Does the vii effect hthsv in any way? Do they shear the same or does the vii sacrifice itself to protect hthsv?
Understanding Viscosity and HTHS
- Thread starter JustN89
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by GaryPoe
Does the vii effect hthsv in any way? Do they shear the same or does the vii sacrifice itself to protect hthsv?
Yes, in fact, one of the main purposes of using a VII is to adjust the HTHSV.
An olefin copolymer (OCP) VII boosts the KV40 (kinematic viscosity at 40 °C), KV100 (kinematic viscosity at 100 °C), and DV150 (dynamic viscosity at 150 °C) by the same factor over the base-oil values for these quantities. This boost factor is typically 50 - 100% and it could be more or less depending on the oil, ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 185% in my table.
Some of the DV150 is lost to VII temporary shear when HTHSV (high-temperature, high-shear dynamic viscosity at 150 °C) is measured. However, this VII temporary shear is typically 5 - 15%, ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 27% (very large VII content) in my table.
Now, finally, to give a concrete answer to your question, in my table, the average finished-oil HTHSV boost as a result of the VII is 53% over the base-oil HTHSV, meaning without a VII, a typical 5W-30 would have HTHSV ~ 2.0 cP instead of HTHSV ~ 3.0 cP. The HTHSV boost as a result of the VII is ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 108% (very large VII content) in my table.
Base-oil viscosity (@ 40, 100, and 150 °C) and base-oil viscosity index (BO VI) calculator
Does the vii effect hthsv in any way? Do they shear the same or does the vii sacrifice itself to protect hthsv?
Yes, in fact, one of the main purposes of using a VII is to adjust the HTHSV.
An olefin copolymer (OCP) VII boosts the KV40 (kinematic viscosity at 40 °C), KV100 (kinematic viscosity at 100 °C), and DV150 (dynamic viscosity at 150 °C) by the same factor over the base-oil values for these quantities. This boost factor is typically 50 - 100% and it could be more or less depending on the oil, ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 185% in my table.
Some of the DV150 is lost to VII temporary shear when HTHSV (high-temperature, high-shear dynamic viscosity at 150 °C) is measured. However, this VII temporary shear is typically 5 - 15%, ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 27% (very large VII content) in my table.
Now, finally, to give a concrete answer to your question, in my table, the average finished-oil HTHSV boost as a result of the VII is 53% over the base-oil HTHSV, meaning without a VII, a typical 5W-30 would have HTHSV ~ 2.0 cP instead of HTHSV ~ 3.0 cP. The HTHSV boost as a result of the VII is ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 108% (very large VII content) in my table.
Base-oil viscosity (@ 40, 100, and 150 °C) and base-oil viscosity index (BO VI) calculator
Originally Posted by Gokhan
The relative VII content is more relevant when you use my calculator.
Very rarely (i.e. never) do we get that value, though.
The relative VII content is more relevant when you use my calculator.
Very rarely (i.e. never) do we get that value, though.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by GaryPoe
Does the vii effect hthsv in any way? Do they shear the same or does the vii sacrifice itself to protect hthsv?
Yes, in fact, one of the main purposes of using a VII is to adjust the HTHSV.
Hang on a second....
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Therefore, I define the high-temperature, full-shear viscosity (HTFSV) as the dynamic viscosity of the base oil at 150 C where the shear rates are so large that the VII plays no role in increasing the viscosity. In other words, HTFSV is the dynamic viscosity of the base oil without the VII at 150 C. For a monograde oil, HTFSV = HTHSV. For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content. The units for the dynamic viscosity are cP.
Originally Posted by GaryPoe
Does the vii effect hthsv in any way? Do they shear the same or does the vii sacrifice itself to protect hthsv?
Yes, in fact, one of the main purposes of using a VII is to adjust the HTHSV.
Hang on a second....
