I'm more interested in the finished product than the base oil...
Thin cleans better, allows longer OCI than thick!
- Thread starter Gokhan
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Just to remind everyone, this is all based on the BOQI index that Gokhan has come up with and is not a official index used by the oil companies.
Just to be clear I am following his made up theory and laughing at the absurdity of the pretense. The lack of evidence presented and doubling down of the creator of this mess has been delightful.
But certainly cannot be serious, just a troll willing to go the extra mile.
+1
Your deliberately false claim about what I said on NOACK was intentionally manufactured to draw the mob. I showed precisely that what I was doing regarding NOACK was right. Yet, you've kept pursuing the same bullying.
The difference between you and me (or the mob) is that I respect people and I don't bully them, even if I don't agree with them. If you don't agree with someone, say so and explain respectfully in a civil manner like I do.
Because we're on the Internet doesn't mean that civility comes last and we treat people in ways we would never in real life.
Originally Posted By: Bryanccfshr
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Just to remind everyone, this is all based on the BOQI index that Gokhan has come up with and is not a official index used by the oil companies.
Just to be clear I am following his made up theory and laughing at the absurdity of the pretense. The lack of evidence presented and doubling down of the creator of this mess has been delightful.
But certainly cannot be serious, just a troll willing to go the extra mile.
+1
Your deliberately false claim about what I said on NOACK was intentionally manufactured to draw the mob. I showed precisely that what I was doing regarding NOACK was right. Yet, you've kept pursuing the same bullying.
The difference between you and me (or the mob) is that I respect people and I don't bully them, even if I don't agree with them. If you don't agree with someone, say so and explain respectfully in a civil manner like I do.
Because we're on the Internet doesn't mean that civility comes last and we treat people in ways we would never in real life.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
I stand by my BOQI calculations and find them extremely useful.
They have been shown to predict whether an oil has PAO, GTL, or Group III. What other evidence is needed?
Sure, BOQI has its limitations but it has great use.
Again, this didn't even originate from me but through Chevron base-oil research.
If you don't believe it, don't use it. There is no need for being immature or uncivil.
So you are saying that Chevron invented the BOQI index?
I stand by my BOQI calculations and find them extremely useful.
They have been shown to predict whether an oil has PAO, GTL, or Group III. What other evidence is needed?
Sure, BOQI has its limitations but it has great use.
Again, this didn't even originate from me but through Chevron base-oil research.
If you don't believe it, don't use it. There is no need for being immature or uncivil.
So you are saying that Chevron invented the BOQI index?
Originally Posted By: PimTac
So you are saying that Chevron invented the BOQI index?
They invented the idea that NOACK and CCS together can be used to predict the base-oil quality, meaning whether a base oil will meet an API, ACEA, or OEM category. In more precise language, in their patent, they were looking at whether an untested base oil would meet API CJ-4 and ACEA E9 based solely on its combined NOACK and CCS performance without actually doing the engine and bench tests.
Their method is different in that they generate a whole NOACK vs. CCS curve with the tested base stocks first and then see if the NOACK and CCS data point of the untested base oil falls below or above this curve. My method is simpler, looking at NOACK*CCS. Neither method is perfect, especially because CCS is strongly temperature-dependent. Both have their use.
Basically, I used their idea to develop a similar method for predicting the base-oil quality after seeing it in a presentation of theirs.
So you are saying that Chevron invented the BOQI index?
They invented the idea that NOACK and CCS together can be used to predict the base-oil quality, meaning whether a base oil will meet an API, ACEA, or OEM category. In more precise language, in their patent, they were looking at whether an untested base oil would meet API CJ-4 and ACEA E9 based solely on its combined NOACK and CCS performance without actually doing the engine and bench tests.
Their method is different in that they generate a whole NOACK vs. CCS curve with the tested base stocks first and then see if the NOACK and CCS data point of the untested base oil falls below or above this curve. My method is simpler, looking at NOACK*CCS. Neither method is perfect, especially because CCS is strongly temperature-dependent. Both have their use.
Basically, I used their idea to develop a similar method for predicting the base-oil quality after seeing it in a presentation of theirs.
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: PimTac
So you are saying that Chevron invented the BOQI index?
They invented the idea that NOACK and CCS together can be used to predict the base-oil quality, meaning whether a base oil will meet an API, ACEA, or OEM category. In more precise language, in their patent, they were looking at whether an untested base oil would meet API CJ-4 and ACEA E9 based solely on its combined NOACK and CCS performance without actually doing the engine and bench tests.
Their method is different in that they generate a whole NOACK vs. CCS curve with the tested base stocks first and then see if the NOACK and CCS data point of the untested base oil falls below or above this curve. My method is simpler, looking at NOACK*CCS. Neither method is perfect, especially because CCS is strongly temperature-dependent. Both have their use.
Basically, I used their idea to develop a similar method for predicting the base-oil quality after seeing it in a presentation of theirs.
So if one had a tough application … say gear boxes at cement plants in South Texas … would this work?
Originally Posted By: PimTac
So you are saying that Chevron invented the BOQI index?
They invented the idea that NOACK and CCS together can be used to predict the base-oil quality, meaning whether a base oil will meet an API, ACEA, or OEM category. In more precise language, in their patent, they were looking at whether an untested base oil would meet API CJ-4 and ACEA E9 based solely on its combined NOACK and CCS performance without actually doing the engine and bench tests.
Their method is different in that they generate a whole NOACK vs. CCS curve with the tested base stocks first and then see if the NOACK and CCS data point of the untested base oil falls below or above this curve. My method is simpler, looking at NOACK*CCS. Neither method is perfect, especially because CCS is strongly temperature-dependent. Both have their use.
Basically, I used their idea to develop a similar method for predicting the base-oil quality after seeing it in a presentation of theirs.
So if one had a tough application … say gear boxes at cement plants in South Texas … would this work?
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: PimTac
So you are saying that Chevron invented the BOQI index?
They invented the idea that NOACK and CCS together can be used to predict the base-oil quality
For anyone interested in what the Chevron patent ACTUALLY was for go back a few pages and read what I posted on reviewing it.
It’s a predictive tool for oil blending, using base oils of KNOWN quality from their slate.
Co-opting the premise to this nonsense, and then claiming that
* it’s supported by Chevrons patents; and
* to deny that BOQI works and is valid is to claim that Chevron’s patents are false.
Is in the first point laughable, and the second a ridiculous straw man attack.
Originally Posted By: PimTac
So you are saying that Chevron invented the BOQI index?
They invented the idea that NOACK and CCS together can be used to predict the base-oil quality
For anyone interested in what the Chevron patent ACTUALLY was for go back a few pages and read what I posted on reviewing it.
It’s a predictive tool for oil blending, using base oils of KNOWN quality from their slate.
Co-opting the premise to this nonsense, and then claiming that
* it’s supported by Chevrons patents; and
* to deny that BOQI works and is valid is to claim that Chevron’s patents are false.
Is in the first point laughable, and the second a ridiculous straw man attack.
Originally Posted By: nap
Say Galileo, have you ever pondered what units of measure would that “index” of yours have in the international system of units, and to which physical property of the oil it might thus relate?
See one of the above posts.
You take viscosity with a shear stress time function, and just by NOACK (taken to be time), then declare that it,s now a pressure, and an inherent chemical quantity in the oil blend relation to the pressure required to separate the oil molecules.
Say Galileo, have you ever pondered what units of measure would that “index” of yours have in the international system of units, and to which physical property of the oil it might thus relate?
See one of the above posts.
You take viscosity with a shear stress time function, and just by NOACK (taken to be time), then declare that it,s now a pressure, and an inherent chemical quantity in the oil blend relation to the pressure required to separate the oil molecules.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Again, the scope here is not to go into the weeds discussing NOACK. You asked for a real curve and you got it. It's in full agreement with my simple calculation, the scope of which has nothing to the with the details of the NOACK methodology.
We have an idea about methodology, and a means to come up with curves, but I would want to see much more evidence before we say we can derive a curve on an academic basis. We see one graph, with a reference oil included, plus the tested oil. It would be good to see various fully formulated oils of varying base stocks to see how well the curve stands up, or if something else is required with respect to a constant and so forth.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Let's agree to disagree here about the units of NOACK, which started this whole thing. I see your point but for some reason it's impossible to make mine across.
I have no problem with introducing units when we have a real curve. Otherwise, it gets pretty useless. As you point out, there's heating time, not to mention leaving it in the apparatus far too long and trying to discern something (i.e. leave it in for a day). On its own, though, the instructions (simplified) to heat a measured mass of oil to a specified temperature, wait x number of minutes, and then obtain the mass again, with only that one point, won't give us time as a unit.
In any case, you catch a lot of grief here, but your dedication and interest are certainly appreciated. With respect to the original premise of the thread, as in the title, I'd look at it this way. Viscosity doesn't clean much, nor do base stocks on their own. With respect to OCI length, additive package is at least as important as base stock. As you know, you can have a very robust E7, E9 lubricant (or something even older with high ash) in a conventional, versus a C3 or other similar low SAPS synthetic.
Again, the scope here is not to go into the weeds discussing NOACK. You asked for a real curve and you got it. It's in full agreement with my simple calculation, the scope of which has nothing to the with the details of the NOACK methodology.
We have an idea about methodology, and a means to come up with curves, but I would want to see much more evidence before we say we can derive a curve on an academic basis. We see one graph, with a reference oil included, plus the tested oil. It would be good to see various fully formulated oils of varying base stocks to see how well the curve stands up, or if something else is required with respect to a constant and so forth.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Let's agree to disagree here about the units of NOACK, which started this whole thing. I see your point but for some reason it's impossible to make mine across.
I have no problem with introducing units when we have a real curve. Otherwise, it gets pretty useless. As you point out, there's heating time, not to mention leaving it in the apparatus far too long and trying to discern something (i.e. leave it in for a day). On its own, though, the instructions (simplified) to heat a measured mass of oil to a specified temperature, wait x number of minutes, and then obtain the mass again, with only that one point, won't give us time as a unit.
In any case, you catch a lot of grief here, but your dedication and interest are certainly appreciated. With respect to the original premise of the thread, as in the title, I'd look at it this way. Viscosity doesn't clean much, nor do base stocks on their own. With respect to OCI length, additive package is at least as important as base stock. As you know, you can have a very robust E7, E9 lubricant (or something even older with high ash) in a conventional, versus a C3 or other similar low SAPS synthetic.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: PimTac
So you are saying that Chevron invented the BOQI index?
They invented the idea that NOACK and CCS together can be used to predict the base-oil quality
For anyone interested in what the Chevron patent ACTUALLY was for go back a few pages and read what I posted on reviewing it.
It’s a predictive tool for oil blending, using base oils of KNOWN quality from their slate.
Co-opting the premise to this nonsense, and then claiming that
* it’s supported by Chevrons patents; and
* to deny that BOQI works and is valid is to claim that Chevron’s patents are false.
Is in the first point laughable, and the second a ridiculous straw man attack.
Shannow, I think people on BITOG have long been familiar with that it's typical of you to you use words such as "nonsense," "ridiculous," "straw man," and "wow" in order to shoot down others' ideas and statements.
No, you never understood the Chevron patent. Instead, you made the blatantly false claim that the entire dozens-of-pages-long patent was about nothing but the SAE cold-viscosity requirements (5W, 10W, 15W, etc.). If there is something ridiculous, then nothing is more ridiculous than your analysis of the patent that reduces it to a trivial claim.
Why in the world do you even need a patent or a complicated method to determine if a base oil meets the cold-spec requirements? CCS, MRV, NOACK, KV40, KV100, VI, and NOACK values are already measured and tabulated for the base oils they have. These quantities are entirely sufficient for determining if the base oil meets the viscosity and NOACK requirements of a given SAE/API spec.
Chevron patent: Method for predicting a property of a base oil (link)
The patent goes into great detail in discussing base-oil quality for various base-stock types.
Some of the key claims are that
(1)(c)... wherein the curve predicts whether a base oil that is a blend of the first base stock and the second base stock will meet base oil requirements for a finished lubricant;
(4)... wherein the multigrade engine oil meets an engine oil specification selected from the group of API CJ-4, ACEA E9, or a combination thereof.
The patent is really long and difficult to analyze and digest. However, by requirement, they are talking about an empirically established target CCS and NOACK range, not simply the SAE/API maximums.
It's really complicated and they make a great effort toward understanding the base-oil quality for practical oil-blending applications.
Now, this is the interesting part regarding the base-oil quality index (BOQI)!
After a very lengthy and complicated analysis, they define this quantity:
(0036) In one embodiment, the base oil has a ratio of NOACK volatility to CCS VIS at -25° C multiplied by 100 within a desired range. The desired range may be from 0.80 to 1.55, from 0.90 to 1.40, from 0.90 to 1.30, or from 1.0 to 1.30.
This is their (unsuccessful) attempt at BOQI!
They then give examples in (0064):
"Chevron's BOQI" = 100*NOACK/CCS@-25 (lower the better)
Oil A: 1.19 = 1.00 * Oil A (0% better)
Oil B: 1.06 = 0.89 * Oil A (11% better)
Oil C: 1.88 = 1.58 * Oil A (58% worse)
Let's compare this with "my 1/BOQI" = NOACK*CCS@-25/1,300,000 (lower the better)
Oil A: 0.0170 = 1.00 * Oil A (0% better)
Oil B: 0.0162 = 0.95 * Oil A (5% better)
Oil C: 0.0220 = 1.29 * Oil A (29% worse)
While the Chevron BOQI and my BOQI are in the same direction, look at them and decide which one makes more sense? Their BOQI values are highly exaggerated if not unreliable because they failed to correct for CCS! In other words, they did make an attempt at BOQI but it wasn't very succesfful, as they missed the opportunity to correct for the CCS and obtain a better benchmark.
There is another example in (0067):
"Chevron's BOQI" = 100*NOACK/CCS@-25 (lower the better)
Oil A: 1.76 = 1.00 * Oil A (0% better)
Oil B: 3.22 = 1.83 * Oil A (83% worse)
Let's compare this with "my 1/BOQI" = NOACK*CCS@-25/1,300,000 (lower the better)
Oil A: 0.0031 = 1.00 * Oil A (0% better)
Oil B: 0.0039 = 1.26 * Oil A (26% worse)
Obviously 83% worse doesn't make sense because Chevron fails to correct for CCS and my BOQI gives a much better prediction for the base-oil quality and/or performance.
In summary, the Chevron patent is very long and complicated and they make an honest and rigorous attempt in dealing with the base-oil quality and/or performance by solely studying the NOACK and CCS behavior. They do introduce an "index" in the process but they fail to observe that the index can be made more robust by simply accounting for the effect of CCS on NOACK, while still considering the effect of both NOACK and CCS on base-oil performance. My base-oil quality index (BOQI) improves on Chevron's index by accounting for CCS variations and making it a more universal property, which can be very useful in comparing base oils and also correlating them with API base-stock groups.
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Originally Posted By: PimTac
So you are saying that Chevron invented the BOQI index?
They invented the idea that NOACK and CCS together can be used to predict the base-oil quality
For anyone interested in what the Chevron patent ACTUALLY was for go back a few pages and read what I posted on reviewing it.
It’s a predictive tool for oil blending, using base oils of KNOWN quality from their slate.
Co-opting the premise to this nonsense, and then claiming that
* it’s supported by Chevrons patents; and
* to deny that BOQI works and is valid is to claim that Chevron’s patents are false.
Is in the first point laughable, and the second a ridiculous straw man attack.
Shannow, I think people on BITOG have long been familiar with that it's typical of you to you use words such as "nonsense," "ridiculous," "straw man," and "wow" in order to shoot down others' ideas and statements.
No, you never understood the Chevron patent. Instead, you made the blatantly false claim that the entire dozens-of-pages-long patent was about nothing but the SAE cold-viscosity requirements (5W, 10W, 15W, etc.). If there is something ridiculous, then nothing is more ridiculous than your analysis of the patent that reduces it to a trivial claim.
Why in the world do you even need a patent or a complicated method to determine if a base oil meets the cold-spec requirements? CCS, MRV, NOACK, KV40, KV100, VI, and NOACK values are already measured and tabulated for the base oils they have. These quantities are entirely sufficient for determining if the base oil meets the viscosity and NOACK requirements of a given SAE/API spec.
Chevron patent: Method for predicting a property of a base oil (link)
The patent goes into great detail in discussing base-oil quality for various base-stock types.
Some of the key claims are that
(1)(c)... wherein the curve predicts whether a base oil that is a blend of the first base stock and the second base stock will meet base oil requirements for a finished lubricant;
(4)... wherein the multigrade engine oil meets an engine oil specification selected from the group of API CJ-4, ACEA E9, or a combination thereof.
The patent is really long and difficult to analyze and digest. However, by requirement, they are talking about an empirically established target CCS and NOACK range, not simply the SAE/API maximums.
It's really complicated and they make a great effort toward understanding the base-oil quality for practical oil-blending applications.
Now, this is the interesting part regarding the base-oil quality index (BOQI)!
After a very lengthy and complicated analysis, they define this quantity:
(0036) In one embodiment, the base oil has a ratio of NOACK volatility to CCS VIS at -25° C multiplied by 100 within a desired range. The desired range may be from 0.80 to 1.55, from 0.90 to 1.40, from 0.90 to 1.30, or from 1.0 to 1.30.
This is their (unsuccessful) attempt at BOQI!
They then give examples in (0064):
"Chevron's BOQI" = 100*NOACK/CCS@-25 (lower the better)
Oil A: 1.19 = 1.00 * Oil A (0% better)
Oil B: 1.06 = 0.89 * Oil A (11% better)
Oil C: 1.88 = 1.58 * Oil A (58% worse)
Let's compare this with "my 1/BOQI" = NOACK*CCS@-25/1,300,000 (lower the better)
Oil A: 0.0170 = 1.00 * Oil A (0% better)
Oil B: 0.0162 = 0.95 * Oil A (5% better)
Oil C: 0.0220 = 1.29 * Oil A (29% worse)
While the Chevron BOQI and my BOQI are in the same direction, look at them and decide which one makes more sense? Their BOQI values are highly exaggerated if not unreliable because they failed to correct for CCS! In other words, they did make an attempt at BOQI but it wasn't very succesfful, as they missed the opportunity to correct for the CCS and obtain a better benchmark.
There is another example in (0067):
"Chevron's BOQI" = 100*NOACK/CCS@-25 (lower the better)
Oil A: 1.76 = 1.00 * Oil A (0% better)
Oil B: 3.22 = 1.83 * Oil A (83% worse)
Let's compare this with "my 1/BOQI" = NOACK*CCS@-25/1,300,000 (lower the better)
Oil A: 0.0031 = 1.00 * Oil A (0% better)
Oil B: 0.0039 = 1.26 * Oil A (26% worse)
Obviously 83% worse doesn't make sense because Chevron fails to correct for CCS and my BOQI gives a much better prediction for the base-oil quality and/or performance.
In summary, the Chevron patent is very long and complicated and they make an honest and rigorous attempt in dealing with the base-oil quality and/or performance by solely studying the NOACK and CCS behavior. They do introduce an "index" in the process but they fail to observe that the index can be made more robust by simply accounting for the effect of CCS on NOACK, while still considering the effect of both NOACK and CCS on base-oil performance. My base-oil quality index (BOQI) improves on Chevron's index by accounting for CCS variations and making it a more universal property, which can be very useful in comparing base oils and also correlating them with API base-stock groups.
Uh huh
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Shannow, I think people on BITOG have long been familiar with that it's typical of you to you use words such as "nonsense," "ridiculous," "straw man," and "wow" in order to shoot down others' ideas and statements.
I'll give you examples where I use them...
"Wow"...I tend to use that for examples that resemble this video...they are "Wow" moments.
In these cases, the (lets call him magician) presents something amazing, with absolutely no means of support other than to trust in his supranormal abilities.
"strawman" gets reserved for things like...
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
So, JAG and Shannow object to the patent because they know better than the Chevron base-oil researches.
You are fabricating a strawman...that fact that we object to your BOQI is NOT the basis for your claim that we are objecting to the patent, and know better than the Chevron researches.
The problem is your number, and your justifying it against the Chevron research, NOT anything to do with Chevron's patent...fighting a strawman that YOU create is not defending your position.
This is nearly a strawman like the above...
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
This "pseudoscience" is actually the work of Chevron Global Base Oils (presentation). Perhaps you should send a message to John Rosenbaum.
But it's also an argument to authority, claiming that your BOQI is validated by this guy's work.
"Nonsense"
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Nevertheless, ester base oil has poor hydrolytic stability and that's probably what the lower BOQI is telling you.
...although it's pretty close to a "Wow".
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The BOQI idea has been patented by Chevron and I linked and explained that. It's used in many of Chevron's base-oil publications.
The never did any such thing...they patented a mechanism to determine "A PROPERTY" that helped them bench blend without the testing.
"Ridiculous"...
Your intentional misreading of the API table to support something to do with your argument.
The assertions on the assumptions of NOACK...when it's virtually impossible to find a NOACK curve because of the nature of the test, and the curve in an advertising blurb (that I found) for a substitute test that "calibrate" off a Noack reference oil which already has an error of 6% in it's intended application
(BTW, I love the test...again, not your utilisation of it...so no strawmen about what I'm saying about it please)….
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
No, you never understood the Chevron patent. Instead, you made the blatantly false claim that the entire dozens-of-pages-long patent was about nothing but the SAE cold-viscosity requirements (5W, 10W, 15W, etc.). If there is something ridiculous, then nothing is more ridiculous than your analysis of the patent that reduces it to a trivial claim.
Really...here's what I said...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
He produces a family of curves on NOACK and CCS for various mixes of oil basestocks...that is true.
Then for a target grade (xW - 20, 30, 40, 50, 60) use the simple blend method to target the KV100 required to meet the grade.
Then looks that the NOACK target and CCS target for the new oil formulation, and checks from his pre-prepared curves whether the blend exceeds the design intent or needs "modification" via the addition of a superior basestock to do it...via the introduction of a "trim stock".
Note, that's NOT what you claim I said...there's another word for this...but I'm scratching for it...it's not misrepresentation, it's worse than that...rhymes with pie ???
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Why in the world do you even need a patent or a complicated method to determine if a base oil meets the cold-spec requirements? CCS, MRV, NOACK, KV40, KV100, VI, and NOACK values are already measured and tabulated for the base oils they have. These quantities are entirely sufficient for determining if the base oil meets the viscosity and NOACK requirements of a given SAE/API spec.
Here you go with your strawman again...take something that I DIDN'T say, and beat it to death...
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
...more circular logic, and misrepresentation of the papers.....not worth the effort at this point
Shannow, I think people on BITOG have long been familiar with that it's typical of you to you use words such as "nonsense," "ridiculous," "straw man," and "wow" in order to shoot down others' ideas and statements.
I'll give you examples where I use them...
"Wow"...I tend to use that for examples that resemble this video...they are "Wow" moments.
In these cases, the (lets call him magician) presents something amazing, with absolutely no means of support other than to trust in his supranormal abilities.
"strawman" gets reserved for things like...
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
So, JAG and Shannow object to the patent because they know better than the Chevron base-oil researches.
You are fabricating a strawman...that fact that we object to your BOQI is NOT the basis for your claim that we are objecting to the patent, and know better than the Chevron researches.
The problem is your number, and your justifying it against the Chevron research, NOT anything to do with Chevron's patent...fighting a strawman that YOU create is not defending your position.
This is nearly a strawman like the above...
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
This "pseudoscience" is actually the work of Chevron Global Base Oils (presentation). Perhaps you should send a message to John Rosenbaum.
But it's also an argument to authority, claiming that your BOQI is validated by this guy's work.
"Nonsense"
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Nevertheless, ester base oil has poor hydrolytic stability and that's probably what the lower BOQI is telling you.
...although it's pretty close to a "Wow".
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
The BOQI idea has been patented by Chevron and I linked and explained that. It's used in many of Chevron's base-oil publications.
The never did any such thing...they patented a mechanism to determine "A PROPERTY" that helped them bench blend without the testing.
"Ridiculous"...
Your intentional misreading of the API table to support something to do with your argument.
The assertions on the assumptions of NOACK...when it's virtually impossible to find a NOACK curve because of the nature of the test, and the curve in an advertising blurb (that I found) for a substitute test that "calibrate" off a Noack reference oil which already has an error of 6% in it's intended application
(BTW, I love the test...again, not your utilisation of it...so no strawmen about what I'm saying about it please)….
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
No, you never understood the Chevron patent. Instead, you made the blatantly false claim that the entire dozens-of-pages-long patent was about nothing but the SAE cold-viscosity requirements (5W, 10W, 15W, etc.). If there is something ridiculous, then nothing is more ridiculous than your analysis of the patent that reduces it to a trivial claim.
Really...here's what I said...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
He produces a family of curves on NOACK and CCS for various mixes of oil basestocks...that is true.
Then for a target grade (xW - 20, 30, 40, 50, 60) use the simple blend method to target the KV100 required to meet the grade.
Then looks that the NOACK target and CCS target for the new oil formulation, and checks from his pre-prepared curves whether the blend exceeds the design intent or needs "modification" via the addition of a superior basestock to do it...via the introduction of a "trim stock".
Note, that's NOT what you claim I said...there's another word for this...but I'm scratching for it...it's not misrepresentation, it's worse than that...rhymes with pie ???
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
Why in the world do you even need a patent or a complicated method to determine if a base oil meets the cold-spec requirements? CCS, MRV, NOACK, KV40, KV100, VI, and NOACK values are already measured and tabulated for the base oils they have. These quantities are entirely sufficient for determining if the base oil meets the viscosity and NOACK requirements of a given SAE/API spec.
Here you go with your strawman again...take something that I DIDN'T say, and beat it to death...
Originally Posted By: Gokhan
...more circular logic, and misrepresentation of the papers.....not worth the effort at this point
3 pages of drawings and tile/abstract.
Then onto Page 1 (of 8)...which starts with definitions including viscosity, hydrocracking, viscosity index, etc, and methods of increasing basestock performance in the above definitions.
Then the "guts" of the patent, a couple of columns (if that)
Quote:
A Method for Predicting a Property of a Base Oil
0054 We provide a method for predicting a property of a base oil that comprises selecting a first base stock and a second base Stock. A chart is prepared having a first point that is a first viscometric property under low temperature and a first volatility of the first base stock. The chart also has a second point that is a second viscometric property under low temperature and a second Volatility of the second base stock. The first base stock and the second base stock are blended in varying proportions to construct a curve between the first point and the second point on the chart. The curve predicts whether a base oil that is a blend of the first base stock and the second base stock will meet base oil requirements for a finished lubricant. If the curve falls below a point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricants, then the base oil blend of the first base stock and the second base stock are capable of making the finished lubricant. If the curve falls above the point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricant, then the correct type of a trim stock is ascertained by a direction and a distance one would need to shift the curve.
0055. In this disclosure the position of the curve as being either above or below is relative to how the chart is drawn. For this description, it is assumed that the chart is drawn with the y-axis having the Volatility from low to high as one moves away from the origin of the chart. It is also assumed that the chart is drawn with the X-axis having the Viscometric property charted from low to high as one moves away from the origin of the chart. If the chart is drawn with the y-axis having the Volatility from high to low as one moves away from the origin of the chart and with the viscometric property from high to low as one moves away from the origin, then the position of the curve being above in fact means that the curve is on the upper value side for the volatility and the viscometric property rather than visually on the upper side in the chart. If the chart is drawn with the y-axis having the volatility from high to low as one moves away from the origin of the chart and with the viscometric property from high to low as one moves away from the origin of the chart, then the position of the curve being below in fact means that the curve is on the lower value side for the volatility and the viscometric property rather than visually on the lower side in the chart.
0056. In one embodiment the finished lubricant is an engine oil. In some embodiments the finished lubricant is a multigrade engine oil, such as 5W-XX, 10W-XX, or 15W XX, where XX is selected from the group consisting of 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60.
0057. In one embodiment the first and second viscometric properties under low temperature are CCS VIS at -25°C. In another embodiment the first volatility and the second volatility are Noack volatility.
0058. In one embodiment the curve falls above the point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricant, and a trim stock is needed to shift the curve below the point. The trim Stock is a base oil that has properties that bring the curve in the correct direction. For example, the trim stock may be a Group II, a Group III, or a Group IV base oil; as long as it has desired properties that bring the curve in the correct direction. Generally, less of the trim stock is needed the closer the curve is to the point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricant.
0059. In one embodiment, the first base stock, the second base stock, and the trim stock are all Group II. There can be advantages to using all Group II for reducing formulation costs and for simplifying engine oil qualifications.
0060 For the purposes of this specification and appended claims, unless otherwise indicated, all numbers expressing quantities, percentages or proportions, and other numerical values used in the specification and claims, are to be under stood as being modified in all instances by the term “about.” Furthermore, all ranges disclosed herein are inclusive of the endpoints and are independently combinable. Whenever a numerical range with a lower limit and an upper limit are disclosed, any number falling within the range is also specifically disclosed.
0061 Any term, abbreviation or shorthand not defined is understood to have the ordinary meaning used by a person skilled in the art at the time the application is filed. The singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the include plural references unless expressly and unequivocally limited to one instance.
0062 All of the publications, patents and patent applications cited in this application are herein incorporated by reference in their entirety to the same extent as if the disclosure of each individual publication, patent application or patent was specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference in its entirety.
0063. This written description uses examples to disclose the invention, including the best mode, and also to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention. Many modifications of the exemplary embodiments of the invention disclosed above will readily occur to those skilled in the art Accordingly, the invention is to be construed as including all structure and methods that fall within the scope of the appended claims.
Then a couple pages of examples....followed by the claims...
Quote:
We claim:
1. A method for predicting a property of a base oil, comprising:
a. Selecting a first base stock and a second base stock;
b. preparing a chart having: i.a first point with a first viscometric property under low temperature and a first volatility of the first base stock;
ii. a second point with a second viscometric property under low temperature and a second volatility of the second base stock;
c. blending the first base stock and the second base stock in varying proportions to construct a curve between the first point and the second point on the chart; wherein the curve predicts whether a base oil that is a blend of the first base stock and the second base stock will meet base oil requirements for a finished lubricant;
d. if the curve falls below a point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricant, then the base oil blend of the first base stock and the second base stock are capable of making the finished lubricant; e. if the curve falls above the point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricant, then the correct type of a trim Stock is ascertained by a direction and a distance one would need to shift the curve.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the finished lubricant is a multigrade engine oil.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the multigrade engine oil is a 5W-XX grade, a 10W-XX grade, or a 15W-XX grade, wherein XX is selected from the group consisting of 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the multigrade engine oil meets an engine oil specification selected from the group of API CJ-4, ACEA E9, or a combination thereof.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first viscometric property under low temperature and the second viscometric property under low temperature are CCS VIS at -25°C. 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first volatility and the second volatility are Noack volatility.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first base stock and the second base stock are petroleum derived.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the first base stock and the second base stock are Group II or Group III.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the trim stock is a Group II, a Group III or a Group IV.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the first base stock, the second base stock, and the trim Stock are Group II.
11. A blend chart, comprising:
a. a first point defined by a first viscometric property and a first volatility of a first base stock:
b. a second point defined by a second viscometric property and a second second volatility of a second base stock;
c. a curve drawn between the first point and the second point that predicts a third viscometric property and a third volatility of one or more blends of the first base stock and the second base stock; and
d. one or more target ranges enclosing desired values of a fourth viscometric property and a fourth volatility that are required to meet a specification for a finished lubricant; wherein the position of the curve relative to the one or more target ranges predicts whether a blend of the first base stock and the second base stock will meet the specification for the finished lubricant.
12. The blend chart of claim 11, additionally comprising one or more additional points defined by an additional viscometric property and an additional Volatility of one or more other base stocks; and a position of one or more of the additional points instructs a user of the chart how much of the one or more other base stocks may be blended with the blend of the first base stock and the second base stock to meet the specification for the finished lubricant.
13. The blend chart of claim 11, wherein the first, second, third, and fourth viscometric properties are CCS VIS.
14. The blend chart of claim 13, wherein the CCS VIS is measured at -25°C. 15. The blend chart of claim 11, wherein the first, second, third, and fourth volatilities are Noack volatility.
16. The blend chart of claim 11, wherein the finished lubricant is an engine oil.
17. The blend chart of claim 11, wherein the one or more target ranges enclose desired values of CCS VIS and Noack Volatility for one or more multigrade engine oils selected from the group of 5W-XX grade, 10W-XX grade, 15W-XX grade, and combinations thereof.
18. The blend chart of claim 17, wherein the CCS VIS is measured at -25°C.
19. The blend chart of claim 11, wherein the target range is a point.
20. The blend chart of claim 12, additionally comprising a second curve between the first point and the additional point and a third curve between the additional point and the second point; wherein the three curves enclose a ternary blending space; and wherein the one or more target ranges fall within the ternary blending space.
Note that the patent is extraordinarily bland...being mostly definitions and descriptions of their prowess at making basestocks. The description of the work is a small part of the whole.
One could also consider that the idea of mapping the CCS/NOACK curves for a variety of basestocks and using that to predict whether they met the chosen CCS/NOACK specs for a draft oil could be considered common sense, and not all that novel...but novel enough to get a patent for the thing in total.
And please consider how the OP has taken the above, and morphed it into this thread.
I personally do not believe that I have misrepresented the contents of the above in my shortened interpretation.
- Map your combinations of base oil stocks
- decide on the KV100 of the oil that you wish to make, which then gives you the simple blends of your base stocks (arithmetically, they don't describe that).
- Decide on your CCS (for 5W, 10W, 15W per the patent), and NOACK (for the other specs).
- Draw a point on your chart
- See if the blend meets the spec, or needs to be trimmed.
Then onto Page 1 (of 8)...which starts with definitions including viscosity, hydrocracking, viscosity index, etc, and methods of increasing basestock performance in the above definitions.
Then the "guts" of the patent, a couple of columns (if that)
Quote:
A Method for Predicting a Property of a Base Oil
0054 We provide a method for predicting a property of a base oil that comprises selecting a first base stock and a second base Stock. A chart is prepared having a first point that is a first viscometric property under low temperature and a first volatility of the first base stock. The chart also has a second point that is a second viscometric property under low temperature and a second Volatility of the second base stock. The first base stock and the second base stock are blended in varying proportions to construct a curve between the first point and the second point on the chart. The curve predicts whether a base oil that is a blend of the first base stock and the second base stock will meet base oil requirements for a finished lubricant. If the curve falls below a point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricants, then the base oil blend of the first base stock and the second base stock are capable of making the finished lubricant. If the curve falls above the point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricant, then the correct type of a trim stock is ascertained by a direction and a distance one would need to shift the curve.
0055. In this disclosure the position of the curve as being either above or below is relative to how the chart is drawn. For this description, it is assumed that the chart is drawn with the y-axis having the Volatility from low to high as one moves away from the origin of the chart. It is also assumed that the chart is drawn with the X-axis having the Viscometric property charted from low to high as one moves away from the origin of the chart. If the chart is drawn with the y-axis having the Volatility from high to low as one moves away from the origin of the chart and with the viscometric property from high to low as one moves away from the origin, then the position of the curve being above in fact means that the curve is on the upper value side for the volatility and the viscometric property rather than visually on the upper side in the chart. If the chart is drawn with the y-axis having the volatility from high to low as one moves away from the origin of the chart and with the viscometric property from high to low as one moves away from the origin of the chart, then the position of the curve being below in fact means that the curve is on the lower value side for the volatility and the viscometric property rather than visually on the lower side in the chart.
0056. In one embodiment the finished lubricant is an engine oil. In some embodiments the finished lubricant is a multigrade engine oil, such as 5W-XX, 10W-XX, or 15W XX, where XX is selected from the group consisting of 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60.
0057. In one embodiment the first and second viscometric properties under low temperature are CCS VIS at -25°C. In another embodiment the first volatility and the second volatility are Noack volatility.
0058. In one embodiment the curve falls above the point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricant, and a trim stock is needed to shift the curve below the point. The trim Stock is a base oil that has properties that bring the curve in the correct direction. For example, the trim stock may be a Group II, a Group III, or a Group IV base oil; as long as it has desired properties that bring the curve in the correct direction. Generally, less of the trim stock is needed the closer the curve is to the point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricant.
0059. In one embodiment, the first base stock, the second base stock, and the trim stock are all Group II. There can be advantages to using all Group II for reducing formulation costs and for simplifying engine oil qualifications.
0060 For the purposes of this specification and appended claims, unless otherwise indicated, all numbers expressing quantities, percentages or proportions, and other numerical values used in the specification and claims, are to be under stood as being modified in all instances by the term “about.” Furthermore, all ranges disclosed herein are inclusive of the endpoints and are independently combinable. Whenever a numerical range with a lower limit and an upper limit are disclosed, any number falling within the range is also specifically disclosed.
0061 Any term, abbreviation or shorthand not defined is understood to have the ordinary meaning used by a person skilled in the art at the time the application is filed. The singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the include plural references unless expressly and unequivocally limited to one instance.
0062 All of the publications, patents and patent applications cited in this application are herein incorporated by reference in their entirety to the same extent as if the disclosure of each individual publication, patent application or patent was specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference in its entirety.
0063. This written description uses examples to disclose the invention, including the best mode, and also to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention. Many modifications of the exemplary embodiments of the invention disclosed above will readily occur to those skilled in the art Accordingly, the invention is to be construed as including all structure and methods that fall within the scope of the appended claims.
Then a couple pages of examples....followed by the claims...
Quote:
We claim:
1. A method for predicting a property of a base oil, comprising:
a. Selecting a first base stock and a second base stock;
b. preparing a chart having: i.a first point with a first viscometric property under low temperature and a first volatility of the first base stock;
ii. a second point with a second viscometric property under low temperature and a second volatility of the second base stock;
c. blending the first base stock and the second base stock in varying proportions to construct a curve between the first point and the second point on the chart; wherein the curve predicts whether a base oil that is a blend of the first base stock and the second base stock will meet base oil requirements for a finished lubricant;
d. if the curve falls below a point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricant, then the base oil blend of the first base stock and the second base stock are capable of making the finished lubricant; e. if the curve falls above the point representing the base oil requirements for the finished lubricant, then the correct type of a trim Stock is ascertained by a direction and a distance one would need to shift the curve.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the finished lubricant is a multigrade engine oil.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the multigrade engine oil is a 5W-XX grade, a 10W-XX grade, or a 15W-XX grade, wherein XX is selected from the group consisting of 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the multigrade engine oil meets an engine oil specification selected from the group of API CJ-4, ACEA E9, or a combination thereof.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first viscometric property under low temperature and the second viscometric property under low temperature are CCS VIS at -25°C. 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first volatility and the second volatility are Noack volatility.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first base stock and the second base stock are petroleum derived.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the first base stock and the second base stock are Group II or Group III.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the trim stock is a Group II, a Group III or a Group IV.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the first base stock, the second base stock, and the trim Stock are Group II.
11. A blend chart, comprising:
a. a first point defined by a first viscometric property and a first volatility of a first base stock:
b. a second point defined by a second viscometric property and a second second volatility of a second base stock;
c. a curve drawn between the first point and the second point that predicts a third viscometric property and a third volatility of one or more blends of the first base stock and the second base stock; and
d. one or more target ranges enclosing desired values of a fourth viscometric property and a fourth volatility that are required to meet a specification for a finished lubricant; wherein the position of the curve relative to the one or more target ranges predicts whether a blend of the first base stock and the second base stock will meet the specification for the finished lubricant.
12. The blend chart of claim 11, additionally comprising one or more additional points defined by an additional viscometric property and an additional Volatility of one or more other base stocks; and a position of one or more of the additional points instructs a user of the chart how much of the one or more other base stocks may be blended with the blend of the first base stock and the second base stock to meet the specification for the finished lubricant.
13. The blend chart of claim 11, wherein the first, second, third, and fourth viscometric properties are CCS VIS.
14. The blend chart of claim 13, wherein the CCS VIS is measured at -25°C. 15. The blend chart of claim 11, wherein the first, second, third, and fourth volatilities are Noack volatility.
16. The blend chart of claim 11, wherein the finished lubricant is an engine oil.
17. The blend chart of claim 11, wherein the one or more target ranges enclose desired values of CCS VIS and Noack Volatility for one or more multigrade engine oils selected from the group of 5W-XX grade, 10W-XX grade, 15W-XX grade, and combinations thereof.
18. The blend chart of claim 17, wherein the CCS VIS is measured at -25°C.
19. The blend chart of claim 11, wherein the target range is a point.
20. The blend chart of claim 12, additionally comprising a second curve between the first point and the additional point and a third curve between the additional point and the second point; wherein the three curves enclose a ternary blending space; and wherein the one or more target ranges fall within the ternary blending space.
Note that the patent is extraordinarily bland...being mostly definitions and descriptions of their prowess at making basestocks. The description of the work is a small part of the whole.
One could also consider that the idea of mapping the CCS/NOACK curves for a variety of basestocks and using that to predict whether they met the chosen CCS/NOACK specs for a draft oil could be considered common sense, and not all that novel...but novel enough to get a patent for the thing in total.
And please consider how the OP has taken the above, and morphed it into this thread.
I personally do not believe that I have misrepresented the contents of the above in my shortened interpretation.
- Map your combinations of base oil stocks
- decide on the KV100 of the oil that you wish to make, which then gives you the simple blends of your base stocks (arithmetically, they don't describe that).
- Decide on your CCS (for 5W, 10W, 15W per the patent), and NOACK (for the other specs).
- Draw a point on your chart
- See if the blend meets the spec, or needs to be trimmed.
- Status
