Recent Topics
Honda Filter 15400-PLM-A02 Are these counterfeit?
by Helpme
04/24/14 12:51 AM
Delvac 0w40 vs M1 0w40
by Ndx
04/23/14 11:35 PM
is there any logic to why the repairable area on a
by WhyMe
04/23/14 11:09 PM
Oil Change Order? Random Pennzoil / QS question
by Ddub
04/23/14 10:21 PM
Current vehicle oil requirements.....
by gregk24
04/23/14 10:03 PM
50:1 premix at Sears for $1.27
by Donald
04/23/14 09:23 PM
Cut Open - Toyota 90915 = yzzf2
by JC1
04/23/14 08:31 PM
Cut Open - Purolator Classic L20195
by JC1
04/23/14 08:29 PM
Cut Open - Purolator Pure One PL20195
by JC1
04/23/14 08:28 PM
Cut Open - Napa Gold 1516
by JC1
04/23/14 08:27 PM
Cut Open - Napa Gold 1334
by JC1
04/23/14 08:26 PM
Carbon Fibre Trim
by domer10
04/23/14 08:24 PM
Newest Members
2stroker, BMWR1200GS, Npeters1205, shrekulo, Helpme
49680 Registered Users
Who's Online
31 registered (DanC, david_ES2, Chris142, cak446, Cosmos, CastroPenzoHavoMobil1, 3 invisible), 893 Guests and 158 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
49680 Members
64 Forums
212346 Topics
3328715 Posts

Max Online: 2651 @ 04/21/14 04:38 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#3196185 - 11/23/13 11:25 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: dave5358]
OVERKILL Online   content


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 25012
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
... OR if it's a specially processed organo-metallic chemistry. Organo-metallic chemistries are only the ones that should be introduced into a formulated oil


Upon further reflection, I think I was much too kind. You specifically do not want a soluble form of tungsten or molybdenum in the oil (which seems to be the claimed goal of organo-metallic chemistry, at least your reference). As before, small particle size is a suitable fix for settling issues.

If the additive is soluble, it will drain out when the engine stops - just like the oil in the Lucas gear-crank toy mentioned earlier in this thread. In may drain faster or slower - basically the take-away from the Lucas toy. But, once it drains out - no more lubrication. One of the nice features of MoS2 is that it does not drain out. It more-or-less stays put on the bearing surfaces. You get dry-film lubrication at start up, and you can keep driving if you take a bullet in your engine pan. In that narrow sense, MoS2 doesn't make for a 'better oil'. Rather, it's more of an oil substitute, which does not interfere with the motor oil's normal functioning.

But MoS2 (and probably Tungsten Disulfide) is a very slippery substance, it reduces friction, heat and it is highly resistant to extreme pressure. Viewed in that way, it might make a 'better oil'.


I'm interested to see what his reply to this is, as he formulates oils for a living so I'm quite certain he has a solid reason as to why the soluble versions are greatly preferred here.
_________________________
Network Engineer
00 BMW 328i
02 Expedition
01 BMW ///M5

Top
#3196262 - 11/24/13 01:52 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 13653
Loc: Midwest
Quote:
BigBird57: Where do you get this stuff?


One gets it from his additive supplier.

Quote:
BigBird57:As for "extensive lab testing, engine teardown and analysis and fleet testing" we all want that. Who wouldn't want that kind of information? But if that's the standard to be met before using an additive, there would be no additives.


I think you are confusing commercial chemical additives and commercial additive packages with Over The Counter (OTC) or Third Party Additives. You are not the first so don't feel bad.

Commercial additives and additive packages are extensively tested using Lab (mostly ASTM) tests, engine teardown/analysis, and fleet testing.

Over The Counter (OTC) and Third Party Additive makers cannot make the same claim.


Edited by MolaKule (11/24/13 01:53 AM)
_________________________
Friend: Here, try some trail mix.
ME: Oh great. I always wanted M&Ms with obstacles.

Top
#3196269 - 11/24/13 02:14 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 13653
Loc: Midwest
Quote:
Upon further reflection, I think I was much too kind. You specifically do not want a soluble form of tungsten or molybdenum in the oil (which seems to be the claimed goal of organo-metallic chemistry, at least your reference).


I think you misunderstand the comment. There was an OR conditional in my sentence.

What I said was I was not comfortable putting dry solid lubricants into a crankcase because of the reasons stated.

Here is what I said:

Quote:
Unless the dry lubricant is specially processed into a colloidal system with polarity additives, the dry lubricant may fall out of suspension and may not attach itself to friction surfaces, OR if it's a specially processed organo-metallic chemistry. Organo-metallic chemistries are only the ones that should be introduced into a formulated oil and only after extensive lab testing, engine teardown and analysis, and fleet testing.


The two conditionals were:

1) a nano-particle dry lubricant incorporated into a colloidal suspension with an additional polar additive chemical is probably functional.

2) OR, preferably the metallic friction modifier is a fully soluble organo-metallic compound such as is found in Molybednum Dithiocarbamates (MoDTC), Titanium organo-metallics, or Tunsten in the form of dialkylammonium tungstate.

But lets say in the case of MoS2 OTC additives, what are you getting? Are you getting a dry MoS2 powder in an oil carrier, are you getting a colloidal MoS2 suspension with polar additives, or are you getting a true completely oil soluble MoDTC? The problems is, most of the OTC additive manf. won't tell you.


Edited by MolaKule (11/24/13 02:16 AM)
_________________________
Friend: Here, try some trail mix.
ME: Oh great. I always wanted M&Ms with obstacles.

Top
#3196276 - 11/24/13 03:00 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: MolaKule]
BigBird57 Offline


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 198
Loc: Florida
The tungsten disulfide should be more popular than it is. If the OTC interest had spent the same effort into this substance as they have with MOS2 a product would already be on the market. I do not want to get into the PTFE debacle that we saw in Slick 50. Further I am not in a position to harm my engine.
I work with combustion turbines and I am a strong advocate of the PAG oils from Dow Chemical. So far in the Southeast I am a lone voice in the wilderness. Calpine has solved their varnish issues with this product. I mention this only to show that innovation comes slow.
_________________________
It is ok to expect, however you have to inspect.
2002 Tahoe 5.3 PU 5w-30
2008 Accord LX-P PU 5w-20

Top
#3196398 - 11/24/13 08:36 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: OVERKILL]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 256
Loc: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
... OR if it's a specially processed organo-metallic chemistry. Organo-metallic chemistries are only the ones that should be introduced into a formulated oil


Upon further reflection, I think I was much too kind. You specifically do not want a soluble form of tungsten or molybdenum in the oil (which seems to be the claimed goal of organo-metallic chemistry, at least your reference). As before, small particle size is a suitable fix for settling issues.

If the additive is soluble, it will drain out when the engine stops - just like the oil in the Lucas gear-crank toy mentioned earlier in this thread. In may drain faster or slower - basically the take-away from the Lucas toy. But, once it drains out - no more lubrication. One of the nice features of MoS2 is that it does not drain out. It more-or-less stays put on the bearing surfaces. You get dry-film lubrication at start up, and you can keep driving if you take a bullet in your engine pan. In that narrow sense, MoS2 doesn't make for a 'better oil'. Rather, it's more of an oil substitute, which does not interfere with the motor oil's normal functioning.

But MoS2 (and probably Tungsten Disulfide) is a very slippery substance, it reduces friction, heat and it is highly resistant to extreme pressure. Viewed in that way, it might make a 'better oil'.


I'm interested to see what his reply to this is, as he formulates oils for a living so I'm quite certain he has a solid reason as to why the soluble versions are greatly preferred here.


Me too. But, one thing for sure - a soluble version of either MoS2 or tungsten would be different from a suspension. It has a clear advantage (no settling) but it has a disadvantage (it drains out).

Regardless of how you come down on this, it poses an interesting question.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3196565 - 11/24/13 11:12 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: dave5358]
OVERKILL Online   content


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 25012
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
... OR if it's a specially processed organo-metallic chemistry. Organo-metallic chemistries are only the ones that should be introduced into a formulated oil


Upon further reflection, I think I was much too kind. You specifically do not want a soluble form of tungsten or molybdenum in the oil (which seems to be the claimed goal of organo-metallic chemistry, at least your reference). As before, small particle size is a suitable fix for settling issues.

If the additive is soluble, it will drain out when the engine stops - just like the oil in the Lucas gear-crank toy mentioned earlier in this thread. In may drain faster or slower - basically the take-away from the Lucas toy. But, once it drains out - no more lubrication. One of the nice features of MoS2 is that it does not drain out. It more-or-less stays put on the bearing surfaces. You get dry-film lubrication at start up, and you can keep driving if you take a bullet in your engine pan. In that narrow sense, MoS2 doesn't make for a 'better oil'. Rather, it's more of an oil substitute, which does not interfere with the motor oil's normal functioning.

But MoS2 (and probably Tungsten Disulfide) is a very slippery substance, it reduces friction, heat and it is highly resistant to extreme pressure. Viewed in that way, it might make a 'better oil'.


I'm interested to see what his reply to this is, as he formulates oils for a living so I'm quite certain he has a solid reason as to why the soluble versions are greatly preferred here.


Me too. But, one thing for sure - a soluble version of either MoS2 or tungsten would be different from a suspension. It has a clear advantage (no settling) but it has a disadvantage (it drains out).

Regardless of how you come down on this, it poses an interesting question.


Looks like we got our reply smile
_________________________
Network Engineer
00 BMW 328i
02 Expedition
01 BMW ///M5

Top
#3196661 - 11/24/13 01:18 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: MolaKule]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 256
Loc: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
... But lets say in the case of MoS2 OTC additives, what are you getting? Are you getting a dry MoS2 powder in an oil carrier, are you getting a colloidal MoS2 suspension with polar additives, or are you getting a true completely oil soluble MoDTC? The problems is, most of the OTC additive manf. won't tell you.


Clearly, in this forum we are talking about OTC additives. I agree that industrial additives are a different matter. Presumably when Volkswagen went looking for an oil additive for their air-cooled engine, they had reasonable access to test results (or perhaps conducted their own testing). They ended up with Dow-Corning's 'Molykote' MoS2 in oil suspension.

As for the Dow-Corning product or Lubro-Moly, you are definitely not getting anything that's soluble.

As for "colloidal MoS2 suspension with polar additives", probably yes on the colloidal suspension... don't know on any polar additives. The Lubro-Moly folks probably buy their raw material from a refiner (possibly even Dow-Corning) and could specify the grade, additives, etc. It is not clear how a consumer could obtain this information unless the Lubro-Moly folks decided to make it available.

You might be able to get this information from Dow-Corning regarding their Molykote product. They have been engaged in the moly business for many years - at least since the 1970s - so even their trade secrets have probably leaked out. One problem is that their Molykote MoS2-in-oil-suspension product is no longer sold in the US (at least not for consumer use) but it is still being sold in South America. I would be very interested in learning more about it.

If you buy MoS2 powder on eBay... that's the bottom of the heap.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3198039 - 11/25/13 06:45 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: MolaKule]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 256
Loc: Dayton, Ohio, USA
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Quote:
BigBird57: Where do you get this stuff?


One gets it from his additive supplier.

Quote:
BigBird57:As for "extensive lab testing, engine teardown and analysis and fleet testing" we all want that. Who wouldn't want that kind of information? But if that's the standard to be met before using an additive, there would be no additives.


I think you are confusing commercial chemical additives and commercial additive packages with Over The Counter (OTC) or Third Party Additives. You are not the first so don't feel bad.

