Recent Topics
Starter gone?
by lawman1909
12/22/14 08:00 PM
Another Castrol surprise - Import MV ATF
by aa1986
12/22/14 07:39 PM
How old is the Castrol Edge?
by stygz
12/22/14 07:32 PM
185/60/14 with 195/70/14
by GreeCguy
12/22/14 06:49 PM
Bloomberg article on Techron
by chiefsfan1
12/22/14 06:43 PM
38% of the earth is made of .... Bridgmanite???
by aa1986
12/22/14 06:33 PM
1998 Buick Century Custom Steering 56k miles
by Gito
12/22/14 06:29 PM
Price Check...4Runner
by klt1986
12/22/14 06:13 PM
Quaker State score at Autozone!
by RamFan
12/22/14 05:08 PM
Anyone that can read Chinese or Japanese??
by Darwin1138
12/22/14 04:10 PM
PureOne PL14459 cut-open
by filb14
12/22/14 03:30 PM
Edge Gold Btl + M1 AFE 0w-30 $1 Qt at AZ **PICS!**
by Turk
12/22/14 03:07 PM
Newest Members
Kaiser_Sosse, jnormando, consolidated, mike_a, dlayman
52261 Registered Users
Who's Online
155 registered (147_Grain, 2010_FX4, 3800Series, 2cool, 01rangerxl, 14 invisible), 1400 Guests and 236 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
52261 Members
66 Forums
223812 Topics
3550069 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#3195103 - 11/22/13 06:31 PM Tungsten Disulfide
BigBird57 Offline


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 232
Loc: Florida
Has anyone ever used this in PCMO? I have found a site that sells this for $54 per pound. They say you mix this with oil at a rate of 1%-15% by weight.
_________________________
It is ok to expect, however you have to inspect.
2002 Tahoe 5.3 PU 5w-30
2011 Toyota Sienna V6 PP-0w-20

Top
#3195128 - 11/22/13 06:56 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7924
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Do they state nominal particle size.
Would you mind inboxing me with their website please.
If no website would contact info be possible.
If the particle size is micron or sub micron I'd like to try it as an oil additive.
I read that it can be added to oil using a blender. If you run the carrier oil in the blender long enough the carrier oil will heat up,then add the tungsten disqualified and blend again.
Unless using something like mmo or another solvent as a carrier that will flash off leaving only the TdS behind.
I could start brewing my own friction modifier in my garage.
Klevee's Frankenbrew.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3195136 - 11/22/13 07:05 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21730
Loc: NY
http://www.rosemill.com/category_s/35.htm

I use it to coat bullets, it works well in oil too, although it doesn't stay in suspension as well as MoS2. If you call them and talk to their tech people they'll fill you in on the pro's and con's.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#3195141 - 11/22/13 07:10 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14787
Loc: Iowegia
Unless it is Dialkylammonium Tungstate in oil I wouldn't use in engine oils.
_________________________
I can't wait to see what Movies North Korea will let me view this weekend. smile

Top
#3195174 - 11/22/13 07:41 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
spasm3 Offline


Registered: 05/30/10
Posts: 4183
Loc: out there
From what i have read, its a good friction modifier, but won't stay/maintain a suspension in oil. Lubromoly does seem to have a colloidal property and stays for the most part in suspension. Everything i've read about tungsten disulphide says it falls out immediately.
_________________________
13 elantra 31k penplat0w20
03 chevy avalanche63k m1 0-30
02 saturnsc1 57k pennultra
01 saturnsc1 165k nextgenhm
93 ciera 65k 5w30napasyn
gz250 hdeo15w40

Top
#3195208 - 11/22/13 08:18 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
BigBird57 Offline


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 232
Loc: Florida
_________________________
It is ok to expect, however you have to inspect.
2002 Tahoe 5.3 PU 5w-30
2011 Toyota Sienna V6 PP-0w-20

Top
#3195209 - 11/22/13 08:19 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
expat Offline


Registered: 05/12/09
Posts: 3949
Loc: Canada
Castrol in the UK, in the 70's advertised their GTX had
"Liquid Tungsten"

Top
#3195213 - 11/22/13 08:24 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: Clevy]
BigBird57 Offline


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 232
Loc: Florida
WS2, 99.9% Pure, 0.6 micron APS @ $54 per lb.
_________________________
It is ok to expect, however you have to inspect.
2002 Tahoe 5.3 PU 5w-30
2011 Toyota Sienna V6 PP-0w-20

Top
#3195216 - 11/22/13 08:30 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: demarpaint]
BigBird57 Offline


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 232
Loc: Florida
What vehicle did you use this product? How much additive per quart of oil?
_________________________
It is ok to expect, however you have to inspect.
2002 Tahoe 5.3 PU 5w-30
2011 Toyota Sienna V6 PP-0w-20

Top
#3195419 - 11/23/13 07:33 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
demarpaint Offline


Registered: 07/03/05
Posts: 21730
Loc: NY
Originally Posted By: BigBird57
What vehicle did you use this product? How much additive per quart of oil?


I had a pound of it which I used for coating bullets, and thought I would take a try at using it in oil. I used it in a 93 Aerostar, and an old edger which had an oil burning issue. I don't remember the dose, IIRC is was about 1 teaspoon/qt of oil. The people at Rosemill suggested the amount. It stopped the edger from using oil. The only downfall is it falls out of suspension and that's why I don't use it any longer. I later tried Lubro Moly MoS2 and found it stayed in suspension, so I stuck with it. The tech people at Rosemill were very helpful at the time with my questions. It would be worth calling them if you're interested in pursuing it further.
_________________________
GOD Bless our Troops


Top
#3195775 - 11/23/13 02:40 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: MolaKule]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Unless it is Dialkylammonium Tungstate in oil I wouldn't use in engine oils.


Can you suggest a source or reference to this product? Except for some guy applying for a patent, I can find almost zero references to Dialkylammonium Tungstate or Dialkyl Ammonium Tungstate.

There are numerous references to Tungsten Disulfide - basically a dry film lubricant, that is gaining in application popularity.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3195784 - 11/23/13 02:59 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14787
Loc: Iowegia
Here is my problem with dry lubricants such as powdered moly, titanium, and Tungsten being introduced into a crankcase: 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.

MoDTC, special titanium compounds and dialkylammonium tungstate are specially processed organo-metallic compounds and the only ones fully soluble in motor oils.


I went to Google and easily found the following references:

http://www.rtvanderbilt.com/documents/MSDS/EU/51155.pdf

VANLUBE W-324 - Amine Tungstate AW Synergist found in:

http://www.vanderbiltchemicals.com/ee_co...omestic_Web.pdf


Edited by MolaKule (11/23/13 03:04 PM)
_________________________
I can't wait to see what Movies North Korea will let me view this weekend. smile

Top
#3195885 - 11/23/13 05:18 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: MolaKule]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
MoDTC, special titanium compounds and dialkylammonium tungstate are specially processed organo-metallic compounds and the only ones fully soluble in motor oils.

I went to Google and easily found the following references:

http://www.rtvanderbilt.com/documents/MSDS/EU/51155.pdf

VANLUBE W-324 - Amine Tungstate AW Synergist found in:

http://www.vanderbiltchemicals.com/ee_co...omestic_Web.pdf


Okay, but you should have easily found that there was not much information at the Vanderbilt link above, except that VANLUBE W-324, their product containing dialkylammonium tungstate, is listed as a 'new product'.

If you search for VANLUBE W-324, here's the spec sheet. But, there's not much real information here either, particularly as to applications. Four product tests are listed, for one of which one of Vanderbilt's own moly product actually performed slightly better. For all of the tests, it's worth noting that the performance differences between the various products tested was very slight - truly microscopic - if you study the scales on the charts. But, VANLUBE W-324 is an interesting product nonetheless.

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Here is my problem with dry lubricants such as powdered moly, titanium, and Tungsten being introduced into a crankcase: 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,


MoS2 falling out of suspension is a known issue. Sub-micron particle size seems to be a suitable fix. I've not read of issues involving MoS2 not attaching to metal surfaces.

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 and only after extensive lab testing, engine teardown and analysis, and fleet testing.


Where do you get this stuff? It really sounds good, but according to this Wiki's article on organo-metallic chemistry, there's no particular link between this very new technology and oil additives. In any event, the bond between MoS2 and metal surfaces should be mechanical - not chemical. MoS2 is not soluble in oil (or much of anything else). But, I'm clearly not a chemist.

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.

There's a small body of this information on Molybdenum Disulfide used as an oil additive (but clearly not enough to satisfy detractors). And this is a product which has been in rather widespread industrial use for about a century. We can only hope this type of testing is someday done on the organo-metallic flavors of molybdenum and titanium.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3195906 - 11/23/13 05:45 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: MolaKule]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
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'.
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3196104 - 11/23/13 09:37 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: MolaKule]
BigBird57 Offline


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 232
Loc: Florida
This is why I like the forum. It sounds like the tungsten disulfide is not quite ready for prime time in PCMO. I can see a use on a bolt action rifle in extremely cold weather. I run Pennzoil Ultra so I will resist the temptation to experiment with this dry lubricant.
_________________________
It is ok to expect, however you have to inspect.
2002 Tahoe 5.3 PU 5w-30
2011 Toyota Sienna V6 PP-0w-20

Top
#3196185 - 11/23/13 11:25 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: dave5358]
OVERKILL Offline


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 26836
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
02 Expedition
01 BMW ///M5
06 Charger R/T

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


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14787
Loc: Iowegia
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)
_________________________
I can't wait to see what Movies North Korea will let me view this weekend. smile

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


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14787
Loc: Iowegia
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)
_________________________
I can't wait to see what Movies North Korea will let me view this weekend. smile

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


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 232
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
2011 Toyota Sienna V6 PP-0w-20

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


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
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 Offline


Registered: 04/28/08
Posts: 26836
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
02 Expedition
01 BMW ///M5
06 Charger R/T

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


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
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: 669
Loc: North Bend
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: 14787
Loc: Iowegia
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)
_________________________
I can't wait to see what Movies North Korea will let me view this weekend. smile

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


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
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: 14787
Loc: Iowegia
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?
_________________________
I can't wait to see what Movies North Korea will let me view this weekend. smile

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


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
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: 14787
Loc: Iowegia
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."
_________________________
I can't wait to see what Movies North Korea will let me view this weekend. smile

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


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11782
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: 148
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
#3207792 - 12/05/13 07:33 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: alternety]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11782
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: alternety
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.

Mola is the last person here who needs instruction in basic chemistry. And that isn't what he's asking for. You and others have made an assertion. It's up to those who make such assertions to corroborate them.

When one goes to defend his PhD thesis, he doesn't tell the committee to do the research themselves and that the physics is obvious.

Besides the physics, where are the statistically significant studies of results? We don't always know why something works, but we know it does.
_________________________
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
#3208595 - 12/06/13 02:02 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14787
Loc: Iowegia
Quote:
alternety: 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***.


Take a chill pill dude and drop the attitude.


Quote:
alternety: Have you tried following the link to a document on Springerlink I posted near the end of that thread?


I have read it, have you? I was attempting to find out what you knew about the physics of WS surface interactions.

Have you even read my remarks on ammonium Tunsgates? I was offering a ready made alternative.

Quote:
alternety: Please have the courtesy of at least learning before attacking.


I am glad you are interested in nanoparticles and surface science.

You can learn more about this topic here:

1. Martin, et. al., (2008) Nanolubricants, Tribology Series, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., England.