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Therefore, I define the high-temperature, full-shear viscosity (HTFSV) as the dynamic viscosity of the base oil at 150 C where the shear rates are so large that the VII plays no role in increasing the viscosity. In other words, HTFSV is the dynamic viscosity of the base oil without the VII at 150 C. For a monograde oil, HTFSV = HTHSV. For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content. The units for the dynamic viscosity are cP.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Mine
The nameplate has fallen off mine, too.
I won't mention the brand, but a company gave me one of their scientific calculators for free when I reported to work for them.
I used it for three months and the batteries started to die...think it used 3 AAs??
I sold it and went back to my 15C that would run for years on three button cells.
I took a lot of grief for using a competitor's calc in the lab...
Mine
The nameplate has fallen off mine, too.
I won't mention the brand, but a company gave me one of their scientific calculators for free when I reported to work for them.
I used it for three months and the batteries started to die...think it used 3 AAs??
I sold it and went back to my 15C that would run for years on three button cells.
I took a lot of grief for using a competitor's calc in the lab...
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by GaryPoe
Does the vii effect hthsv in any way? Do they shear the same or does the vii sacrifice itself to protect hthsv?
Yes, in fact, one of the main purposes of using a VII is to adjust the HTHSV.
An olefin copolymer (OCP) VII boosts the KV40 (kinematic viscosity at 40 °C), KV100 (kinematic viscosity at 100 °C), and DV150 (dynamic viscosity at 150 °C) by the same factor over the base-oil values for these quantities. This boost factor is typically 50 - 100% and it could be more or less depending on the oil, ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 185% in my table.
Some of the DV150 is lost to VII temporary shear when HTHSV (high-temperature, high-shear dynamic viscosity at 150 °C) is measured. However, this VII temporary shear is typically 5 - 15%, ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 27% (very large VII content) in my table.
Now, finally, to give a concrete answer to your question, in my table, the average finished-oil HTHSV boost as a result of the VII is 53% over the base-oil HTHSV, meaning without a VII, a typical 5W-30 would have HTHSV ~ 2.0 cP instead of HTHSV ~ 3.0 cP. The HTHSV boost as a result of the VII is ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 108% (very large VII content) in my table.
Base-oil viscosity (@ 40, 100, and 150 °C) and base-oil viscosity index (BO VI) calculator
In case it wasn't clear, the amount of the HTHSV boost by the VII is (HTHSV) / (BO DV 150), which ranges from 0 to 2.08 (0% to 108%) in the table. The average boost by the VII of the HTHSV over the base-oil HTHSV value is 1.53 (53%). Therefore, the base-oil HTHSV for a typical 5W-30 would be about 2.0 cP. (BO DV 150 is the base-oil HTHSV because the base-oil is assumed not to shear. In any case, any shear of the base oil is absorbed into the calculation.)
I hope this sheds some light on an obscure yet crucial subject for which otherwise there is no information available on the Internet and even in published journal articles, despite oil blenders having to struggle to get the VII content right everyday, probably mostly by trial and error without understanding the numbers!
Originally Posted by GaryPoe
Does the vii effect hthsv in any way? Do they shear the same or does the vii sacrifice itself to protect hthsv?
Yes, in fact, one of the main purposes of using a VII is to adjust the HTHSV.
An olefin copolymer (OCP) VII boosts the KV40 (kinematic viscosity at 40 °C), KV100 (kinematic viscosity at 100 °C), and DV150 (dynamic viscosity at 150 °C) by the same factor over the base-oil values for these quantities. This boost factor is typically 50 - 100% and it could be more or less depending on the oil, ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 185% in my table.
Some of the DV150 is lost to VII temporary shear when HTHSV (high-temperature, high-shear dynamic viscosity at 150 °C) is measured. However, this VII temporary shear is typically 5 - 15%, ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 27% (very large VII content) in my table.
