used oil better than new?

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
No, IMO you make some kind of ester oil by mixing alcohol and acid, under heat. Sure, there are hundreds of ester types, one of them is made this way. If you want POE you need the right ingredients, of course. And sludge is another case. So why its better a 3k miles oil than a 100 miles one? Doesn't look anybody answered that in 6 years.


The answer was given six(6) years ago. Shannow made a good summary:

Originally Posted By: Shannow
The gist was that the additives are added in very succinct form, and through the action of friction and heat, create more reactive species that provide reduced friction...in the pin and disk test rig that the paper uses.


Esterification, the process of making of esters, is generally an exothermic reaction (combining the ingredients produces heat, until the reaction is complete). The application of further heating is to drive off any water that was generated during the reaction, and in some cases done under reduced pressure in order to keep the post reaction temperature low.

Polymerization of the engine oil over time increases the bulk oil's viscosity, which leads to slightly thicker oil films as it ages.

The introduction of fresh oil allows the detergents to strip-off any crud left behind by the aged, oxidized, and polymerized oil.

Any fresh oil added to a machine can only be a plus since the PI package is refreshed.

 

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Pontual
BTW, Can you provide some reseamblance of evidence on your sentence that ethanol in fuel will make more sludge? Can you back this up? Or are you already sorry to have said that?


Wake up to yourself, you presented a fairy tale scenario where esters are created in the sump, Molakule stated that reactions were more likely to create sludge than esters.

My statement was not that ethanol (yes I know the you are a fan) creates sludge.

As I've pointed out already, this particular paper has been discussed and discussed multiple times (and YES, in the last 6 years).

The gist was that the additives are added in very succinct form, and through the action of friction and heat, create more reactive species that provide reduced friction...in the pin and disk test rig that the paper uses.


Were quoting me when you said "Fairy Tale scenario"? You're funny!

 

[Jetronic]

but with a 1000 mile sample, it's impossible to filter out such false positives. This adds to the impression of added wear shortly after a drain and refill.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
Or, this majoring isn't additive related. I see that maybe the ethanol in fuel could make ester in sump. There you have alcohol, heat and acid. And so the ester could be accidentally formed making a temporary better base oil ...
Anyway, the TBN are remaning higher for a longer time, nowadays ...


Pontual,

Since you revived this thread did you also download the two SAE papers mentioned in this thread?

This might be worthwhile for you in order to delve into the purpose and context of the paper.

 

[Pontual]

Now I should be limited to the content of a paper ...

Wolf! Kaaaaaaaa! Kkk.

 

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


As I've pointed out already, this particular paper has been discussed and discussed multiple times (and YES, in the last 6 years).

The gist was that the additives are added in very succinct form, and through the action of friction and heat, create more reactive species that provide reduced friction ...in the pin and disk test rig that the paper uses.


Hummmm ...

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
Now I should be limited to the content of a paper ...

Wolf! Kaaaaaaaa! Kkk.


You are commenting about the content of a paper, in a thread about that paper, so why then is it wrong to ask you to have even the most rudimentary idea of what's IN THE PAPER ?

Is Brazilian law less about facts than what could have been made up ?

No your honour, my client couldn't have been there, as the vinegar and vodka in the trunk of his car could have esterified when he turned on the heater, and the car may have been rendered motionless at the time of the alleged incident.

 

[Shannow]

* Paper describes Zn as predominant AW additive, and the nature of the tribofilms it forms;
* Paper discusses Zn decomposition in the crankcase environment;
* Paper descirbes thetest apparatus, a single cam lobe off a Zetec engine, and a hardened shim, that has been treated to provide radioisotope in the wear debris;
* Describes that fresh oil takes 100 hours to reach the stable wear point (i.e. establishment of the tribofilms);
* Describes that the used oil (see my previous comments) have both a lower frictional characteristic, and wear rate;
* Describes the microscopic surface differences observed, and the presence of ADDITIVE elements in the tribofilms on plateauxed surfaces, and carbon/oxides in the scratches.
* Describes the different reactive species (phosphates, orthophosphates, mixed phsophates, carbonates, and sooty carbon) between the new and the used oils;
* describes the different Iron oxides in the rubbing surfaces of the new/used oil tests;

Concluded : that the composition of SURFACE FILMS formed with aged oil is quite different from those formed with fresh oil, probably due to the interaction if a wide range of species formed in the decomposition of ZDDP with shim surface.

 

[edhackett]

This paper is often cited as proof that running your oil longer results in less wear. The paper does not say that at all, and that conclusion can not be drawn from the paper. The experimental design was not set up to test lower wear in an engine.

The two primary issues with the experimental design which prevent such conclusions from being drawn are:

1. The new oil was always run on a new shim. The aged oil was run on broken-in shims. Break-in wear of the shims was an uncontrolled variable.

2. The wear was measured outside of an engine. The paper showed that combustion byproducts were part of the lower friction surface layers. The new oil was never exposed to combustion byproducts. In an engine, fresh oil is immediately mixed with residual oil containing combustion byproducts and immediately exposed to fresh combustion byproducts.

The above issues do not compromise the scope of the paper, which was to see how long an oil could form a viable protective surface layer. They tested to 12,000 miles. While the oils would form a protective anti-wear layer, all of the oils had long passed condemnation points for oxidative thickening, TBN, and TAN.

Ed

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: edhackett
This paper is often cited as proof that running your oil longer results in less wear. The paper does not say that at all, and that conclusion can not be drawn from the paper. The experimental design was not set up to test lower wear in an engine.

The two primary issues with the experimental design which prevent such conclusions from being drawn are:

1. The new oil was always run on a new shim. The aged oil was run on broken-in shims. Break-in wear of the shims was an uncontrolled variable.

2. The wear was measured outside of an engine. The paper showed that combustion byproducts were part of the lower friction surface layers. The new oil was never exposed to combustion byproducts. In an engine, fresh oil is immediately mixed with residual oil containing combustion byproducts and immediately exposed to fresh combustion byproducts.

The above issues do not compromise the scope of the paper, which was to see how long an oil could form a viable protective surface layer. They tested to 12,000 miles. While the oils would form a protective anti-wear layer, all of the oils had long passed condemnation points for oxidative thickening, TBN, and TAN.

Ed

 

[Pontual]

Originally Posted By: edhackett


...
2. The wear was measured outside of an engine. The paper showed that combustion byproducts were part of the lower friction surface layers. The new oil was never exposed to combustion byproducts. In an engine, fresh oil is immediately mixed with residual oil containing combustion byproducts and immediately exposed to fresh combustion byproducts.

The above issues do not compromise the scope of the paper, which was to see how long an oil could form a viable protective surface layer. They tested to 12,000 miles. While the oils would form a protective anti-wear layer, all of the oils had long passed condemnation points for oxidative thickening, TBN, and TAN.

Ed


HUMMM The BY PRODUCTS FROM COMBUSTION ... That's exactly what I've said! Good to see Molukule agreeing specilly about depletion of additives, makes the base even more important. Now Sahnnow went well beyond Bygdhah, too bad for him

.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
* Paper describes Zn as predominant AW additive, and the nature of the tribofilms it forms;
* Paper discusses Zn decomposition in the crankcase environment;
* Paper descirbes thetest apparatus, a single cam lobe off a Zetec engine, and a hardened shim, that has been treated to provide radioisotope in the wear debris;
* Describes that fresh oil takes 100 hours to reach the stable wear point (i.e. establishment of the tribofilms);
* Describes that the used oil (see my previous comments) have both a lower frictional characteristic, and wear rate;
* Describes the microscopic surface differences observed, and the presence of ADDITIVE elements in the tribofilms on plateauxed surfaces, and carbon/oxides in the scratches.
* Describes the different reactive species (phosphates, orthophosphates, mixed phsophates, carbonates, and sooty carbon) between the new and the used oils;
* describes the different Iron oxides in the rubbing surfaces of the new/used oil tests;

Concluded : that the composition of SURFACE FILMS formed with aged oil is quite different from those formed with fresh oil, probably due to the interaction if a wide range of species formed in the decomposition of ZDDP with shim surface.

 

[MolaKule]

Both SHANNOW and edhackett presented excellent summations of the paper(s).


You attempt to divide and conquer yet you have not read any of the topical papers on aged oil?

 

[Pontual]

Me, to attempt to "Divide and Conquer" ... I'd call presenting an idea, is that hurting your feelings so much?
The SAE paper is inconclusive for the cause on the phenomena, IMO. Just look for the so called sumarizations and you'll see. There is no conclusion! ("It is different" ... "Probably" ... wide range of "species") Very Molakule style of conclusion.

 

[Shannow]

OK Pontual, back in your career field. (thought you were an aircraft mechanic, but must be thinking of someone else)

In a court of law, which would more likely sway the judge.

The evidence in the papers, looking at the tribofilms, carrying out analysis of the tribofilms, refering to other known (referenced) phenomenon, and drawing a conclusion ?

or

A non witness to the paper surmising that ethanol and acids formed beneficial esters in the sump, in a hitherto unidentified process ?

The latter argument presenting nothing other than "it might happen, you can't prove it didn't"...and especially given that there's not a jot of evidence of ethanol in the gas tanks of the vehicles...certainly not mentioned in the papers.

Which scenario would the judge give the remotest credence to ?

 

[Pontual]

I don't see much difference between the papers and the witness arguments in this case. they are both bla-bla. Just cosmetics in this case. It wouldn't draw any judge too much.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Pontual
Me, to attempt to "Divide and Conquer" ... I'd call presenting an idea, is that hurting your feelings so much?
The SAE paper is inconclusive for the cause on the phenomena, IMO. Just look for the so called sumarizations and you'll see. There is no conclusion! ("It is different" ... "Probably" ... wide range of "species") Very Molakule style of conclusion.




My feelings are only hurt when I am denied coffee or chocolate.

 

[SirTanon]

Sorry Pontual - I'm giving this argument to Shannow, Molakule, etc..

Documented examination and study trumps supposition.

..That, and MolaKule is a known chemist, which IMHO trumps your argument from the get-go.

 

[userfriendly]

Bedtime/fairytale;

Your new truck has an 8 liter oil sump capacity
and specifies 5W20 engine oil.

Your old truck with the same engine has a 6.5 liter
capacity and specifies 5W30 engine oil.

After 40,000 Km, your new truck consumes 1 liter of
oil per 1,000km, but uses 10 liters less fuel
in covering that distance repeatedly.

With your old truck, you would change the oil and filter
as per the olm at 13,000km, or about 2,000km per liter
of engine oil.

By the time the new truck arrives at 13,000km, you have
added 12 liters of oil.

Instead of changing the oil, you change just the filter
which holds one liter of oil, and add two liters of oil.

Your oil is never "that fresh" as to strip off, react with
or in other words, upset the chemical balance in the crankcase.

Now Farmer John doesn't know much about organic chemistry,
he just knows what works and doesn't ask why.

 

[d00df00d]

"Fairy tale" sounds about right.