2. Greenwood, (1998) Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 202(1), pp. 11-17.

3. Gao, et. al., (1995) Science, 270(5236), pp. 605-608.


Edited by MolaKule (12/06/13 02:05 PM)
_________________________
I can't wait to see what Movies North Korea will let me view this weekend. smile

Top
#3209021 - 12/06/13 09:17 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Ah, MolaKule - I remember you and another poster well from the long thread I started. It is actually the remembered behavior of you and that other person together with your posts here that prompted my post to which you object. I did not initially associate your name with those earlier posts, but I have since reviewed them. The underlying themes were to simply dismiss all sources of information as unbelievable and beneath notice, you knew things could not be true because of your experience and education, and then would detail things irrelevant to the issue at hand (in my opinion).

I would be happy to chill.

My last straw happened to be in this thread. Whatever your internal reasoning, I now believe you were simply baiting me for whatever reason you had.

For those reading this, please first read the 4 posts on this page of this thread starting at 3205172 - 12/03/13 02:08 PM above.

I responded to what I considered to be an irrelevant question from someone (MolaKule) with no understanding who would not read the suggested information. I replied in the terms (physics) used in his question, which I may have used at some point as a simplification, to continue the context. Effectively I was dismissing the post. I do not keep a running list in my head of who is a trained expert and who is not. Nor was I insulting.

MolaKule's response about that from the post above:

I have read it, have you? I was attempting to find out what you knew about the physics of WS surface interactions.

Have you even read my remarks on ammonium Tunsgates? I was offering a ready made alternative.

My take on that. I have stated numerous times that I am not and expert nor am I "in the field". And I did not read it - I spent a few hours searching for it only because people who simply would not believe other references (which I believe to be quite adequate and authoritative) wanted more.

My internal response to his first line had to be, and was, just who does he think he is to do that for that reason. I am not in grad school anymore and he is not my adviser nor anyone approving the granting of my degree. Sorry, you don't have the right. You can do it, of course, but it is not your place.

Second line: Have you even read my remarks on ammonium Tunsgates?

Yes I did read it. It was completely irrelevant to the purpose of these discussions. As were so many in my original thread and somewhat in this and other threads on the topic. People, mostly I think, are here looking for the best lubricant for their engines. There are, of course professionals, as well, but it is helpful (and from what I have seen, generally done)to help the least common denominators (like me) understand.

To help us all MolaKule, could you please cite a source of the appropriate ammonium Tunsgates at a readily accessible US serving retail source (bricks and mortar or online), publicly available documentation (not from a manufacturer, retailer, or patent application) proving their superiority over the IF WS2. When doing so, please do not disregard the IF; it probably matters. Which IS the point of this and other similar threads.

I don't believe I have ever seen a comparison between properties of (<60nm) WS2 vs IF WS2. I suspect they are pretty similar; but hard to manufacture. Making them as a Graphene like sheet and breaking the sheet up appears to work for <60nm.

As a side note, you refer to moly in oil. To a significant number of consumers participating in these threads, moly means MoS2. You really should try to be more rigorous in your terminology to be understandable to all of the participants (Mo is even shorter to type than moly). It confused me for a while (e.g., soluble moly). I would also suggest explaining a bit more about things requiring a significant understanding of some chemical reactions. For example: at least one of your Mo based materials becomes WS2 (not IF WS2 of course) in the heat of the engine. It would be interesting to know how much of the material is actually converted in normal use.

And lastly: MolaKule says, I am glad you are interested in nanoparticles and surface science.

Wrong again, and probably written with a different intended meaning (remember, being paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you). Generally I like to learn things. I do understand that in the not so distant future worms will be eating that knowledge. I try to keep somewhat informed on lots of technical things, just because it entertains my mind. I am retired. I don't HAVE to do anything, and I really don't have any burning desire for any further education into this area beyond what allows me to decide on a path to resolving something I want to do. Lubricating things. And I have found what I consider to be satisfactory and credible information allowing me to do that.

I like to keep some level of understanding in quantum physics progress as well as particle physics, and a bunch of other things. But I am certainly no expert and I will not entertain questions in these areas. And I have never done a bit of research on the net and recommended processes in those areas or improvements to the people trying for sustainable fusion. I believe I know where to keep quiet. I did consider suggesting to the people with the broken reactors in Japan that they use RO filters to extract the radionuclides and simply dispose of the resulting water with short half life Tritium to fix their water storage problem. Some research (on the net of all things) showed that they were already taking a shot at that. But the real world/practical understanding of the variants of WS2; that is not all that hard (don't - I said practical). And I really do not understand why many of the "arguments" occur.

I am currently concentrating my attention on automobile headlights (my wife just bought a Honda CR-V that has headlights that Honda should be deeply ashamed to provide - in earlier days should have required ritual suicide), replacing my range hood make up air fan motor with a 3 phase 220V motor and controlling it with a VFC and (maybe embedded) PID capable PLC driven by a differential pressure sensor.

Next week I will take a bit of time out to get an oil change and add IF WS2 to the Honda. I am still trying to find some IF WS2 powder.

As another side note: The "other" non-believing poster I referenced on the thread I started responded to my post asking if anyone had read the springerlink reference beyond the paywall. The responding post on 10/28 was "I have the article open on my computer right now. No time to discuss. Will later.". No further posts, no response to my PM asking what the results of reading it were.

Perhaps interesting. Perhaps just lack of interest or time.

Whatever. These are the reasons I wrote what I wrote. I just got sick and tired of extraneous, and baseless (for the intended subject and audience) posts that served no purpose but to disrupt things. Never useful help. And generally based on not actually taking in and mentally processing what was being discussed in any useful manner. While expert input is always desired and respected, it needs to be current, relevant, and correct. Even experts should make an effort to review how it is rather than how it was or what their particular segment of the field has been pursuing. And lighten up about acceptable references. Dismissing the work of pioneers in the field is just- hmm, I am looking for a word here - ineffective.

Respectfully submitted.

alternety

Top
#3209086 - 12/06/13 10:51 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14787
Loc: Iowegia
I am not sure what you said up there but I posted in the IF WS2 thread this:

Quote:
Molakule: 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.


As a formulator for more than 20 years, it appeared that to me that you were not understanding the complete picture of how lubrication engineering is done, but simply fixating on a narrow aspect or one component of lubrication.


Quote:
JHZR2 stated this:
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!


You responded thus:

Quote:
alternety : 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.


JHZR2 never said any thing about whether it is a theory or not. His experience and expertise was advising you of potential pitfalls.


Quote:
JHZR2 said later: 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.


As to the your comment about Moly derivatives I stated this:

Quote:
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.


because you seemed to have a misunderstanding of moly derivatives.

Quote:
Gmorg (another chemist) stated this:

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

I don't recommend either product.


And then you made a SMC about CYA.

Quote:
Gmorg replied: 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.


Quote:
Alternety: As a side note, you refer to moly in oil. To a significant number of consumers participating in these threads, moly means MoS2. You really should try to be more rigorous in your terminology to be understandable to all of the participants (Mo is even shorter to type than moly). It confused me for a while (e.g., soluble moly). I would also suggest explaining a bit more about things requiring a significant understanding of some chemical reactions. For example: at least one of your Mo based materials becomes WS2 (not IF WS2 of course) in the heat of the engine. It would be interesting to know how much of the material is actually converted in normal use.


A simple search will show I have explained the various moly derivations in good detail.

Quote:
alternety: To help us all MolaKule, could you please cite a source of the appropriate ammonium Tunsgates at a readily accessible US serving retail source (bricks and mortar or online), publicly available documentation (not from a manufacturer, retailer, or patent application) proving their superiority over the IF WS2. When doing so, please do not disregard the IF; it probably matters.


The soluble Tungstates as I have previously stated are not currently available OTC. They are only available to formulators and additive companies who know how to handle and process these chemicals.

But then again, since you dismiss my comments and comments from others who are knowledgeable in this field, why do you now care?


Believe it or not alternety, we were attempting to find out what you were trying to do, determine your application, warn you about potential pitfalls, and knowing that, suggest possible solutions.


Edited by MolaKule (12/06/13 10:55 PM)
_________________________
I can't wait to see what Movies North Korea will let me view this weekend. smile

Top
#3209164 - 12/07/13 01:36 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Thank you for verifying.

Top
#3209259 - 12/07/13 08:22 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: alternety]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
A quick question to Molakule:

In this (or maybe another) thread, a user thoughtfully directed readers to this useful Petroleum Quality Institute chart. If you scan across the page, moly (in some form or other) and many other additives are widely used. The results were obtained by oil analysis - PQI even specifies when and where they bought their samples.

My question is, will oil analysis reveal the form of the additive in use? For example MoS2 versus soluble moly?
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3209443 - 12/07/13 12:44 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
I will now indeed chill. I started this flurry. Sorry about that. I did not intend it to explode.

Top
#3209573 - 12/07/13 02:57 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: dave5358]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14787
Loc: Iowegia
Originally Posted By: dave5358
A quick question to Molakule:

In this (or maybe another) thread, a user thoughtfully directed readers to this useful Petroleum Quality Institute chart. If you scan across the page, moly (in some form or other) and many other additives are widely used. The results were obtained by oil analysis - PQI even specifies when and where they bought their samples.

My question is, will oil analysis reveal the form of the additive in use? For example MoS2 versus soluble moly?


Good question.

Oil analysis will not reveal the exact type of moly used.

However, most commercial additive packages that I am aware of use the soluble moly or MoDTC because it is completly soluble, doesn't "fall out," and only low levels of this component are needed to reduce friction.
_________________________
I can't wait to see what Movies North Korea will let me view this weekend. smile

Top
#3209579 - 12/07/13 03:01 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: alternety]
MolaKule Offline


Registered: 06/05/02
Posts: 14787
Loc: Iowegia
No problem. Just a minor misunderstanding among interested parties. smile
_________________________
I can't wait to see what Movies North Korea will let me view this weekend. smile

Top
#3220011 - 12/17/13 09:10 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
dareo Offline


Registered: 10/17/07
Posts: 470
Loc: utah
This stuff has been used in gun lubes and seems to build up a slicker surface over time. I'm not sure if i would want it in engine oil, but it has demonstrated itself to me in firearms.

Top
#3231588 - 12/30/13 05:15 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: expat]
Trav Offline


Registered: 11/20/06
Posts: 10451
Loc: MA, Mittelfranken.de
Originally Posted By: expat
Castrol in the UK, in the 70's advertised their GTX had
"Liquid Tungsten"


Maybe even before that.
_________________________
ASE L1, Master. Deutsch Meisterbrief.

Top
#3231639 - 12/30/13 08:14 AM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: Trav]
dave5358 Offline


Registered: 04/25/13
Posts: 669
Loc: North Bend
Originally Posted By: Trav
Originally Posted By: expat
Castrol in the UK, in the 70's advertised their GTX had
"Liquid Tungsten"


Maybe even before that.


I remember that in the US as well. I always just assumed it was ad-man hype. But, who knows?
_________________________
2006 Forester XT
2008 Corolla LE

Top
#3246094 - 01/12/14 05:09 PM Re: Tungsten Disulfide [Re: BigBird57]
alternety Offline


Registered: 01/15/09
Posts: 148
Loc: Pacific NW
Tungsten Disulphide has been around a long time. MoS2 is far more common because it was cheaper. The nano versions are relatively new. The Fullerenes (in retail commerce), quite new.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >