Motor oil university 106

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
OK, good on you, I should have been more specific about retained film "thickness" for journal bearings. That was me falling into the brevity trap "assuming" folks would make the mental switch between rollers and plain bearings and their requirements...

You're right about clinging to metal, Syn's will do that very well. But they are lousy at capillary fill so they do not stay in the journal bearing surfaces in as thick a film and dino oils...


I agree with you on IC engines.

I've pulled apart quite a few, and including two strokes, you end up in an oily mess.

Piston rings and pistons, and bearings hold a tremendous amount of oil through capillary action, and you are quite right, the first few seconds when oil pressure is rising, this is the sole reserve of lubricant...it's at it's absolute thickest, so will be quite effective. Also, there's the left over tribofilm for the boundary stuff.

People who talk "dry" starts clearly haven't been elbow deep in an engine.

My (well used to be my) GE derivative steam turbines aslo had electric and shaft driven oil pumps. One electric (jacking) to lift the shaft on the plain bearings (the tilting pads needed no such assistance), up to 800RPM, when the wedge takes over, and the electric aux oil pump to provide bearing oil up to 2700RPM when the shaft driven pump takes over...never pulled apart one of those (ISO32) and not had an oily mess either, but they are clearly different to IC engines.

 

[BrocLuno]

Originally Posted By: CT8
Lets add that when engine is cold the pistons are oval and loose in the bore until they heat up enough to expand to round. The air fuel is enriched so more blow by and wash down of the oil film in the top of the cylinder bore. The heat activated adds aren't up to full what ever they do. Lets add that in freezing or below the time it takes for the oil to travel from the sump to the oil pump adds to the time with out full pressure,full flow lubrication. The oil passages may not remain full of oil after a period of sitting as the oil system is a bleed off system as they are no seals on the crankshaft rocker arms cam shaft, The only seals on the engine are to [try to] keep the oil inside of the engine.


Agreed

So with just what is in this thread, why can't we re-write Oil U ?? How about opening it up to group rewrite. Once the new version of it has passed group consensus, it could go up as a replacement. Crowd sourced info is inherently pier reviewed and is what is happening all over now. Why not BITOG...

Wayne ???

 

[MolaKule]

I would ask: Is Motor Oil University actually needed?

If you look at the "Additional Reading" section it includes up-to-date information on lubrication topics of general interest.

Why not just update the list for additional topics?

And what is wrong with the Forum, Science and Technology of Oils and lubricant Additives - Technical and White Papers as a source of good technical information? Many contributors have submitted a long list of technical papers to this forum.

Technical and White Papers

Quote:
So with just what is in this thread, why can't we re-write Oil U ?? How about opening it up to group rewrite. Once the new version of it has passed group consensus, it could go up as a replacement. Crowd sourced info is inherently pier reviewed and is what is happening all over now.


Crowd sourced info would be a chaotic approach.

 

[BrocLuno]

A lot of web suffers come by BITOG and read Oil U and move on. Then they cite it as a reference in other forums... It's banner piece. That's why it needs to be updated.

Those of here can find Science and White Papers. But the general public will never get that deep into it, or into BITOG.

 

[BrocLuno]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Crowd sourced info would be a chaotic approach.


Works for Wikipedia ... I have contributed over there (non-oil subjects) and it seems civil and workable

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
A lot of web suffers come by BITOG and read Oil U and move on. Then they cite it as a reference in other forums... It's banner piece. That's why it needs to be updated.

Those of here can find Science and White Papers. But the general public will never get that deep into it, or into BITOG.


Much depends on the persons depth of interest.

Quote:
Works for Wikipedia ... I have contributed over there (non-oil subjects) and it seems civil and workable
.

Wikipedia has a very precise set of rules and the guidance of an editorial staff.

You seemed to have been OU's major critic and you said you could rewrite it and now you want to pass it off to the "Cloud?"

My suggestion still stands: have one person who has the time to write it and then peer review it. We have at least 10 professionals in the industry here who could do that.

Either way, the final decision is up to Helen, the admins, and the mods.

 

[FCD]

I am also a Wikipedia editor and you can't just go therr ans write some [censored] you pulled out of your [censored], there is a long and strict list of rules, and you have to provide sources

 

[CT8]

Just the basic facts, oil keeps the parts separated. Then adds that protect when the oil film fails, then adds that prolong the service life of the oil. Then the viscosity improvers and pour point depressants. Then the group think of Syn oil good,conventional oil bad.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule


You seemed to have been OU's major critic and you said you could rewrite it and now you want to pass it off to the "Cloud?"

My suggestion still stands: have one person who has the time to write it and then peer review it. We have at least 10 professionals in the industry here who could do that.

Either way, the final decision is up to Helen, the admins, and the mods.


