Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
it'll be more dense at the time.... which could be due to less volatility, but they did mention swirl and heavier...
Shannows link above says the same thing, more explicitly.
"However, but because fuel additives do not tend to change direction as quickly as gasoline, the additives still impinge on the cylinder wall,"
Still don't believe it, (and not only because illiteracy, as in "However, but" undermines credibility). Assuming the lube and fuel are miscible, they are both going to be present in mixed droplets and will travel together. They'll only separate by fuel vaporisation (and subsequent combustion).
I've just read through the dissertation literature review, to the start of the actual report "This thesis describes a seminal piece of research" (Seriously? Aren't OTHER people supposed to say that?)
That's as far as I got, but thus far there appears to be a bit of an elephant in the room (and maybe in the literature, if the review is representative)
"Compared to other areas of lubricant additive study, literature on organic
friction modifiers for automotive use is relatively scarce"
Oh yeh? Why are Castrol called Castrol then?
It could of course be that the literature doesn't reflect practice, but, as touched on above, this kind of thing is what 2-strokes do, and have done for a long time.
Surely there must have been SOME scientific investigation into how they do it?
Apparently 2-stroke oils are useless and wasteful in a 4-stroke engine asall the lubrication needs are met by the crankcase oil. And I agree where it comes to wear, but this paper shows there might be a friction reduction benefit from additives in the fuel. Even 2-stroke oil could have a benefit by changing the lubrication regime at the top ring zone.
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
it'll be more dense at the time.... which could be due to less volatility, but they did mention swirl and heavier...
Shannows link above says the same thing, more explicitly.
"However, but because fuel additives do not tend to change direction as quickly as gasoline, the additives still impinge on the cylinder wall,"
Still don't believe it, (and not only because illiteracy, as in "However, but" undermines credibility). Assuming the lube and fuel are miscible, they are both going to be present in mixed droplets and will travel together. They'll only separate by fuel vaporisation (and subsequent combustion).
I've just read through the dissertation literature review, to the start of the actual report "This thesis describes a seminal piece of research" (Seriously? Aren't OTHER people supposed to say that?)
That's as far as I got, but thus far there appears to be a bit of an elephant in the room (and maybe in the literature, if the review is representative)
"Compared to other areas of lubricant additive study, literature on organic
friction modifiers for automotive use is relatively scarce"
Oh yeh? Why are Castrol called Castrol then?
It could of course be that the literature doesn't reflect practice, but, as touched on above, this kind of thing is what 2-strokes do, and have done for a long time.
Surely there must have been SOME scientific investigation into how they do it?
Apparently 2-stroke oils are useless and wasteful in a 4-stroke engine asall the lubrication needs are met by the crankcase oil. And I agree where it comes to wear, but this paper shows there might be a friction reduction benefit from additives in the fuel. Even 2-stroke oil could have a benefit by changing the lubrication regime at the top ring zone.