Now, finally, to give a concrete answer to your question, in my table, the average finished-oil HTHSV boost as a result of the VII is 53% over the base-oil HTHSV, meaning without a VII, a typical 5W-30 would have HTHSV ~ 2.0 cP instead of HTHSV ~ 3.0 cP. The HTHSV boost as a result of the VII is ranging from 0% (monograde with no VII) to 108% (very large VII content) in my table.
Base-oil viscosity (@ 40, 100, and 150 °C) and base-oil viscosity index (BO VI) calculator
In case it wasn't clear, the amount of the HTHSV boost by the VII is (HTHSV) / (BO DV 150), which ranges from 0 to 2.08 (0% to 108%) in the table. The average boost by the VII of the HTHSV over the base-oil HTHSV value is 1.53 (53%). Therefore, the base-oil HTHSV for a typical 5W-30 would be about 2.0 cP. (BO DV 150 is the base-oil HTHSV because the base-oil is assumed not to shear. In any case, any shear of the base oil is absorbed into the calculation.)
I hope this sheds some light on an obscure yet crucial subject for which otherwise there is no information available on the Internet and even in published journal articles, despite oil blenders having to struggle to get the VII content right everyday, probably mostly by trial and error without understanding the numbers!
Originally Posted by Gokhan
I hope this sheds some light on an obscure yet crucial subject for which otherwise there is no information available on the Internet and even in published journal articles, despite oil blenders having to struggle to get the VII content right everyday, probably mostly by trial and error without understanding the numbers!
Your ego knows no bounds, does it ?
The blenders, have stated previously that they have formulation guides with which they can assemble virtually a fully compliant oil from scratch....to claim that these people (including patent holders now permabanned) just slapped stuff together until it works (much like your spreadsheets, BOQI, BOQIHTHS have been doing) is ignorant and arrogant.
Given the quotes above, you started this "infallible", and miraculous spreadsheet with 100% the wrong understanding of VIIs (that they had no effect at high shear rates), to your current position that VIIs are an important part in formulating for HTHS...all seemlessly, while presenting as though you knew it (and the second Newtonian) all along.
How can a spreadsheet, created on the most incorrect of fundamental understandings, now reflect a diametrically opposite position ?
I've had similar arguments wth zealots on the board regarding selected books, multiple translations, and thus the infalibility of each and every one of the published outcomes.
I hope this sheds some light on an obscure yet crucial subject for which otherwise there is no information available on the Internet and even in published journal articles, despite oil blenders having to struggle to get the VII content right everyday, probably mostly by trial and error without understanding the numbers!
Your ego knows no bounds, does it ?
The blenders, have stated previously that they have formulation guides with which they can assemble virtually a fully compliant oil from scratch....to claim that these people (including patent holders now permabanned) just slapped stuff together until it works (much like your spreadsheets, BOQI, BOQIHTHS have been doing) is ignorant and arrogant.
Given the quotes above, you started this "infallible", and miraculous spreadsheet with 100% the wrong understanding of VIIs (that they had no effect at high shear rates), to your current position that VIIs are an important part in formulating for HTHS...all seemlessly, while presenting as though you knew it (and the second Newtonian) all along.
How can a spreadsheet, created on the most incorrect of fundamental understandings, now reflect a diametrically opposite position ?
I've had similar arguments wth zealots on the board regarding selected books, multiple translations, and thus the infalibility of each and every one of the published outcomes.
RE the nonsense about formulators blindly throwing stuff into a vat to stumble onto the viscometrics that they require....amongst other literature (that apparently doesn't exist in either open market or secret journal...here's but one of the tools...
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/5081191/Searchpage/1/Main/307932/Words/%2Bcalculator/Search/true/re-evonik-viscoplex-calculators-present-for-gokhan#Post5081191
HAve pointed Gokhan to it in the other threads, but he's only interested in claiming discovery of some unknowable secret that even the multi billion dollar oil industry doesn't understand.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Trying to re-gather lost files after computer failure (too long between back-ups, not enough that it really hurts), and found some great data sheets from Evonik...went looking for the source data, and any updates, and they have this...
https://oil-additives.evonik.com/product/oil-additives/resources/blending-efficiency-en.html
A blending calculator, where you can put the base oil viscosity in, pick a target KV100, and it spits out how much Viscosity Modifier to use...or back the other way...
![[Linked Image]](https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/attachments/usergals/2019/04/full-688-31851-viscoplex_treat_rate.jpg "[Linked Image]")
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/5081191/Searchpage/1/Main/307932/Words/%2Bcalculator/Search/true/re-evonik-viscoplex-calculators-present-for-gokhan#Post5081191
HAve pointed Gokhan to it in the other threads, but he's only interested in claiming discovery of some unknowable secret that even the multi billion dollar oil industry doesn't understand.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Trying to re-gather lost files after computer failure (too long between back-ups, not enough that it really hurts), and found some great data sheets from Evonik...went looking for the source data, and any updates, and they have this...
https://oil-additives.evonik.com/product/oil-additives/resources/blending-efficiency-en.html
A blending calculator, where you can put the base oil viscosity in, pick a target KV100, and it spits out how much Viscosity Modifier to use...or back the other way...
Shannow, why are you trying to derail/troll a good discussion as you often do? From looking at your latest posts, the only thing you do lately on this board seems to be talking about general topics and your life and family and then troll me.
When did I say that the VII had no effect in high-shear rates? Are you incapable of reading? I said specifically, as you quoted, that "For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content." That's explicitly stating that the HTHSV (high-shear viscosity) increases with the VII content over the base-oil viscosity at 150 C (HTFSV) -- and that was said in my original post in this thread.
Regarding a second Newtonian phase, perhaps I knew about that to some degree or perhaps I was somewhat uninformed, but why do you have to keep bringing up the same thing over and over? We discussed it many times already and I presented papers and articles that the base-oil viscosity -- in addition to HTHSV -- plays a role in timing-chain wear (Nissan paper) and sooted- and new-oil wear in Chevron mini traction machine (MTM) studies. Are you refuting these studies? If so, say and explain it, and leave it there. Tribology is complicated and there is more to wear processes, including the oil composition, than the dynamic viscosity you measure as a function of the shear rate, which is only a single parameter. It's not to mention that the HTHSV does not saturate to a minimum at the measured 1,000,000 1/second shear rate and still keeps decreasing; in other words, a second Newtonian phase is not reached at that shear rate.
Last but not least, you provided a single plot by Evonik. How does that come anywhere close to the sophistication of my calculation? Where is the HTHSV? Where is the viscosity index?
When did I say that the VII had no effect in high-shear rates? Are you incapable of reading? I said specifically, as you quoted, that "For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content." That's explicitly stating that the HTHSV (high-shear viscosity) increases with the VII content over the base-oil viscosity at 150 C (HTFSV) -- and that was said in my original post in this thread.
Regarding a second Newtonian phase, perhaps I knew about that to some degree or perhaps I was somewhat uninformed, but why do you have to keep bringing up the same thing over and over? We discussed it many times already and I presented papers and articles that the base-oil viscosity -- in addition to HTHSV -- plays a role in timing-chain wear (Nissan paper) and sooted- and new-oil wear in Chevron mini traction machine (MTM) studies. Are you refuting these studies? If so, say and explain it, and leave it there. Tribology is complicated and there is more to wear processes, including the oil composition, than the dynamic viscosity you measure as a function of the shear rate, which is only a single parameter. It's not to mention that the HTHSV does not saturate to a minimum at the measured 1,000,000 1/second shear rate and still keeps decreasing; in other words, a second Newtonian phase is not reached at that shear rate.
Last but not least, you provided a single plot by Evonik. How does that come anywhere close to the sophistication of my calculation? Where is the HTHSV? Where is the viscosity index?
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
✅I must be on my 8th or 9th HP RPN calculator …
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Shannow, why are you trying to derail/troll a good discussion as you often do? From looking at your latest posts, the only thing you do lately on this board seems to be talking about general topics and your life and family and then troll me.
Gokhan...
Maybe I'm saying this more for others than for you, as you have made it abundantly clear by now that you don't care. But the crux of Shannow's arguments is that you have vastly overstated the merits of this and other hypotheses you've pushed, and he is 100% correct on that.
I'd even say those overstatements border on lies, because as I said earlier, I know you know better.
I'm not going to endorse any actual trolling or personal attacks, nor do I think it has been productive for Shannow and others to waste so much space in threads like this when you obviously won't listen, nor can I necessarily endorse everything Shannow has said -- but I'd be lying if I said I didn't see some value in his persistent pushback, and I'm as certain as I can be that I'm not alone in that.
You want to talk numbers, correlations, and rules of thumb? Among those who have commented, the correlation between degree of relevant expertise and how warmly they view what you're doing is clearly inverse, and quite stark. The only outlier is you.
Shannow, why are you trying to derail/troll a good discussion as you often do? From looking at your latest posts, the only thing you do lately on this board seems to be talking about general topics and your life and family and then troll me.
Gokhan...
Maybe I'm saying this more for others than for you, as you have made it abundantly clear by now that you don't care. But the crux of Shannow's arguments is that you have vastly overstated the merits of this and other hypotheses you've pushed, and he is 100% correct on that.
I'd even say those overstatements border on lies, because as I said earlier, I know you know better.
I'm not going to endorse any actual trolling or personal attacks, nor do I think it has been productive for Shannow and others to waste so much space in threads like this when you obviously won't listen, nor can I necessarily endorse everything Shannow has said -- but I'd be lying if I said I didn't see some value in his persistent pushback, and I'm as certain as I can be that I'm not alone in that.
You want to talk numbers, correlations, and rules of thumb? Among those who have commented, the correlation between degree of relevant expertise and how warmly they view what you're doing is clearly inverse, and quite stark. The only outlier is you.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Last but not least, you provided a single plot by Evonik. How does that come anywhere close to the sophistication of my calculation? Where is the HTHSV? Where is the viscosity index?
Shannow, I will be waiting for you to provide a calculator (other than mine) that calculates these two things:
(a) the finished-oil HTHSV from the base-oil VI and finished-oil VI
(b) the finished-oil VI from the base-oil VI and finished-oil HTHSV
Since, per your post quoted below, you said these calculators are wildly available in the industry and I am ignoring them in a nonsense fashion, perhaps you can post the link for one. Even better, perhaps you can write a calculator and share it with us?
Originally Posted by Shannow
RE the nonsense about formulators blindly throwing stuff into a vat to stumble onto the viscometrics that they require....amongst other literature (that apparently doesn't exist in either open market or secret journal...here's but one of the tools...
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/5081191/Searchpage/1/Main/307932/Words/%2Bcalculator/Search/true/re-evonik-viscoplex-calculators-present-for-gokhan#Post5081191
HAve pointed Gokhan to it in the other threads, but he's only interested in claiming discovery of some unknowable secret that even the multi billion dollar oil industry doesn't understand.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Trying to re-gather lost files after computer failure (too long between back-ups, not enough that it really hurts), and found some great data sheets from Evonik...went looking for the source data, and any updates, and they have this...
https://oil-additives.evonik.com/product/oil-additives/resources/blending-efficiency-en.html
A blending calculator, where you can put the base oil viscosity in, pick a target KV100, and it spits out how much Viscosity Modifier to use...or back the other way...
Last but not least, you provided a single plot by Evonik. How does that come anywhere close to the sophistication of my calculation? Where is the HTHSV? Where is the viscosity index?
Shannow, I will be waiting for you to provide a calculator (other than mine) that calculates these two things:
(a) the finished-oil HTHSV from the base-oil VI and finished-oil VI
(b) the finished-oil VI from the base-oil VI and finished-oil HTHSV
Since, per your post quoted below, you said these calculators are wildly available in the industry and I am ignoring them in a nonsense fashion, perhaps you can post the link for one. Even better, perhaps you can write a calculator and share it with us?
Originally Posted by Shannow
RE the nonsense about formulators blindly throwing stuff into a vat to stumble onto the viscometrics that they require....amongst other literature (that apparently doesn't exist in either open market or secret journal...here's but one of the tools...
https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/5081191/Searchpage/1/Main/307932/Words/%2Bcalculator/Search/true/re-evonik-viscoplex-calculators-present-for-gokhan#Post5081191
HAve pointed Gokhan to it in the other threads, but he's only interested in claiming discovery of some unknowable secret that even the multi billion dollar oil industry doesn't understand.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Trying to re-gather lost files after computer failure (too long between back-ups, not enough that it really hurts), and found some great data sheets from Evonik...went looking for the source data, and any updates, and they have this...
https://oil-additives.evonik.com/product/oil-additives/resources/blending-efficiency-en.html
A blending calculator, where you can put the base oil viscosity in, pick a target KV100, and it spits out how much Viscosity Modifier to use...or back the other way...
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Last but not least, you provided a single plot by Evonik. How does that come anywhere close to the sophistication of my calculation? Where is the HTHSV? Where is the viscosity index?
The sophistication of the calculator doesn't exist, and nothing has yet been empirically tested.
Now is a good time to refer to this post about the crank index. Just because someone can't come up with a better or different calculator than the one you hypothesize does not on its own corroborate yours. That's the same argument used by perpetual motion fanatics, and by that rationale, Pons and Fleischmann should have been given Nobels for cold fusion, simply because no one's done better since.
If you want your calculator to be used and believed as a tool, it's going to have to be tested, and it's going to have to be shown that it is actually predictive. I want something like this to work. That just hasn't been demonstrated yet.
Last but not least, you provided a single plot by Evonik. How does that come anywhere close to the sophistication of my calculation? Where is the HTHSV? Where is the viscosity index?
The sophistication of the calculator doesn't exist, and nothing has yet been empirically tested.
Now is a good time to refer to this post about the crank index. Just because someone can't come up with a better or different calculator than the one you hypothesize does not on its own corroborate yours. That's the same argument used by perpetual motion fanatics, and by that rationale, Pons and Fleischmann should have been given Nobels for cold fusion, simply because no one's done better since.
If you want your calculator to be used and believed as a tool, it's going to have to be tested, and it's going to have to be shown that it is actually predictive. I want something like this to work. That just hasn't been demonstrated yet.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
When did I say that the VII had no effect in high-shear rates? Are you incapable of reading? I said specifically, as you quoted, that "For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content." That's explicitly stating that the HTHSV (high-shear viscosity) increases with the VII content over the base-oil viscosity at 150 C (HTFSV) -- and that was said in my original post in this thread.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Therefore, I define the high-temperature, full-shear viscosity (HTFSV) as the dynamic viscosity of the base oil at 150 C where the shear rates are so large that the VII plays no role in increasing the viscosity. In other words, HTFSV is the dynamic viscosity of the base oil without the VII at 150 C. For a monograde oil, HTFSV = HTHSV. For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content. The units for the dynamic viscosity are cP.
When did I say that the VII had no effect in high-shear rates? Are you incapable of reading? I said specifically, as you quoted, that "For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content." That's explicitly stating that the HTHSV (high-shear viscosity) increases with the VII content over the base-oil viscosity at 150 C (HTFSV) -- and that was said in my original post in this thread.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Therefore, I define the high-temperature, full-shear viscosity (HTFSV) as the dynamic viscosity of the base oil at 150 C where the shear rates are so large that the VII plays no role in increasing the viscosity. In other words, HTFSV is the dynamic viscosity of the base oil without the VII at 150 C. For a monograde oil, HTFSV = HTHSV. For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content. The units for the dynamic viscosity are cP.
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by Gokhan
When did I say that the VII had no effect in high-shear rates? Are you incapable of reading? I said specifically, as you quoted, that "For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content." That's explicitly stating that the HTHSV (high-shear viscosity) increases with the VII content over the base-oil viscosity at 150 C (HTFSV) -- and that was said in my original post in this thread.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Therefore, I define the high-temperature, full-shear viscosity (HTFSV) as the dynamic viscosity of the base oil at 150 C where the shear rates are so large that the VII plays no role in increasing the viscosity. In other words, HTFSV is the dynamic viscosity of the base oil without the VII at 150 C. For a monograde oil, HTFSV = HTHSV. For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content. The units for the dynamic viscosity are cP.
Hmm, perhaps, you are seeing the word HTFSV as HTHSV? Where does it say that the HTHSV doesn't depend on the VII content? In fact, it says completely the opposite.
The sentence you highlighted is referring to extreme shear rates, not the 1,000,000 1/second shear rate at which the HTHSV is measured but perhaps 1,000,000,000 1/second or higher. We went over the presence of a second Newtonian phase many, many times, and you keep bringing it at every opportunity, even though it's irrelevant to the current discussion, which is about the HTHSV and not the base-oil viscosity at 150 °C.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
When did I say that the VII had no effect in high-shear rates? Are you incapable of reading? I said specifically, as you quoted, that "For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content." That's explicitly stating that the HTHSV (high-shear viscosity) increases with the VII content over the base-oil viscosity at 150 C (HTFSV) -- and that was said in my original post in this thread.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Therefore, I define the high-temperature, full-shear viscosity (HTFSV) as the dynamic viscosity of the base oil at 150 C where the shear rates are so large that the VII plays no role in increasing the viscosity. In other words, HTFSV is the dynamic viscosity of the base oil without the VII at 150 C. For a monograde oil, HTFSV = HTHSV. For multigrade oils, HTFSV < HTHSV, the inequality increasing with the increasing VII content. The units for the dynamic viscosity are cP.
Hmm, perhaps, you are seeing the word HTFSV as HTHSV? Where does it say that the HTHSV doesn't depend on the VII content? In fact, it says completely the opposite.
The sentence you highlighted is referring to extreme shear rates, not the 1,000,000 1/second shear rate at which the HTHSV is measured but perhaps 1,000,000,000 1/second or higher. We went over the presence of a second Newtonian phase many, many times, and you keep bringing it at every opportunity, even though it's irrelevant to the current discussion, which is about the HTHSV and not the base-oil viscosity at 150 °C.
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Among those who have commented, the correlation between degree of relevant expertise and how warmly they view what you're doing is clearly inverse, and quite stark. The only outlier is you.
Not true at all, some experts (MolaKule) found the idea interesting and others (JAG) useful.
I pointed out the caveats of the calculations. One of the crucial aspects of any tool is to know its limits. If you know the limits of a tool, it can actually result in better predictions and calculations. If you dismiss any tool because it's far from being perfect, you end up making no progress.
For example, relativity and quantum mechanics was created by understanding the limits at which Newtonian mechanics failed.
As a more specific example, if the tool fails grossly for a specific oil or yields an unusual results, that could help one figure out an unusual ingredient in that oil.
Among those who have commented, the correlation between degree of relevant expertise and how warmly they view what you're doing is clearly inverse, and quite stark. The only outlier is you.
Not true at all, some experts (MolaKule) found the idea interesting and others (JAG) useful.
I pointed out the caveats of the calculations. One of the crucial aspects of any tool is to know its limits. If you know the limits of a tool, it can actually result in better predictions and calculations. If you dismiss any tool because it's far from being perfect, you end up making no progress.
For example, relativity and quantum mechanics was created by understanding the limits at which Newtonian mechanics failed.
As a more specific example, if the tool fails grossly for a specific oil or yields an unusual results, that could help one figure out an unusual ingredient in that oil.
Originally Posted by Garak
If you want your calculator to be used and believed as a tool, it's going to have to be tested, and it's going to have to be shown that it is actually predictive. I want something like this to work. That just hasn't been demonstrated yet.
As I told you before, it was tested for the oils in the Exxon Mobil blending guide. It also works for the known monograde Amsoil ACD 10W-30/SAE 30. There are many other verifications, such as the base-oil viscosity indexes coming out as expected.
It's only an estimator and has the caveats that were mentioned.
It's certainly much better than being totally in the dark, and please spare the nonsense on the cold-fusion analogy and other things you said. It's a simple calculator based on simple math and physics and not claimed to be a scientific breakthrough to say the least.
If you want your calculator to be used and believed as a tool, it's going to have to be tested, and it's going to have to be shown that it is actually predictive. I want something like this to work. That just hasn't been demonstrated yet.
As I told you before, it was tested for the oils in the Exxon Mobil blending guide. It also works for the known monograde Amsoil ACD 10W-30/SAE 30. There are many other verifications, such as the base-oil viscosity indexes coming out as expected.
It's only an estimator and has the caveats that were mentioned.
It's certainly much better than being totally in the dark, and please spare the nonsense on the cold-fusion analogy and other things you said. It's a simple calculator based on simple math and physics and not claimed to be a scientific breakthrough to say the least.
Originally Posted by Gokhan
As a more specific example, if the tool fails grossly for a specific oil or yields an unusual results, that could help one figure out an unusual ingredient in that oil.
If it fails, then, it must be the data and not the hypothesis?
The Exxon Mobil blending guide is just that, and not actual data. You call it an estimator, yet you're using it to predict all kinds of things, none of which have been verified. Predicting base oil ingredients when you cannot actually verify the ingredients sounds a bit like astrology, or, considering math is being used, numerology.
As a more specific example, if the tool fails grossly for a specific oil or yields an unusual results, that could help one figure out an unusual ingredient in that oil.
If it fails, then, it must be the data and not the hypothesis?
The Exxon Mobil blending guide is just that, and not actual data. You call it an estimator, yet you're using it to predict all kinds of things, none of which have been verified. Predicting base oil ingredients when you cannot actually verify the ingredients sounds a bit like astrology, or, considering math is being used, numerology.
Originally Posted by Garak
The Exxon Mobil blending guide is just that, and not actual data.
Why isn't it actual data? Those oils are laboratory-tested even if they are not commercially sold.
The Exxon Mobil blending guide is just that, and not actual data.
Why isn't it actual data? Those oils are laboratory-tested even if they are not commercially sold.
Originally Posted by OilUzer
Originally Posted by MolaKule
... When all the batteries and AC fails I use my non-electrified, non-solar/wind-powered, Pickettt Model N 1010-ES Slide Rule,...
My dad was a chemical engineer and tried to teach me how to use a slide rule in high school. ... I already had a calculator and wasnt too interested . It was amazing how quickly he could calculate even square roots and stuff with that thing!
I haven't had my Pickett 500-ES out in a few years.
On a slide rule, square roots are a lot easier than addition.
~20 years ago, my sister gave me a gift membership to a slide-rule collectors' organization.
Originally Posted by MolaKule
... When all the batteries and AC fails I use my non-electrified, non-solar/wind-powered, Pickettt Model N 1010-ES Slide Rule,...
My dad was a chemical engineer and tried to teach me how to use a slide rule in high school. ... I already had a calculator and wasnt too interested . It was amazing how quickly he could calculate even square roots and stuff with that thing!
I haven't had my Pickett 500-ES out in a few years.
On a slide rule, square roots are a lot easier than addition.
~20 years ago, my sister gave me a gift membership to a slide-rule collectors' organization.
- Status