To be fair, Shannow has had various legitimate criticisms of it as well, many of which are in-line with BrocLuno's. I think the question you asked earlier is perhaps something that needs to be considered: Do we actually need it? If it wasn't there, it may result in more people joining and actually reading through some of the forum links you posted as well as the technical articles, which may be a better takeaway than what they'd gain from OU.

 

[Shannow]

Further, in various threads when the author of 101 has pointed back to 101 as providing THE answer, a number of times I have asked him to back up the "fact" with some credible source.

On each and every occasion, he has declined ti even engage in discussion.

As to do we need it ?

How do most people find, and get their information from BITOG ?

Probably a google search that gets them into a thread somewhere, so I don't see it as necessary to introduce people to the board, or the players.

Do we need a reference document ?

Possibly, but maybe more useful as a "sticky" at the top of each section/subsection of the boards, which is probably where new players will gravitate to after their first few exposures to posts.

Regardless, it needs to be accurate.

If you pass the "exams", you have unlearned something.

 

[CT8]

People are always regurgitating what they read in the oil university as fact. It has to be fact because I read it at Bob Is The Oil guy.

 

[BrocLuno]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Much depends on the persons depth of interest.


You seemed to have been OU's major critic and you said you could rewrite it and now you want to pass it off to the "Cloud?"


I never offered to re-write it, ever... Wayne (a Mod) asked me to put my concerns into the forum, which I have.

Shannow has done the same in the past.

I never suggested the "cloud". I suggested that the folks in this thread (here because of interest) take a shot at a re-write.

Maybe one of us could "seed" that with a revised 101 on how oil works as a lubricant in a common consumer engine environment ...

Given some time, I think I could do that. But it would be weeks off before I could pull it together.

I would like to keep Oil U so that, if correctly written, it could be pointed to for newbies and others to refer to

 

[Garak]

Well, that's part of the issue. There are some concerns with the articles, of course. There are several people here with the credentials to easily rewrite everything. It is a bit of an undertaking, however, which is probably why it hasn't already been done.

 

[69GTX]

I've been a performance car enthusiast since 1992...and a nuclear/combustion engineer since 1979. Yet, I never really got deep into the science/nuts & bolts of motor oils until 2014 when I was intrigued on some stuff I read over at LS1Tech.com. That was when I first ran across Motor Oil University and thought it was the "bible." I was a bit confused on some of the contradictions but figured it was me, and not the material. I only read MOU over 1-2 hours and moved on. Didn't even note or recognize there was a forum with a wealth of information to take me to the next step. It took me over a year later in Sept 2015 to find the BITOG forums, just by chance. Someone over at LS1Tech.com said something about "those BITOGERS" being fanatics. I didn't know what all that meant. What the heck was a "BITOGER? So I came back and found these forums. I spent the next few months reading hundreds of older pages. But...I'd never even have ever gotten here without the initial "hook" of MOU. Fwiw.

It would be nice if MOU were 99% accurate rather than 75% or 90%. I would agree that most people searching for the basics about viscosity and API ratings won't ever get past MOU. And they will perpetuate those same MOU misunderstandings if the information is left as is. The only "white" papers I've bothered to read are the ones Shannow and others have linked to this forum.

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Originally Posted By: MolaKule

Much depends on the persons depth of interest.


You seemed to have been OU's major critic and you said you could rewrite it and now you want to pass it off to the "Cloud?"


I never offered to re-write it, ever... Wayne (a Mod) asked me to put my concerns into the forum, which I have.

Shannow has done the same in the past.

I never suggested the "cloud". I suggested that the folks in this thread (here because of interest) take a shot at a re-write.

Maybe one of us could "seed" that with a revised 101 on how oil works as a lubricant in a common consumer engine environment ...

Given some time, I think I could do that. But it would be weeks off before I could pull it together.

I would like to keep Oil U so that, if correctly written, it could be pointed to for newbies and others to refer to

Fair enough.

I may have misunderstood the intent as to what Wayne wrote and what you stated afterwords.

It is for certain that MOU was never peer reviewed.

 

[BrocLuno]

Mr MolaKule - I just spent a couple hours looking through all the threads you and Terry were in about GC and other synthetics looking for the spectra-graphs and probable chemical breakdowns and I can't find them... What happened to that project and the data? I get some broken links and then nothing ...

The reason I ask is because I need to get my head around real synthetics vs USA marketing versions of "synthetic" and where true benefit might lay...

We are not going to run PAG's, so it's PAO's and Esters. But before I say anything definitive about synthetics, I need to know if there is any actual rational for their use in friction and heat reduction (beyond the 1% threshold...)?

I get the cold flow and the heat capability and maybe the extended OCI (but that may be dependent on a LOT outside just the oil). But can they actually reduce friction and increase efficiency?

If not, that bit of Oil U is nonsense. If they can, it needs to explained differently ...

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


My (well used to be my) GE derivative steam turbines aslo had electric and shaft driven oil pumps. One electric (jacking) to lift the shaft on the plain bearings (the tilting pads needed no such assistance), up to 800RPM, when the wedge takes over, and the electric aux oil pump to provide bearing oil up to 2700RPM when the shaft driven pump takes over...never pulled apart one of those (ISO32) and not had an oily mess either, but they are clearly different to IC engines.


Yet call the folks in Evandale (since you mention GE turbines), and for combustion-based turbines that have sat, they certainly do sometimes have concerns related to bearings. To the point that hand turn-over and close monitoring of the chip detector can be called for. Not always, but certainly isn't always a press the button and go unless properly kept to do so.

Of course that's a far cry in architecture, combustion design and loading design as compared to a reciprocating IC engine.

Yes stuff stays an oily mess. My retained theoretical concern in a reciprocating engine is that whatever oil made its way easily by whatever mechanism, can get mechanically displaced (yes, some, not all, though quality of that oil if in a heat soaked hot area last shutdown may be a consideration), and not readily replaced in the first (seconds) of operation. That can still be a lot of sliding events over a lifetime.

Granted, this is all at the fringes. Nobody is practically worried about this on a "cold soaked" engine at 25C, shut down 8 hours ago... Unless they're a real worrywort and want to influence things they may never practically see able edit from.

Still makes for interesting discussion here.

 

[Shannow]

JHZR2, the turbine example was in response to another turbine example brought to the thread, not my introduction...yep, a machine that has sat for some time needs barring for a long time, not for bearings per se, but to straighten the shafts and couplings which have sagged between runs...non straight shafts edge load bearings during barring, and cause vibration during runup...the ges also call for a rub check at a few hundred RPM for a few minutes.

Back to the engines...

There is a lot of oil in and around the piston area, held there, and drawn there via capillary action.

Similarly, that's why (engine) bearings are full when you pull them apart...there are reservoirs of oil in the main and big ends and galleries that keep the surfaces wetted and full for a ling time...they aren't draining back to the sump.

First number of reciprocations, you are into dynamic "squeeze film" with massively thicker viscosities than are normal running viscosities, and those will prevent to a pretty high degree surface sliding events.

Any decently pumpable oil will get delivered to the points of interest at pretty much the same time, meaning that at 25C, the difference between a 0W, 10W, and SAE30 is non existent for similarly formulated oils.

 

[BrocLuno]

I goinna use some of that one

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
Mr MolaKule - I just spent a couple hours looking through all the threads you and Terry were in about GC and other synthetics looking for the spectra-graphs and probable chemical breakdowns and I can't find them... What happened to that project and the data? I get some broken links and then nothing ...


I really don't know what happened to those files. I'll look back in my files and see if I captured any of those spectro files and graphs.

What specifically were you looking for?

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
The reason I ask is because I need to get my head around real synthetics vs USA marketing versions of "synthetic" and where true benefit might lay...


Virtual synthetics vs. real synthetics have been discussed ad naseum here. I have submitted my opinion(s) in various forums and people know that I am a "purist" when it comes to the definition of a real synthetic.

Originally Posted By: BrocLuno
We are not going to run PAG's, so it's PAO's and Esters. But before I say anything definitive about synthetics, I need to know if there is any actual rational for their use in friction and heat reduction (beyond the 1% threshold...)?

I get the cold flow and the heat capability and maybe the extended OCI (but that may be dependent on a LOT outside just the oil). But can they actually reduce friction and increase efficiency?

If not, that bit of Oil U is nonsense. If they can, it needs to [be] explained differently ...


In my view, it's the fractional thermal energy transfer increase and the inherent VI (wide operating temperature ranges) of PAO's over pure mineral-based oils that are the main advantages for the use of those synthetic base oils.

Esters, OSP's, and alkylated naphthalenes have been shown to reduce friction over mineral oils of the same viscosity.

Contrary to what is generally assumed, VII's ARE added to synthetic formulations to arrive at specific VI goals.

Additionally, it is mostly the enhanced additive package(s) available for synthetic base oil mixes that reduces friction and wear.

It should be stressed that it is not just one component of a commercial synthetic or mineral lube that gives it its advantages, but the Combination of ingredients of the Total mix.


A far as PAG's, there are tests being conducted by various entities to use Oil Soluble PAG's (OSP) as co-bases to reduce friction and wear. For the last two years I have been experimenting with various DOW OSP oils for various formulations.

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4087283/Re:_PAG_based_lubricants_..._w#Post4087283