version.

Another benefit on the gear oils is heat rejection. Millers has been working with some F1 teams wiht the technology, which ones are confidential (though there is a formal technical partnership with Bryan Herta Autosports). Measured heat rejection difference for the first generation was on the order of 500 Watts. It is now larger. Measurement taken from a water bath used to heat gearbox oil on powertrain dyno testing sessions. It takes 500W more power to get the right temperatures with the NT oil. Typical race cars without large external coolers (which confound the system) see 10-15C drops in operating temperatures. Race Tech Magazine had a good article about it that goes into some of the mechanics: This is a PDF of the article Race Tech: Tiny Technology, Big Breakthrough FWIW, the gear oil also beat out McLaren and Williams for Most Innovative New Product in Motorsports in 2009.

To get to the "transmission" versus "gear" oil difference, Millers does have a transmission oil with the technology, http://performanceracingoils.com/ee-transmission-75w90-oil-p-87.html. It is the street version of the race oil. There is a philosophy that Millers has pertaining to viscometrics that likely leads to the high kinematic viscosity at 40C that I believe is the cause of concern. Since VII's break down, Millers avoids them in their race oils as much as they can. That helps the race oils last much, much longer than many of our competitors who have higher VI's. I know this is the case for the engine oils, and I assume it is the case for gear oils, as well. Since the cold viscosity for a race oil isn't nearly as important as the performance at operating temperatures, sacrifices are made to ensure robustness at the higher temps. For a street oil, obviously things will be different. This may be what is being sought.

I thought I had read somewhere that someone had not been able to find a credible source for the performance of the oil. What I've posted was done internally, but I can provide more links to technical articles, SAE International, Race Tech Magazine, Race Engine Technology, Lube Magazine...... I can actually give a Fast Ford article, as well, but I don't put those kinds of publications up there wth the more engineering ones. There is also one from Cup Race Technology from earlier this year, but they will not give me permission to publish it.

Do y'all want me to provide any similar info on the engine oils?


Edited by 67King (12/09/13 11:52 AM)
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3211322 - 12/09/13 01:54 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Quote:
To get to the "transmission" versus "gear" oil difference, Millers does have a transmission oil with the technology, http://performanceracingoils.com/ee-transmission-75w90-oil-p-87.html. It is the street version of the race oil. There is a philosophy that Millers has pertaining to viscometrics that likely leads to the high kinematic viscosity at 40C that I believe is the cause of concern. Since VII's break down, Millers avoids them in their race oils as much as they can. That helps the race oils last much, much longer than many of our competitors who have higher VI's. I know this is the case for the engine oils, and I assume it is the case for gear oils, as well. Since the cold viscosity for a race oil isn't nearly as important as the performance at operating temperatures, sacrifices are made to ensure robustness at the higher temps. For a street oil, obviously things will be different. This may be what is being sought.


Thanks King. I have no disagreement about the efficacy of specialized EP additives in differential oils.

My concerns were with the high viscosity of the MTL (I did previously go to the site after searching the Internet), and the friction modification wrt to the surficial interactions in the synchronizer assemblies.

Since they want to keep the additive mix IP (and I can't fault them for that, so do I), then we really can't compare conventional MTL FM chemistry with what they have in their MTL.

I was simply relating some of my formulation experiences when testing new FM's verses the interaction with conventional FM additives in MTLs.

The correct dynamic coefficient of friction in both MTLs and ATF's many times precludes the use of other suspended FM type solids because the dynamic COF is critical to the proper operation of these transmissions.
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3211509 - 12/09/13 05:15 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Isn't a 75W-90 generally considered way too heavy a weight oil for what is called an 'MTL' in this country??

I know the Ford MTX boxes call for it, as do all of the racing sequentials and dog boxes, as well as some older foreign (Teuton and Nippon) manuals.

This is why I am wanting Millers to produce a LIGHT, Red Line MTL-like fluid, but with their NT add pack, IF it would allow the synchros/blocker rings in modern manual gearboxes to engage properly. wink
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3211563 - 12/09/13 06:08 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: dailydriver]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Isn't a 75W-90 generally considered way too heavy a weight oil for what is called an 'MTL' in this country??

I know the Ford MTX boxes call for it, as do all of the racing sequentials and dog boxes, as well as some older foreign (Teuton and Nippon) manuals.

This is why I am wanting Millers to produce a LIGHT, Red Line MTL-like fluid, but with their NT add pack, IF it would allow the synchros/blocker rings in modern manual gearboxes to engage properly. wink


My experience is that the majority of manuals here call for either a 75w90, or an ATF. Most of the sequentials actually spec a 75w140. I just looked up what Red Line offers, which includes a 75w90 (as well as 75w80 and 75w85). Until then, I was only familiar with BMW and Honda specifying thinner oils. Take your T-56 for example. Its precursor, the T-5, specified a 75w90 until they revised it to the "World Class" version - which I guess was some time ago, though. I know the STi's and Evo's call out 75w90, and I believe one specs a 75w140 in the transfer case? I've never even seen anything offered "off the shelf" in the parts stores for thinner than 75w90. We are starting to sell a ton of 80w90 for classic cars, though that isn't a fair comparison. We've actually got a few BMW's running the 75w90, they all love it. All the Porsches spec a 75w90, though they are transaxles.

At any rate, we've been having some discussions with Millers to try to get a thinner gear oil out. I'm hoping for an ATF-like viscosity, say a 75w80. Interestingly, the stuff the F1 and IndyCar uses isn't really oil in the conventional sense. It is more a carrier for the additives. I've seen some of the Lucas L-11, it completely separates, the liquid on top is clear! It is incredibly thin.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3213017 - 12/11/13 02:54 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
Olas Offline


Registered: 12/11/13
Posts: 663
Loc: Manchester, England
FWIW, I currently have Millers NT 75w90 in the 020 gearbox in my 1982 Scirocco - it made a noticeable difference straight away and the more I drive it the smoother and slicker the gearchange becomes. I changed all of the gear linkage bushes and rods to try and tighten up the change - dint make much difference. I drained whatever was in there previously and put the Millers NT in, it made the world of difference! Their NT motor oil is good stuff too, I get more MPG and less NVH with Millers NT in the sump..

But the reason I'm posting here is this;
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Archoil-AR9200-Nano-WS2-Friction-Modifier-125ml-Bottle-/370916271810
Have any of you guys seen this before? Ever used it? Good or bad experiences? I'm thinking I could buy a cheap mineral oil, and throw this in, and save a lot of money of buying more Millers!

Any input?
_________________________
1982 VW Scirocco
1457cc
98 bhp
1900 lbs
71000 miles
44mpg
Weber/Millers/Mahle/ITG/Leda/Michelin/Brembo/Pagid/Pioneer

Top
#3213237 - 12/11/13 09:31 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: 67King
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Isn't a 75W-90 generally considered way too heavy a weight oil for what is called an 'MTL' in this country??

I know the Ford MTX boxes call for it, as do all of the racing sequentials and dog boxes, as well as some older foreign (Teuton and Nippon) manuals.

This is why I am wanting Millers to produce a LIGHT, Red Line MTL-like fluid, but with their NT add pack, IF it would allow the synchros/blocker rings in modern manual gearboxes to engage properly. wink


My experience is that the majority of manuals here call for either a 75w90, or an ATF. Most of the sequentials actually spec a 75w140. I just looked up what Red Line offers, which includes a 75w90 (as well as 75w80 and 75w85). Until then, I was only familiar with BMW and Honda specifying thinner oils. Take your T-56 for example. Its precursor, the T-5, specified a 75w90 until they revised it to the "World Class" version - which I guess was some time ago, though. I know the STi's and Evo's call out 75w90, and I believe one specs a 75w140 in the transfer case? I've never even seen anything offered "off the shelf" in the parts stores for thinner than 75w90. We are starting to sell a ton of 80w90 for classic cars, though that isn't a fair comparison. We've actually got a few BMW's running the 75w90, they all love it. All the Porsches spec a 75w90, though they are transaxles.

At any rate, we've been having some discussions with Millers to try to get a thinner gear oil out. I'm hoping for an ATF-like viscosity, say a 75w80. Interestingly, the stuff the F1 and IndyCar uses isn't really oil in the conventional sense. It is more a carrier for the additives. I've seen some of the Lucas L-11, it completely separates, the liquid on top is clear! It is incredibly thin.


75W-90 is WAY TOO THICK for the synchros/blockers in a T56 to function properly.
Straight Red Line 75W-85 is probably too thick as well, although in the summer, I might drain one quart of the MTL (75W-80) in there now, and add one quart of this to the mix. wink

I will be the FIRST IN LINE to try a Millers 75W-80 weight gearbox GL-4 oil with their NT add pack, IF they can make it work. thumbsup smile
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3213515 - 12/11/13 02:31 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: Olas]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
But the reason I'm posting here is this;
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Archoil-AR9200-Nano-WS2-Friction-Modifier-125ml-Bottle-/370916271810
Have any of you guys seen this before? Ever used it? Good or bad experiences? I'm thinking I could buy a cheap mineral oil, and throw this in, and save a lot of money of buying more Millers!

Here is their manufacturers/distributers links:

http://www.evergreenamerica.com/index.cfm/products/engine-treatment/

http://www.archoil.com/index.cfm/product...anti-corrosion/

These were both old bookmarks of mine. It is hard to remember details at this point, but I "think" the second link was making it and selling it in South America and Asia, but not the US. I don't know what form of WS2 they use. Mostly

Oddly, I can't find ar9200. I did find this http://0378e50.netsolstores.com/ar2400-clp-gun-cleaner-lubrication-and-protection-4oz.aspx from Archoil.

I just don't remember. I looked at so many sites over a year or so.

I am also not sure how much difference there is between the practical results of WS2 or the IF version if the regular stuff is small enough.

Top
#3213645 - 12/11/13 05:16 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
martinq Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 1023
Loc: ON, Canada
Originally Posted By: 67King
I just looked up what Red Line offers, which includes a 75w90 (as well as 75w80 and 75w85). Until then, I was only familiar with BMW and Honda specifying thinner oils.

Along the same lines we also have:

GM/Pennzoil Synchromesh
Amsoil MTF
Pentosin MTF2
Ford XT-M5-QS
Valvoline Synchromesh


Edited by martinq (12/11/13 05:17 PM)

Top
#3218244 - 12/16/13 09:16 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: dailydriver]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: dailydriver

I will be the FIRST IN LINE to try a Millers 75W-80 weight gearbox GL-4 oil with their NT add pack, IF they can make it work. thumbsup smile


Trust me, you are NOT ALONE in your desire for a 75w80-ish (ATF like viscosity) gear oil. I'm desperately trying to get it going, but I'm just one distributor. We actually had some discussions at PRI about it. I have some friends (former fellow Ford engineers) who run a race outfit in SE Michigan who would be a vendor of all of our oils if we could supply them transmission oil for their Mustangs. I'm working on it, trust me.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3220006 - 12/17/13 09:01 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: 67King
I have some friends (former fellow Ford engineers) who run a race outfit in SE Michigan who would be a vendor of all of our oils if we could supply them transmission oil for their Mustangs. I'm working on it, trust me.


One of the Grand Am teams, I'm guessing? shrug
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3220769 - 12/18/13 02:48 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: dailydriver]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: 67King
I have some friends (former fellow Ford engineers) who run a race outfit in SE Michigan who would be a vendor of all of our oils if we could supply them transmission oil for their Mustangs. I'm working on it, trust me.


One of the Grand Am teams, I'm guessing? shrug


Mostly, but also some World Challenge, and they do some NASA racing, too.

Side note, since we are talking about gear oils......feedback from Bryan Herta on our gear oil:
IndyCar results from gear oil

Note the 190% comes from a prior best of 2500 miles (typical 1700), to 5,000 with the NT. Good stuff, I am really hoping I can get some in a 75w80-like viscosity, which is very close to ATF.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3221036 - 12/18/13 08:29 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: 67King
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: 67King
I have some friends (former fellow Ford engineers) who run a race outfit in SE Michigan who would be a vendor of all of our oils if we could supply them transmission oil for their Mustangs. I'm working on it, trust me.


One of the Grand Am teams, I'm guessing? shrug


Mostly, but also some World Challenge, and they do some NASA racing, too.

Side note, since we are talking about gear oils......feedback from Bryan Herta on our gear oil:
IndyCar results from gear oil

Note the 190% comes from a prior best of 2500 miles (typical 1700), to 5,000 with the NT. Good stuff, I am really hoping I can get some in a 75w80-like viscosity, which is very close to ATF.


Yes, I am VERY HAPPY with the 75W-140 CRX NT in my diff right now!! thumbsup cool
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3221205 - 12/19/13 12:44 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
martinq Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 1023
Loc: ON, Canada
Originally Posted By: 67King
I am really hoping I can get some in a 75w80-like viscosity, which is very close to ATF.

What about a 70w80 or 70w85 instead?

Top
#3221370 - 12/19/13 08:22 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: martinq]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: 67King
I am really hoping I can get some in a 75w80-like viscosity, which is very close to ATF.

What about a 70w80 or 70w85 instead?


Not sure I understand. That is what I'm hoping to get (well, not the 85, but (80+90)/2.....).
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3221640 - 12/19/13 12:53 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Quote:
Not sure I understand. That is what I'm hoping to get (well, not the 85, but (80+90)/2.....).


Manual Transmission Fluids here in North America range in viscosity from 6.0 cSt to 15 cSt.

So, 80+90 doesn't make any sense.

Does anyone understand that the SAE weight system doesn't describe the Kinematic viscosity of a fluid?



Edited by MolaKule (12/19/13 12:57 PM)
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3221674 - 12/19/13 01:28 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: MolaKule]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Not sure I understand. That is what I'm hoping to get (well, not the 85, but (80+90)/2.....).


Manual Transmission Fluids here in North America range in viscosity from 6.0 cSt to 15 cSt.

So, 80+90 doesn't make any sense.

Does anyone understand that the SAE weight system doesn't describe the Kinematic viscosity of a fluid?



Hmmm......I usually don't have comprehension problems like this. Either reading or writing.

Transmission fluids here in America do not end at 15cSt. Many call for a 75w90. Max allowable KV is 24.5 for those specifying a 75w90. Porsche probably has a higher take rate on manuals than any other OEM. They spec a 75w90. And yes I know it is a transaxle, but so are all of the Hondas that spec a 75w80. Olyslager actually lists a 75w90 as the spec transmission oil for Vipers.......

Second of all, an 85W oil can be from 11-13.5. So taking the allowable midpoint (since it is a theoretical oil) of an 80, which is 9, using the 50/50 (which is what (80+90)/2 is doing) lever rule with the Millers 75w90 (17.3) puts you at 13.15. A 60/40 puts you at 12.3. Which is within the 85W range. Maybe neither ideal nor perfect, but not inherently wrong, either.

So again, not sure what there is to be confused about.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3221716 - 12/19/13 02:07 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: 67King]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Originally Posted By: 67King
Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: 67King
I am really hoping I can get some in a 75w80-like viscosity, which is very close to ATF.

What about a 70w80 or 70w85 instead?


Not sure I understand. That is what I'm hoping to get (well, not the 85, but (80+90)/2.....).


The above in bolded type is what I said was confusing.



Quote:
Choosing a Manual Transmission fluid can be confusing.

Many times there is simply a specification referenced and no information about the viscosity of a fluid at 100C, where the oil viscosity is documented at the higher testing temperature.

What I recommend you do when looking for a replacement fluid is to determine the viscosity of the fluid at 100C either from the manufacturer's Product Data Sheet or from a New oil Analysis or VOA.

After knowing the viscosity at 100C (212F), one can then attempt to match up the fluid to one or more of those below:

A. The four MTL fluids closest to a Kinematic Viscosity of 6.1 (About the same viscosity as a DexronVI) or so are:

1. Castrol Syntrans FE 75W,

2. BMW (Pentosin) MTF-LT-3,

3. Honda MTII or MTF 2.

4. Ford FML-XT-11-QDC


B. The next higher viscosity MTL would be the 7.5 cSt versions (About the same viscosity as a DexronIII)

1. Royal Purple's Synchromax

2. Ravenol MTF-2

3. Honda MTF

4. VW part number G052512A2

5. GM Manual Transmission and Transfer Case Fluid

6. BMW (Pentosin MTF 2) MTF-LT-1, 2


C. The next higher viscosity MTL would be Castrol Syntrans V FE 75W-80 8.0cSt

D. The next higher viscosity MTL would be BG Synchroshift II 8.2 cSt

E. The next higher viscosity is Mopar Type MS-9417 MTL 9.0cSt

F. The next higher viscosity MTL would be Pennzoil Synchromesh 9.3 cSt


G. The next group of MTL’s are in the 10.x cSt range are:

1. Redline MTL 75W80

2. Amsoil MTL (9.7 cSt)

3. GM Synchromesh’s

4. Volvo MTF 645

5. Ford Motor Craft XT-M5-QS

6. Fuchs TITAN SINTOFLUID SAE 75W-80 synthetic MTF


H. The next higher viscosity MTL would be:

1. Redline MT-85 – 12.0 cSt


I. The next higher viscosity MTLs would be:

1. Amsoil MTG 13.9 cSt

2. Redline MT-90 15.6 cSt

3. Castrol Syntrans Multivehicle 75W-90

4. Castrol Syntrans Transaxle 75w-90


Manual Transmisson Design and Fluid Technology


Edited by MolaKule (12/19/13 02:08 PM)
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3221723 - 12/19/13 02:15 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
In other words I could care less about the SAE viscosity range rating as it tells me nothing about the actual Kinematic Viscosity of the MTF at working temperatures.

Manual Transmissions can be very sensitive to viscosity differences of 1 or 2 cSt KINEMATIC viscosity at 100C. Many times, one has to experiment with different application specific (dedicated) Manual Transmission Fluids (not differential gear lubes) to determine which ones provide the best shifting performance wrt wear.



Edited by MolaKule (12/19/13 02:19 PM)
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3222265 - 12/20/13 03:58 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: MolaKule]
martinq Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 1023
Loc: ON, Canada
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Manual Transmissions can be very sensitive to viscosity differences of 1 or 2 cSt KINEMATIC viscosity at 100C.

This must be amplified at lower temperatures.

It's very difficult to get any substantial heat into the tranny during winter unless you're hot-lapping. What about transmission performance at 0C, -10C or -20C?

Top
#3222519 - 12/20/13 09:56 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
My real world experiences differ greatly from some theories put forth here, from four levels. 1. Owner/track driver/mechanic, 2. Vendor, 3. Engineer at the OEM level, and 4. Instructor and technical resource for PCA track events. I can list tons of vehicles that have used gear oil with a higher KV@100 than their factory fill, and successfully. In some cases, it is DRASTICALLY higher, such as guys who run 75w90 in their BMW's. This guy is one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZaH1hxnBDs and his comments about the change were "completely transformed the shift feel of the transmission."

I cannot, however, find a single spec that calls out KV. SAE Viscosity and API GL-#? All day long. But not KV.

The Millers is a GL4/GL5 fluid. It meets GL4 specs (as well as GL5). It is a transmission fluid. As is their street version, which is labeled specifically as a transmission fluid....in a 75w90. And its KV@100 is even higher, at 17.85. Millers is not unique. Every one of Motul's 75w90 oils are GL4 and GL5. Royal Purple's 75w90 is a GL4 and GL5. Amsoil has an MT-1 and GL5.

Again, I cannot find an OEM who specifies a gear oil by KV. Furthermore, having been in the OEM product development world (used to do engine development for Ford), I can absolutely guarantee you that they are designed to accommodate the full range of the specification, and then some. You absolutely MUST design in robustness that the real world introduces. Case in point, albeit engine oil. I was involved in the early work that became the new 5.0L Coyote. The VCT system requires both oil temp data, and a positive feedback. Yes engine oils have many more variables, but there is still noise that must considered. When working with previously referenced race team, I had to get in touch with a former colleague who had D&R responsibility for the VCT system, since we don't offer a 5w50 (but do a 10w50). Sent him some data, and he verified for the team and me that the system is robust to the viscosity difference. And using oil as a working hydraulic fluid is certainly doing to put more demands on precise viscosity than a gearbox.

There are PLENTY of transmissions, NOT transaxles, that spec a 75w90, here are a few more that are higher volume ones:
- Mazda Miata, gen 1 (80w90)
- Mazda Miata, gen 2
- Mazda MX5 (current gen)
- Subaru BRZ/Scion FR-S

Which is, again, why you can go to any parts store, and find GL4 spec 75w90 sitting on a shelf, but you can't find the thinner stuff.

Some 75w90's that meet GL4 specs that have a higher than 15cP that may have been missed:
Motul Gear 300 - 15.2
Motul Gearbox 80w90 - 21.2
Motylgear - 16.7
Royal Purple 17.5
Red Line (GL4 only) 15.6
Mobil 1 Delvac - 15.9
Fuchs Titan Sintopoid - 15.2
Amsoil 80w90 (MT-1) - 16.0
Schaeffer 741 (MT-1) - 16.6
Torco SGO - 16.2
Torco RGO (80w90) - 20.2
Swepco 201 (MT-1 80w90) - 15.7

I stopped looking after that. And that doesn't even include the transaxles, which would be the majority of manual transmissions at this point in time.

Furthermore, about 30% of our customers have street/track cars. You'd struggle to get a gearbox to reach 200 degrees on the street. They'll hit 275 pretty easily on the track. If transmissions were sensitive to 1-2cP differences, then it would be impossible to run the same oil on the street and on the track (well, unless they were like damper oil w/ 350-ish VI's). But they do it. With virtually every oil. And as an nationally certified instructor with PCA, I get to interface with tons of folks who track their street driven cars. NEVER met anyone who had to change their fluid for driving on the track. The owner of the BMW listed above is one - his daily driver, he drag races it, and he also tracks it at Road Atlanta and Atlanta Motorsports Park.

Some other types of cars: tons of Porsches: 944's, 968's, Boxsters, 996, 997 (incl GT3). One of the 968's was mine. Caterham, VW, I forget others.

Probably 65% of our customers have dedicated track/race cars. Excepting a few BMW guys who run THICKER oil in their race cars due to heat, they all run the OEM spec viscosity. Which again due to heat will be notably different than 1-2cP from where the street driven spec originates.

That said, I can definitively say that it does NOT work well with Honda transaxles!!!! We had a customer with a Grand Am team running Civis, and the change to our 75w90 was disasterous. Hoped the higher temps would thin out the oil enough for use, but it didn't.

BTW, I should be able to make public a change that will be taking place for factory fills for one rather upscale vehicle starting in January. Currently has a service requirement of 40,000 miles. Will change to a single lifetime fill. The factory fill will be decidedly higher than 15cP.

As it is, I need to be productive the rest of the day. I don't mean to be argumentative, but like I said, the theories put forth do not align with my experiences, dating back to before I even knew squat about oil. We've already seen some confusion about the Millers in this thread, I just want to avoid more, since this one reads like a list of reasons to not use it.


Edited by 67King (12/20/13 10:00 AM)
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3222751 - 12/20/13 02:31 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Quote:
My real world experiences differ greatly from some theories put forth here, from four levels. 1. Owner/track driver/mechanic, 2. Vendor, 3. Engineer at the OEM level, and 4. Instructor and technical resource for PCA track events. I can list tons of vehicles that have used gear oil with a higher KV@100 than their factory fill, and successfully. In some cases, it is DRASTICALLY higher, such as guys who run 75w90 in their BMW's. This guy is one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZaH1hxnBDs and his comments about the change were "completely transformed the shift feel of the transmission."

I cannot, however, find a single spec that calls out KV. SAE Viscosity and API GL-#? All day long. But not KV.


Then I seriously doubt you really do lubricant development.

So you're saying that 75W90 or 14-18 Kinematic Viscosity lubricants are the only viscosities available for MTL's?

I don't know where you practice lubricant development but I develop formulations for domestic and foreign entities and every contract has a number of developmental specificatons including 100C, 40C, and Brookfield viscosities, for fluids ranging from 5 cSt to 50 cSt@100C.


Edited by MolaKule (12/20/13 02:36 PM)
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3222868 - 12/20/13 04:28 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Quote:
Furthermore, about 30% of our customers have street/track cars. You'd struggle to get a gearbox to reach 200 degrees on the street. They'll hit 275 pretty easily on the track. If transmissions were sensitive to 1-2cP differences, then it would be impossible to run the same oil on the street and on the track (well, unless they were like damper oil w/ 350-ish VI's).


What the heck is damper oil?

We're talking mainly here about street cars for daily drivers. There is a separate forum on here for Racing Topics.

Various series of Manual transmissions in Nissans and Toyotas were VERY sensitive to viscosity differences.


Some the lowest viscosity transmission fluids (both ATF and MTL) I ever developed (4-6 cSt@100C) were for strip and oval racing because they want the least amount of viscous drag available so the that extra HP goes to the wheels, and not in churning thick horsepower robbing fluids.

Yep, there are a lot of myths out there! cry


Edited by MolaKule (12/20/13 04:31 PM)
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3222954 - 12/20/13 05:54 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Sort of an out of sequence post. I was back reading earlier posts in this thread and a thought occurred to me. I think I may have actually mentioned it somewhere in the thread, but it is about bonding IF WS2 to the engine parts. Intuitively (to me) it would seem that the best way to actually treat an engine is to flush it out to remove all oil and then introduce IF WS2 in a suspension (perhaps ethyl or isopropal alcohol - that is what I am using) into the engine. Then, take the sparkplugs out and use an electric motor or something (possibly intermittently use the starter motor) to rotate the crankshaft. It would have to be fast enough for the fluid to be circulated to all the necessary parts. Then drain and fill with oil. Run the engine for a bit to get out any residual water.

This would provide the best access to the metal surface for the IF WS2 material. It avoids the issue of the oil keeping the surfaces from interfacing and letting the WS2 do bonding. Of course the best approach would be for the engine manufacturer to simply spray the engine parts (at an appropriate pressure) with the WS2 during manufacture.

It is possible (even probable) that this is an excessive effort. But I would think it would provide a faster, and possibly a more even coating on the appropriate surfaces.

There is also the cylinder head. If that could be coated, it should resist carbon formation. WS2 melts at 1250C, so it might survive on the cylinder walls. And if it can get to all the valves, that would be an excellent place to avoid material build-up. If it could be delivered in the fuel, and survive the combustion cycle, it could get to the exhaust valves. In direct inject it would not help the intake valves. All good things. I have no clue about the effect on the catalytic converter. And there is also the consideration/potential of particles getting into the atmosphere. The material is not listed as hazardous material, but nano -**** is not well studied for ecological or biological impact (sort of the same thing).

Just some thoughts.

Top
#3222974 - 12/20/13 06:11 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: martinq]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Manual Transmissions can be very sensitive to viscosity differences of 1 or 2 cSt KINEMATIC viscosity at 100C.

This must be amplified at lower temperatures.

It's very difficult to get any substantial heat into the tranny during winter unless you're hot-lapping. What about transmission performance at 0C, -10C or -20C?


Kind of why I wish the oil companies (big AND small) would give HTHSVs and MRVs for their gear oils/manual gearbox oils. wink
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3222995 - 12/20/13 06:22 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: MolaKule]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
What the heck is damper oil?


I believe that Harry is referencing the elastomer/gel-like fluid as used in Fluidampr harmonic balancers/dampers for the crank pullies of high performance engines (I did not know that it had a sky-high VI though, but I guess that it would HAVE TO)? shrug
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3223036 - 12/20/13 07:01 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: dailydriver]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
What the heck is damper oil?


I believe that Harry is referencing the elastomer/gel-like fluid as used in Fluidampr harmonic balancers/dampers for the crank pullies of high performance engines (I did not know that it had a sky-high VI though, but I guess that it would HAVE TO)? shrug


No, dampers, as in "shocks." Here is part of a note that Herta sent us regarding their experience in developing the damper (shock) oil for their IndyCar:
"Dampers on our Indycar need to operate anywhere from ambient temperature to almost 100 deg C. As such, one of the biggest challenges for a racing damper fluid is to be conssiten over a large range of temperature. Damping force variation from temperature change will make the car inconsistent in its behavior, which is very disruptive to the driver." If anyone wants me to link the PDF of the letter, let me know and I'll share.

Damper is a bit more common term in racing (obviously) and amongst their manufacturers, as the true nature of a "shock" is damp the oscillating tendencies that would otherwise be imparted on the system from a spring. Sorry I tend to forget I'm not talking about "racing" or industry stuff, but rather generalities. Side trivia note - engine oil is also used as an inherent damping fluid for valvesprings. If you ever see a cutaway of an engine at high RPM, the valvesprings behave very differently with a lot of oil versus none/little.

Note that every damper (aka shock/strut) uses oil to control motion. Some are "gas charged" and some are not. There are two types of "gas charged" shocks. Without getting into too much detail, the big take away is that a valve controls oil flow, which is how the damper damps oscillations.

I'll get to the question about when to introduce NT into an engine later.
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3223212 - 12/20/13 10:17 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Quote:
Damper is a bit more common term in racing (obviously) and amongst their manufacturers, as the true nature of a "shock" is damp the oscillating tendencies that would otherwise be imparted on the system from a spring.


No, the common term in use is "struts" and "shocks" for a device that dampens mechanical oscillations on vehicle suspension systems.

The fluid in harmonic balancers is usually a special silicon polymer.

Getting back to the topic of WS2, a TLT article of Aug. 2012 showed that WS2 is extremely difficult to place in suspension and the process to do so was very complex.

However, the company Nanomaterials, Ltd. of Yavne, Israel, claims to have developed the dispersion process to do so for both mineral oil and synthetic oils, and is able to disperse it in high and low viscosity base oils.



Edited by MolaKule (12/20/13 10:19 PM)
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3223229 - 12/20/13 10:49 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: MolaKule]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
Damper is a bit more common term in racing (obviously) and amongst their manufacturers, as the true nature of a "shock" is damp the oscillating tendencies that would otherwise be imparted on the system from a spring.


No, the common term in use is "struts" and "shocks" for a device that dampens mechanical oscillations on vehicle suspension systems.



I'm not sure why you think that your ignorance is my problem, but I assure you that you are quite mistaken. Nanotechnology may be a new technology unfamiliar to most, but the function of a damper oil isn't. And there is not a shock or strut in the world that dampens, or get things wet. Like I said, I've been at this since before being involved in oils. The proper term is damper. Because that is what it does.

FWIW, here's a letter from an Indy 500 winning engineer.

_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3223285 - 12/21/13 12:40 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Quote:
I'm not sure why you think that your ignorance is my problem, but I assure you that you are quite mistaken.


And your ignorance of basic mechanics, lubricants, and the English language is your problem.

The word "Damp," when used in the verb tense, means to reduce the amplitude of oscillations.

To Dampen (verb) means to deaden, depress, reduce or lessen mechanical oscillations.

You were thinking of the word, dampness," which mean to, "wet."

"Damping" is the effect of reducing the Amplitude of mechanical oscillations over time.

In a shock absorber or "shock," (common term) the damper (noun) is the assembly of the fluid, valve, cylinder, and piston that dampens or reduces mechanical oscillations. But in everyday terms, this device, with mounting posts is called a "shock absorber." If you are purchasing a device that contains a shock and spring assembly with mounting posts, you order a "strut."
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3223686 - 12/21/13 01:23 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: MolaKule]
martinq Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 1023
Loc: ON, Canada
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
No, the common term in use is "struts" and "shocks" for a device that dampens mechanical oscillations on vehicle suspension systems.

It's common for mechanics and the general public to use those terms but in racing/engineering circles, damper is more commonly (and accurately) used.


Edited by martinq (12/21/13 01:24 PM)

Top
#3223741 - 12/21/13 02:02 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Regarding suspension of WS2. I have a jar of WS2 (not IF) suspended in drugstore Isopropyl Alcohol. I has sat for months and still had what appears to be a significant amount of WS2 in suspension. Eyeball measurement only. I have poked in it and there is some on the bottom. A simple shake put it all back in suspension. And these are fairly large (600nm) particles. I can not observe any clumping.

It works great for getting the WS2 into sliding interfaces and bearings, etc. without leaving any carrier residue. The IF WS2 I have is in mineral oil (from APNano) and not nearly as handy for this sort of application.

Parts can simply be burnished with the material to bond a layer of WS2 to the surface. With some creative work, users could probably come up with an apparatus to spray items they want to lubricate. It can be done with the powder. I would imagine it could be done with a volatile carrier (with proper fire precautions). It does not require a very high pressure to spray bond the powder. Someone could treat engine parts, for example, while rebuilding an engine. That could get the cylinder heads and eliminate the need for greases to deal with initial start up.

If you start spraying the nano sized particles around, you really should take precautions about breathing the stuff. You are not likely going to find a mask that will keep it out. I got careless with the 600nm powder and I believe I felt an effect in my lungs for several days.

Top
#3223754 - 12/21/13 02:13 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: MolaKule]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11756
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
You're both right. British English usually refers to shock dampers. American (and Canadian) English refer to shock absorbers, or we just call them shocks. wink
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3223817 - 12/21/13 03:21 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: martinq]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
No, the common term in use is "struts" and "shocks" for a device that dampens mechanical oscillations on vehicle suspension systems.

It's common for mechanics and the general public to use those terms but in racing/engineering circles, damper is more commonly (and accurately) used.


^^^Yes, and I forgot that the Brits (and yes, most in the racing tech arena) call them dampers. duh
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3225321 - 12/23/13 09:48 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
67King Offline


Registered: 10/19/12
Posts: 85
Loc: Knoxville, TN
THis will be my last post in this thread, since there was a question asked earlier that I said I would address. I just don't have time or desire to get into any kind of sword fight, as evidenced by my relatively low post count. But due to some communications I have received, I apparently need to address some issues. First, I'll start out by saying that I recognize most people are reading this thread to learn about nanotechnology as a lubricant, most of you in oils. I am here to try to help educate folks. I recognize that new technology (e.g. NT in oil, yellow-metal-friendly EP additives yielding a GL4/GL5 oil) can be disruptive to the status quo, and that will inherently bring about those trying to discredit it, and I apologize if any of my comments have fanned any of those flames. It took hot rodders decades to move from things like carbretors and blowers to fuel injection and turbos. But the upper echelon of racing embraces it much earlier, as has been the case with the NT in oils, reference some of the awards it has received ,and its use by some teams under confidentiality, but I'll say that the IndyCar team here isn't the only major open wheel series with intercontinental reach to use it.

I have not been back here since my last post. I have, however, received a few communications from other readers about it, and apparently, among other things, my claims of my credentials have been called into question. Like I said, I have not been back, if I misunderstood the fellow who called me or the couple of PM's from others, then I apologize for the confusion and you can skip to the next few paragraphs.

My claims are quite easily verified. Ford will verify that I worked there as an engineer from 2000-2007, this can be verified by calling (800)248-4444. You can also find a picture of an older business card of mine, laying down with the former director of V-Engine (now VP) on my Photobucket site:
Business card It is a very old one, just one that I found, though Bob's (name hidden) is newer. I was doing a similar job, but with more responsibilities, on the 2011 S197 (5.0L Coyote) when I left.

You can call Georgia Tech's bursar's office (I think that's the one to call) to verify that I have two degrees in Materials Engineering, 1997 and 2000, at (404)894-4618. If they can't deal with alumni info, I'm sure they can direct you to whomever you need to call.

You can contact the national PCA and verify that I am an instructor, my number ending in 8293. Or you can read this thread from one of my students. It also has pictures of my car in there, the white and gold 944. You may notice it is not out on the paddock with most of the rest of the cars. It is in the tech shed......because as I mentioned, I'm one of the tech inspectors. Student mention with pictures of my white/gold 944T..

Here are a couple of shots of the shop where we rebuild Leda dampers/shocks/struts, or whatever you prefer to call the devices that damp the spring inputs (and in reality, this is more than just oscillations, as the adjustable ones are used to control the rate of weight transfer, which is an extraordinarily useful tool). I stuck a liter of the Millers oil up there since apparently I've been accused of making up stuff. The stuff in the apple juice bottle is oil for said dampers. We get it in 5 gallon buckets, so it is easier to transfer it to a bottle where we can pour it in the bodies.
Rods and other parts
Remote resivoirs, bodies, bushings, etc.

And to show that I do have a sense of humor, I also have a picture of a device used to dampen springs:
Dampening a set of KW's

And here is a folder you can go to to check out pictures of the race car at various points of the build, mostly the last 2 pages:
Track car

Anyway, on to the question about applying the NT at the factory. I don't think this is practical or a good idea for a couple of reasons. The biggest is that it isn't a coating like DLC, or any other type of PVD/CVD coating. The bonding of the NT is much weaker, primarily van der Waals forces. It is kind of like ester or ZDDP, it is attracted to metal surfaces, but doesn't form a durable bond. It will stay in suspension until it is put in a crankcase, at which point it becomes attracted to the metal. Complete "coating" is time/temperature dependent, we typically say 15 minutes at about 115C for the race oils. It also primrily fills the low spots moreso than an entire surface, so it makes the asperities much smaller. It will, however, stay on the surfaces after you drain the oil, but if the oil used to replenish it doesn't have the NT additive, it will eventually become depleted. Now I believe, but am not certain, that it would drastically slow down the time it takes for the rings to seat, meaning you really would not want to have it in the engine when you first start it up, or at least you wouldn't want it on the cylinder walls. It may prevent the rings from seating (which in reality is the process the peaks from cross hatching being worn down appreciably). Now, it could be that the feature size of those is large enough that the NT wouldn't be able to fully protect it, but I would still think having it running through the engine during break-in would be detrimental, for the same reason you generally don't want ANY friction modifiers in a break-in oil.

Seems I recall a question about putting it in fuel. I can't comment due to confidentiality, but the friction reduction is most prominent in the cylinder bores, where the majority of boundary lubrication occurs (although as oils get thinner, some is occurring in the cranktrain). That said, there isn't an engine guy in the world who wants to wet cylinder walls with fuel, as it will wash away the oil, and lead to premature bore wear. It does happen occasionally with open valve injection (OVI), though at least at Ford, OVI was typically avoided, though occasionally used (there is a small benefit to charge cooling under high load conditions).

Anyway, I apologize again for any ambiguity caused when I used more engineering type terminology rather than general usage. Note I will probably call transmissions gearboxes as often as not, too, and expect most folks to know what I mean. I apologize for letting external factors get in teh way of a discussion. Will try to keep my eye on other threads, and hope to avoid further urinating contests.


Edited by 67King (12/23/13 09:55 AM)
_________________________
944T - SP3 race car, 944TS "hot rod", 968 driver, 67GTO, 66 Bronco, 10 535i M-Sport, 6.7L Cummins Ram, 07 R320CDI - all with Millers

Top
#3225554 - 12/23/13 02:12 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
martinq Offline


Registered: 07/22/05
Posts: 1023
Loc: ON, Canada
67King, extra thanks for all the detailed info. Please keep us posted (somewhere) when you have news of new products, applications and availability.

Cheers!

Top
#3226112 - 12/24/13 03:00 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Olas asked a couple of pages back about Archoil. I could not find one of their products on the couple of sites they have. I just ran across a third site of theirs that is for weapons lubrication. It has the missing part number and some others with nano WS2.

Top
#3226399 - 12/24/13 11:20 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Some advice to MR 67King to avoid a p****g contest:

1. alternety and others are deeply interested in WS nanotechnnology so they simply want information on application of WS2 to engine oil, if I read the posts correctly,

2. Don't insult the intelligence of BITOG members by speaking down to them. BITOG has a large number of very intelligent people from all walks of life and from all education levels.

3. People truly experienced and educated in a particular area will show that in their responses.

4. Unless you are unsure of your credentials, then there is no reason to include them within a post. Put them in your Profile so people can look them up if they are interested.

The article I mentioned from TLT one page back suggests a 5% solution of their WS2 suspension in lubricants.


BTW, we should, if we are to be historically correct, properly call these devices Dashpots. The fluid within these Daspots are properly called hydraulic fluids because that is the fluid's function.


Edited by MolaKule (12/24/13 11:33 AM)
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3228334 - 12/26/13 01:56 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I looked at the TLT article. Just FYI, the article is from and about the source I have been referencing. The material they are talking about is the IF WS2. The additive I bought is from them.

Top
#3246042 - 01/12/14 04:23 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
simple_simon Offline


Registered: 01/26/11
Posts: 106
Loc: Indianapolis, IN
Why not just use the NanoLub products that can be added to any motor oil or transmission fluid since Miller's range is severly lacking?

Top
#3246086 - 01/12/14 05:00 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I do now. It was not available earlier except from Israel in case lots.

Top
#3255545 - 01/21/14 07:14 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
Nebroch Offline


Registered: 05/16/13
Posts: 199
Loc: Finland
User experience anyone?

I bought some WS2 powder from Ebay and applied it to old angle grinder gear. The gear was making very nasty sound especially when starting it, but after some running with powder it seems to run notably quieter.

Top
#3255880 - 01/22/14 05:40 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
Shannow Offline


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27108
Loc: a prison island
Damper is a correct terminology...damping is a specific function in response to stimulus in mechanical, electrical, and hydraulic systems..."shock absorber" for sprung mechanical systems is a loose vernacular, albeit common.

Top
#3270988 - 02/05/14 07:08 AM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: MolaKule]
friendly_jacek Offline


Registered: 05/04/03
Posts: 5505
Loc: southeast US
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
I'm not sure why you think that your ignorance is my problem, but I assure you that you are quite mistaken.


And your ignorance of basic mechanics, lubricants, and the English language is your problem.

The word "Damp," when used in the verb tense, means to reduce the amplitude of oscillations.

To Dampen (verb) means to deaden, depress, reduce or lessen mechanical oscillations.

You were thinking of the word, dampness," which mean to, "wet."

"Damping" is the effect of reducing the Amplitude of mechanical oscillations over time.

In a shock absorber or "shock," (common term) the damper (noun) is the assembly of the fluid, valve, cylinder, and piston that dampens or reduces mechanical oscillations. But in everyday terms, this device, with mounting posts is called a "shock absorber." If you are purchasing a device that contains a shock and spring assembly with mounting posts, you order a "strut."



OK, this was a very informative thread, before all this name calling started.

MolaKule, please apologize or stop posting here if you have nothing constructive to add.

Alternety, thanks for opening our eyes for this paradigm shift in lubrication.

67King, ignore the haters. I enjoyed reading your posts.

Top
#3271508 - 02/05/14 03:46 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
friendly_jacek Offline


Registered: 05/04/03
Posts: 5505
Loc: southeast US
Coming back to the topic, I found a nice dissertation paper going over chemistry, synthesis, and tribology of IF-WS2 nanoparticles.

According to my other research, there is only one patented source of IF-WS2 (Israeli parent company of AppNano). Now, that staff was around for over a decade. Why are we hearing about it just now? Cost coming down?

One interesting thing in the paper was a figure on the page 59. Adding IF-WS2 to formulated oil decreased friction slightly, but INCREASED wear. Unformulated oil benefited from IF-WS2 in both friction and wear departments, with phenomenally low friction, but wear still worse than additized oil.

Based on that, I don't think it's wise to buy IF-WS2 and mix with your existing oil.

Here is the paper: www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:565698/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Top
#3272774 - 02/06/14 04:36 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
dailydriver Offline


Registered: 03/14/06
Posts: 7165
Loc: Bucks County, Pa.
^^^I wonder what Millers adds to their racing oils to counteract/
buffer the supposed added wear? (IF that paper is fully correct in that deduction.) shrug

67King???
_________________________
2000 Z28 1SC 6 speed 175K miles
Red Line 0W-40/Sustina 0W-20 (20/80 mix)
Fram Ultra filter
Synpower 75W-140/4oz. XL-3
Red Line D4 in the T56

Top
#3272802 - 02/06/14 05:23 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I have not finished reading the paper. Regarding the question above, my thought is that it is not what Millers adds; but what it does not.

If I might hazard a guess or two. I was concerned about using the WS2 in oils with additives trying to do the same thing (e.g., ZDDP, MoS2, etc.) as WS2 in filling imperfections and coating the surface. I looked for an oil with minimal additives that might conflict with the WS2. I do not have a real good answer to that search. In the Honda, I used Millers oil which I had already purchased. Wrong weight, but should be fine. And I have enough of it to do the next oil change. This "formulation" should be designed for compatibility with the WS2. The original Honda fill, from what I have found, has a significant component of MoS2. That is why I replaced the "break-in" oil.

My gut feeling is that the people that wrote the paper need to do another one and analyze the components of the conflicting "formulated" oils and identify the mechanism causing the increased wear rate. That would seem to me to be a huge question mark for the validity of their study. Formulated oil ain't "formulated oil". There is a semi-infinite variety. It may even be a lack of detail in what the wear indicators were. WS2 will, I believe, be harder than the common additives that adhere to surfaces. Certainly MoS2. So they will be displaced by WS2. The generated particulates might be interpreted as wear.

Just a thought from the proletariat working masses.



Edited by alternety (02/06/14 05:24 PM)

Top
#3273140 - 02/06/14 09:55 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14706
Loc: Iowegia
Quote:
That would seem to me to be a huge question mark for the validity of their study. Formulated oil ain't "formulated oil".


Would you mind explaining that statement?


Edited by MolaKule (02/06/14 10:00 PM)
_________________________
"How you see your future is much more important than what has happened in your past." Zig Ziglar smile

Top
#3273163 - 02/06/14 10:11 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Yes.

Top
#3273211 - 02/06/14 11:13 PM Re: IF WS2 = ultimate lubricant [Re: alternety]
edhackett Offline


Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 1548
Loc: Sequim, WA
It was actually a very comprehensive thesis. They looked at each major additive individually and a fully formulated oil. They explained the way WS2 works as an anti-wear, anti-friction additive. They showed why WS2 cannot work in a fully formulated oil.

Abbreviated Cliff's Notes:

The IF-WS2 does not work as miniature ball bearings. It works by bonding to the metal and shearing as does graphite and MoS2. The bonding relies on oxidation of the metal and the WS2. The oxidation inhibitors/anti corrosion additives interfere with the oxidation needed for bonding. ZDDP alone and ZDDP+WS2 show nearly identical wear. The fully formulated oil shows a greater wear increase than what you would expect from looking at the individual effects. I suspect that there is a synergy between the anti-oxidants and ZDDP layer preventing the WS2 from bonding to the metal.

They do not go into the cause of the higher wear seen with WS2. They do mention that the IF-WS2 is larger than the gaps it needs to get into to act directly. My theory is that if the WS2 is prevented from bonding to the metal and acting as an anti-wear/anti-friction additive, it acts as abrasive particles.

I don't know of a way to formulate a practical oil without anti-oxidants or corrosion inhibitors, so I don't think WS2 has any use as a motor oil additive.

They also stress several times that a low coefficient of friction does not always correlate with low wear. That's well known.

Ed
_________________________
Never attribute to engineers that into which politicians, lawyers, accountants, and marketeers have poked their fingers.

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