Small Particle MoS2 Settling Time

[wag123]

Originally Posted By: Nebroch

I think it's more about your engine than used oil if MoS² gives benefits or not. LM tells on it's moly oil flyer that MoS² generally works better in old and worn engines, as MoS² coating on their maybe out of spec friction surfaces makes oil perform better on them.

I am not surprised that LM makes the statement that MoS2 performs better in a worn engine because a new MoS2 user will actually experience a MUCH MORE NOTICEABLE IMPROVEMENT in a worn engine. It has been reported by new MoS2 users here in BITOG that, when used in a worn engine, there are quantifiable improvements in compression, lower oil consumption, lower levels of blow-by, improved fuel mileage, and a smoother/quieter running engine.
The whole point in using it in a newer lower mile engine is to help PREVENT an engine from becoming worn in the first place. I am convinced that it does this, which is why I use it. New users should not expect that MoS2 will make a dramatic difference in the way a newer engine runs. It won't. But, most newer engine users DO report a slightly quieter running engine and get enough of a fuel mileage improvement that the product generally pays for itself in a longer OCI.

 

[rainman49]

Wow! I thought for a second I was reading a script from the Big Bang Theory when I opened this thread. That makes my head hurt.

 

[MolaKule]

True, actual science can be both enlightening and impressive.

 

[MolaKule]

True, actual science can be both enlightening and impressive.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: wag123
Originally Posted By: Nebroch

I think it's more about your engine than used oil if MoS² gives benefits or not. LM tells on it's moly oil flyer that MoS² generally works better in old and worn engines, as MoS² coating on their maybe out of spec friction surfaces makes oil perform better on them.

I am not surprised that LM makes the statement that MoS2 performs better in a worn engine because a new MoS2 user will actually experience a MUCH MORE NOTICEABLE IMPROVEMENT in a worn engine. It has been reported by new MoS2 users here in BITOG that, when used in a worn engine, there are quantifiable improvements in compression, lower oil consumption, lower levels of blow-by, improved fuel mileage, and a smoother/quieter running engine.
The whole point in using it in a newer lower mile engine is to help PREVENT an engine from becoming worn in the first place. I am convinced that it does this, which is why I use it. New users should not expect that MoS2 will make a dramatic difference in the way a newer engine runs. It won't. But, most newer engine users DO report a slightly quieter running engine and get enough of a fuel mileage improvement that the product generally pays for itself in a longer OCI.


My mower, which I've mentioned a few times benefited from the product. Much like restore I believe it fills scuffs and imperfections in cylinder walls which can be a tremendous help in old tired engines. I can't comment as to how much it will help in a new engine, but in an old tired engine I see no downside.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: wag123
Originally Posted By: Nebroch

I think it's more about your engine than used oil if MoS² gives benefits or not. LM tells on it's moly oil flyer that MoS² generally works better in old and worn engines, as MoS² coating on their maybe out of spec friction surfaces makes oil perform better on them.

I am not surprised that LM makes the statement that MoS2 performs better in a worn engine because a new MoS2 user will actually experience a MUCH MORE NOTICEABLE IMPROVEMENT in a worn engine. It has been reported by new MoS2 users here in BITOG that, when used in a worn engine, there are quantifiable improvements in compression, lower oil consumption, lower levels of blow-by, improved fuel mileage, and a smoother/quieter running engine.
The whole point in using it in a newer lower mile engine is to help PREVENT an engine from becoming worn in the first place. I am convinced that it does this, which is why I use it. New users should not expect that MoS2 will make a dramatic difference in the way a newer engine runs. It won't. But, most newer engine users DO report a slightly quieter running engine and get enough of a fuel mileage improvement that the product generally pays for itself in a longer OCI.


My mower, which I've mentioned a few times benefited from the product. Much like restore I believe it fills scuffs and imperfections in cylinder walls which can be a tremendous help in old tired engines. I can't comment as to how much it will help in a new engine, but in an old tired engine I see no downside.



I used mos2 in an 06 hemi charger. When I started it had around 50000 miles and I started a thread where I posted mileage from every tank of fuel tracking mileage for 3000 miles prior to using mos2 to establish a baseline,then tracked mileage for over 5000 miles with mos2 in the sump.
My results speak for themselves.
I don't believe the engine had any significant wear prior to the adding of mos2 and with it in the oil that car routinely sees 28mog on the highway and if I draft I easily break 30mpg and while drafting on flat highway I saw 34mpg for about 15 miles at which point the trucker had enough of me drafting him and started sending roadside gravel my way,so I thought it best to back off a few car lengths.

I've used the stuff in countless vehicles,torn down engines that used it,including my 2v that had it in the sump for in excess of 100000 miles and there were no deposits anywhere. Not on the rings,not on the heads,nowhere.
Maybe the stuff does fall out of suspension but as soon as that engine starts pumping oil I have no doubt that it gets mixed back up rather quickly.
Maybe today's oils don't need it. I can say honestly that every vehicle with an engine of 6 or more cylinders gained fuel mileage vs just oil.
I personally don't care if people like the stuff or not. Don't use it then.

It's just that easy.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: wag123
Originally Posted By: Nebroch

I think it's more about your engine than used oil if MoS² gives benefits or not. LM tells on it's moly oil flyer that MoS² generally works better in old and worn engines, as MoS² coating on their maybe out of spec friction surfaces makes oil perform better on them.

I am not surprised that LM makes the statement that MoS2 performs better in a worn engine because a new MoS2 user will actually experience a MUCH MORE NOTICEABLE IMPROVEMENT in a worn engine. It has been reported by new MoS2 users here in BITOG that, when used in a worn engine, there are quantifiable improvements in compression, lower oil consumption, lower levels of blow-by, improved fuel mileage, and a smoother/quieter running engine.
The whole point in using it in a newer lower mile engine is to help PREVENT an engine from becoming worn in the first place. I am convinced that it does this, which is why I use it. New users should not expect that MoS2 will make a dramatic difference in the way a newer engine runs. It won't. But, most newer engine users DO report a slightly quieter running engine and get enough of a fuel mileage improvement that the product generally pays for itself in a longer OCI.


My mower, which I've mentioned a few times benefited from the product. Much like restore I believe it fills scuffs and imperfections in cylinder walls which can be a tremendous help in old tired engines. I can't comment as to how much it will help in a new engine, but in an old tired engine I see no downside.



I used mos2 in an 06 hemi charger. When I started it had around 50000 miles and I started a thread where I posted mileage from every tank of fuel tracking mileage for 3000 miles prior to using mos2 to establish a baseline,then tracked mileage for over 5000 miles with mos2 in the sump.
My results speak for themselves.
I don't believe the engine had any significant wear prior to the adding of mos2 and with it in the oil that car routinely sees 28mog on the highway and if I draft I easily break 30mpg and while drafting on flat highway I saw 34mpg for about 15 miles at which point the trucker had enough of me drafting him and started sending roadside gravel my way,so I thought it best to back off a few car lengths.

I've used the stuff in countless vehicles,torn down engines that used it,including my 2v that had it in the sump for in excess of 100000 miles and there were no deposits anywhere. Not on the rings,not on the heads,nowhere.
Maybe the stuff does fall out of suspension but as soon as that engine starts pumping oil I have no doubt that it gets mixed back up rather quickly.
Maybe today's oils don't need it. I can say honestly that every vehicle with an engine of 6 or more cylinders gained fuel mileage vs just oil.
I personally don't care if people like the stuff or not. Don't use it then.

It's just that easy.


Clevy- We come from the same camp. I shared my experiences with the product, and the results were positive. I don't track mpg very often, only on occasion if I'm making a long trip, so I can't comment about mpg improvements.

I also don't care what people like or dislike, use or don't use. As you said if someone is against a product, then by all means don't use it!

 

[Rosetta]

I don't want to ruin you beautiful job, but:

>> Did you considered the "Brownian" effect into the calculations?
As the small particles keep traveling and the movement makes the settling harder for a wider period of time.

If I can be understandable ...

 

[Rosetta]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I figured I'd go ahead and do the calculation so that everyone isnt just speculating. I havent seen anyone else attempt it, so I wrote it out in Mathcad, saved the pages as a JPG, and here it is. As usual, Photobucket ruins the images by funky compression, but I think you can make it out. Ill see if I can serve them from somewhere else so that they may load clearer. The basis for the calculation I have firsthand experience with in the lab, and is shown in greater detail in Grant Bunker's book on X-ray Absorption Spectroscopy. A simple version which I used can be reviewed in slide 46-48 of this:

gbxafs.iit.edu/training/XAFS_sample_prep.pdf

Now, keep in mind that if the particles are somehow surface stabilized or have some form of chemistry to keep them in solution and in small size (e.g. some kind of polymer, surfactant, etc.) then this may be less valid. More technical conversation would be necessary with LM, as well as to optimally run the experiment by vigorous mixing of LM doped appropriately into a virgin and used motor oil, then allow them to sit in a glass jar for timescales as shown below and observe.

Enjoy and discuss!

I don't want to ruin you beautiful job, but:

>> Did you considered the "Brownian" effect into the calculations?
As the small particles keep traveling and the movement makes the settling harder for a wider period of time.

If I can be understandable ...

 

[Rosetta]

Voila

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

https://www.google.com.br/search?q=brown...93&ie=UTF-8

Enjoy

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Rosetta


I don't want to ruin you beautiful job, but:

>> Did you considered the "Brownian" effect into the calculations?
As the small particles keep traveling and the movement makes the settling harder for a wider period of time.

If I can be understandable ...


Rosetta: Please explain how Brownian Motion would apply to this problem how it would affect the outcome.

 

[Rosetta]

The Brownian Effect is the result of reiterated and repetitive small particle moviments inside a fluid (gas or liquid) in a vessel or even at engine sump. As the particle keep moving fora long period of time and makes the settling harder taking more time to bottom up. MoS2, graphite and other solid lubricants in colloidal form, added to oil has this phenomena as a fact. It's also temperature and weak force input (vibration, magnetism for electric charges) dependent. You know when you see air dust in a light bath, even when there is no wind, the air is still but the particles of dust keep moving for days and weeks, until they sometime ,settle. May occur also, in part for convection, vibration heat differential and even small vortex of turbulence, as part cause or for other numerous reasons, but they move up and down, hitting the walls, top and bottom, of the vessel. So, I believe that in order to calculate the settling time, isn't just a matter of: gravity + mass (weight) and distance and density to get the time for settling, you should consider the moviment related to the brownian effect that keep fighting the settlement. For this reason, I'm affraid, the total time is more than calculated by the op, IMHO.

 

[Rosetta]

There is also a "quantic" theory about quick molecules/atoms hitting the particles and inducing the brownian moviment ... as the other part causes. I personally prefer electric charges, temperature differential, vortex of turbulence and vibration to explain the phenomena of molecule/particle acceleration.

 

[MolaKule]

i tend to think the Eisnstein derivation is more applicable in a situation such as this:

Why?

Dynamic equilibrium is established because the more that particles are pulled down by gravity, the greater is the tendency for the lower mass particles to migrate to regions of lower concentration.


The flux is given by Fick's law,

J=-D(drho/dh), D is diffusivity.

where J = pv. Introducing the formula for rho (p), we find that
v = D*m*g/{kB*T}.

In a state of dynamical equilibrium, this speed must also be equal to v = D*m*g. Notice that both expressions for v are proportional to mg, reflecting how the derivation is independent of the type of forces considered. Equating these two expressions yields a formula for the diffusivity:

{x^2/2*t) = D = mu*kB* i]T[/i]= mu*R*T/N = R*T/(6*pi*vis*r*N).

Summary: as a first order analysis, JHZR2's analysis is still correct.

As a second order analysis, the smaller particles that remain simply distribute themselves according to a diffusivity distribution concentration, and will eventually precipitate out and settle out as well.

If any would like to solve this equation for the time to diffusion, one can use

p(X, t) = p0/(sqrt(4*pi*D*t))*e^-(X^2/(4*D*t)

 

[Trav]

My car sits for 6 months at at a time. I guess the "Brownian" effect didn't do jack because it still fell out and ended up in the bottom of the pan.
Theories are like A holes, everybody has one but that stuff i was removing from the bottom of the pan was all the proof i need.

 

[Apollo14]

Should you add MoS2 at every oil change?

Liqui Moly only give dosing information online.

 

[GaleHawkins]

Yes if you are using it to do extended OCI's. Since its use is owner choice you can add it when you prefer. For the most part it leaves the engine when you drain the oil.

 

[Apollo14]

Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
Yes if you are using it to do extended OCI's. Since its use is owner choice you can add it when you prefer. For the most part it leaves the engine when you drain the oil.


I will admit that my understanding of how it works is rudimentary, but Liqui Moly say:

Originally Posted By: Liqui Moly
MOS2 (Molybdenum Disulfide) is renowned for its very low co-efficient of friction and ability to “cling” to surfaces even under extreme conditions


http://www.liqui-moly.com.au/products/oil-additives/

If it drains out with the oil, and draining oil is not an extreme condition, then it didn't cling to surfaces.

Additionally, people say it takes a few hundred miles to work, presumably to fill in all those gaps and imperfections. Yet it decides to drain out with the oil and you have to add it again.

So I'm a little confused about whether it comes out or not.

 

[Clevy]

Originally Posted By: Apollo14
Originally Posted By: GaleHawkins
Yes if you are using it to do extended OCI's. Since its use is owner choice you can add it when you prefer. For the most part it leaves the engine when you drain the oil.


I will admit that my understanding of how it works is rudimentary, but Liqui Moly say:

Originally Posted By: Liqui Moly
MOS2 (Molybdenum Disulfide) is renowned for its very low co-efficient of friction and ability to “cling” to surfaces even under extreme conditions


http://www.liqui-moly.com.au/products/oil-additives/

If it drains out with the oil, and draining oil is not an extreme condition, then it didn't cling to surfaces.

Additionally, people say it takes a few hundred miles to work, presumably to fill in all those gaps and imperfections. Yet it decides to drain out with the oil and you have to add it again.

So I'm a little confused about whether it comes out or not.



Dude. Try the search function. This topic has been beaten to absolute death and everything that can be said about it has already been said.
I'm confident you will find the answer to your question in one of the countless threads on the subject.

 

[Apollo14]

Clevy, I'm not finding an answer to my question on why do we need to redose the Liqui Moly product if it clings to surfaces as it claims to.

Do you know the answer?

Also, how can you possible claim that "everything that can be said about it has already been said"?

I'm sure Edward Kollin who shared some research information has a whole lot more he could say about it. Or do you already know what he knows? There certainly seems to be new information in this thread alone.