Commercial additives and additive packages are extensively tested using Lab (mostly ASTM) tests, engine teardown/analysis, and fleet testing.

Over The Counter (OTC) and Third Party Additive makers cannot make the same claim.


The above statements by MolaKule are exactly correct, but not every person reading this thread may get the correct message from what he said. By way of review, the general question was "Is tungsten a beneficial additive for motor oil?" or "Is soluble tungsten a beneficial additive for motor oil?" - something to that general effect. The material in question could be tungsten or molybdenum or titanium - the problem of information (or lack thereof) is the same.

Yes, you get information from additive makers. But almost all of this information is in the form of lab tests, purity tests, safety issues, pollution issues, etc. An additive supplier is unlikely to have tested their product in automotive motor oil. Additive suppliers are simply not in that business.

Recall Molybdenum Disulfide. This is a product which has been in industrial use for almost a century, but in most cases, this use was not as a motor oil additive. So, MoS2 may be the most popular dry-film lubricant in industrial use today (it is!) but knowledge of or the suitability for use as a motor oil additive is much more limited. But, that's the stuff of this forum.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Commercial additives and additive packages are extensively tested using Lab (mostly ASTM) tests, engine teardown/analysis, and fleet testing.

Over The Counter (OTC) and Third Party Additive makers cannot make the same claim.


It is unlikely that tungsten or molybdenum formulations have been extensively tested as a motor oil additive - at least by the additive makers. There is simply not enough demand for that information because both of these products are normally used in grease, as dry film lubricants, assembly pastes, etc. There's plenty of testing in these latter areas - the research follows the money.

I can't speak to tungsten. What about molybdenum in motor oil? Rolls-Royce Aviation knows about this application - they used the stuff in some of their very sophisticated engines back in WWII. Volkswagen knows - they used this product in their air cooled automobile engines for several decades. Eazor Express knows - they used it in their OTR truck hydraulic systems. Dow-Corning may (or may not) know, but they supplied Volkswagen and Eazor with the moly suspension; they have distributed this product (MoS2-in-oil-suspension) in the US in years gone by and still sell Molykote under their own name in South America.

Still on molybdenum, VW probably did their own research and testing on this material. The results of VW's research and testing may not be public information. Rolls-Royce also did research and testing. It was defense work, so their results might be public or not. The Eazor Express results were published back in the 1970's, but hydraulic systems are not exactly the same as automobile engines and the goal of their study was to extend the OCI for hydraulic fluid. The conclusion, as I recall, was that adding MoS2 resulted in a ~5% OCI increase - significant to a fleet operator, but not so much for a consumer.

Still on molybdenum, who else knows? Quaker State must know something - they stealthily included moly in their Ultimate Durability motor oil product. Several oil makers include moly in the motorcycle oils. I am not sure why, but it may have to do with the fact that air cooled engines are hard on oil (i.e. the Volkswagen problem).

Yes, the additive makers/suppliers do know a lot about their products, and make this information available to engineers and chemists and potential customers. No, they probably don't have much information on their products (tungsten, molybdenum, whatever) used as a motor oil additive. This situation is not hopeless - some information is available - but it's a lot less rosy than just picking up the phone and calling your additive supplier.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3198817 - 11/26/13 03:01 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 13653
Loc: Midwest
Quote:
Several oil makers include moly in the motorcycle oils. I am not sure why, but it may have to do with the fact that air cooled engines are hard on oil (i.e. the Volkswagen problem).


Soluble moly is in most IC engine oils today.

And it is one of the three forms of soluble moly MoDTC.

The latest incarnation of soluble moly MoDTC is the Tri-Nuclear soluble moly MoDTC.


Edited by MolaKule (11/26/13 03:02 PM)
_________________________
Friend: Here, try some trail mix.
ME: Oh great. I always wanted M&Ms with obstacles.

Top
#3205172 - 12/03/13 04:08 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 119
Loc: Pacific NW
There is a long thread on this forum on WS2 (Tungsten Disulphide). All the detractors say all the same things as in this thread and more about MoS2.

The arguments against these two molecules as oil additives tend to resolve to "it won't work because I know in my heart that it won't, and I will fight to the death about that".

Two sources in the US for the additive are in the last post in the thread http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3205170#Post3205170

Top
#3205260 - 12/03/13 05:30 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 13653
Loc: Midwest
Quote:
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).


And what do the physics say as to why WS2 powders are better than soluble Amyl Amonium Tungstates?
_________________________
Friend: Here, try some trail mix.
ME: Oh great. I always wanted M&Ms with obstacles.

Top
#3205641 - 12/04/13 02:13 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 119
Loc: Pacific NW
MolaKule - please just read the referenced thread. There really is no need to start that discussion over again. You might consider posting in that thread after you have read it.

Short answer; the physics say IF WS2.


Edited by alternety (12/04/13 02:14 AM)

Top
#3207480 - 12/05/13 03:24 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 13653
Loc: Midwest
Originally Posted By: alternety
MolaKule - please just read the referenced thread. There really is no need to start that discussion over again. You might consider posting in that thread after you have read it.

Short answer; the physics say IF WS2.


I posted at least three posts in that thread.

I still don't know what you mean by, "the physics say IF WS2."
_________________________
Friend: Here, try some trail mix.
ME: Oh great. I always wanted M&Ms with obstacles.

Top
#3207536 - 12/05/13 04:21 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: MolaKule]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 9872
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
I'm guessing, Mola, that this is one of these cases where the "physics" is above the heads of those who are actually trained in the field. 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
#3207783 - 12/05/13 07:26 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 119
Loc: Pacific NW
Warning, I am going to be quite snippy here:I just don't get it; but I am getting real tired of it. I have simply been trying to provide helpful information to people in the best lubrication they can get for their personal or commercial uses. I am just a civilian; affiliated with no one. I have no pony in this race. And I get a bunch of c***.

Have you tried following the link to a document on Springerlink I posted near the end of that thread? Have you spent any time at all looking around the net (or whatever you consider a "real" source) for technical information?

Any simple listing of properties for the materials (try Wikipedia) will show you the relevant characteristics compared to MoS2. Although Wikipedia does not have very much on WS2 compared to how much they have for MoS2. There are many very detailed scientific studies out there. Even outside the pay walls. The search, if you really work at finer detail, can be laborious; but probably much easier if you have the easy access to professional papers that I do not.

This is more the reaction I would expect from a buggy whip manufacturer when he heard about Ford than experienced scientists and engineers hearing about newish (at least 10 years old)technology. It keeps coming down to "I don't believe". And/or - your references (which are there because they are easy to find and easy to understand) are just dumb marketing by someone with no integrity or knowledge. I suspect the scientific researchers (including the founders) and engineers at APnano (Nanolub) would be less than amused by your attitude toward their work, products, and published information. Talk with them. As a professional lubricationist, they may talk to you.

Your have been "trained in the field" so you must surely have also been trained in the scientific method. Find it yourself. At the very least you can look at whatever you consider to be a believable description of the physical characteristics of the compound (and maybe the MoS2 which people seem to (maybe) think works). Semi-physics wise (more chemistry and molecular lattice behavior), WS2 exceeds the physical performance of MoS2 (or really primitive graphite) in essentially every interesting property. This simply can not be dismissed. The "physics" will require a brief look at how the atomic level forces interact with nano particles. And some look at how shear works in both of those two materials. You have surely already seen what "smooth" surfaces look like; so there is a starting point. This information is neither hidden nor particularly obscure. You have got to be aware of these elements involved in making it slippery. And this ignores the discussion of the increased durability of materials treated with these materials (and others with similar results).

Please have the courtesy of at least learning before attacking.

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >