XenTx

[wulimaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mojo:
Just found some information that might be of interest about XenTx. In the previous discussions back in March of this year, there was an inference that XenTx was not a product that contained Chlorine. I just came across an analysis from a very reputable laboratory showing the sample of XenTx they analyzed contained
47.4% Chlorine with traces of Sulfur, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus.

---

I believe the inference was that it was not a chlorinated paraffin.

Was the laboratory able to tell the structure of the molecule which makes up 98% of Xentx? Did they test it for stability against reactions which take place within an internal combustion engine? What did they react it with to release the chlorine gas?

I wonder what your purpose was for throwing this post out?

If you are truly interested in new additive technologies as your profile states, why were you so quick to try to discredit it when it was first announced back in March? Have you tried it in any applilcation? If so, what were the results? Any detremental effects showed by an oil analysis?
You have had 3 months to try it out and judge it for yourself. What has taken you so long?

What is your expert lubrication consultant opinion on XentX? And why do you hold that opinion?

I am still waiting for something negative other than the price to be found out about it. So far I have seen only benefits. I'll change my view when I see problems associated with its use. So far my opinion based on all that I have seen is positive toward it.

 

[mojo]

To provide further clarification, this was stated by The XenTx Guy on March 29th -

"At the time, as now, PTFE and Chlorinated products abounded. When we tore engines down that failed prematurely and did SEM studies, filter studies, oil journal measurements, etc. we noticed a significant trend of corrosion, crystallization, agglomeration, oil starvation, increased wear metals, decreased pH, etc.

So I started a quest 17 years ago to develop a metal conditioning product that did NOT contain chlorine, did NOT contain any type of suspended products, did NOT use metal, did NOT depend upon a naturally derived carbon chain, did NOT utilize any type of petroleum distillate that would interfere with the delicate additive packages of the oil, did NOT change the viscosity of the in-situ fluid the product was added to, did NOT change any chemistry of the in-situ lubrication fluid.

With that in mind, I also wanted the product to utilize a detrimental friction by-product (wear metal debris) and through a recombinant process, use that very same wear metal debris to form extremely laminar layers of metal stearates."

Having read that, how does one explain the 47% Chlorine.

 

[Bio-T]

mojo,

Could you give us the link to the data from the lab so we can get the info. I can't explain the 47%, the inventor says it is not so. I think documentation is in order to substantiate the claim. JMO

 

[mojo]

59 Vetteman,
What I posted was the analysis that was performed and not a claim. The laboratory that performed this analysis does not post their results, therfore a link is not available. I will list the results as they appear on the report which should suffice. If that does not answer the mail, just send me your mailing address and I will mail a copy. By the way, this sample of XenTx was purchased in the Chicago area and analyzed in the Chicago area. The report provides the following:
Carbon, 41.53%
Hydrogen, 6.82%
Ash, 0.008%
Chlorine, 47.4%
Sulfur, Nitrogen, 4 ppm
Phosphorus, 0.01%
Oxygen by difference, 4.24%

The laboratory also did a infrared spectroscopy analysis and found that the spectral data indicated the sample appeared to be very similar if not identical to a commercial drawing oil identified as Triple C1450 which is manufactured by Pro-Chem, Inc.

 

[Bio-T]

Thanks for the information. I did a VOA and it is in the VOA forum. Nothing unusual showed up, but at $12 all you get is elemental.

 

[buster]

Unless this product can substantially increase your MPG, it won't pay to use this product. I just came across it at Pepboys.

 

[Thatwouldbegreat]

P.T. Barnum must be laughing every time a new oil additive infomercial hits!

Proprietary my ***.

I have a new pill you drop in the gas tank and you get 100 miles per gallon. I'd tell you more, but a major oil company just purchsed my secret formula that I developed in my office and so I'm bound by SEC rules as I take the company public.

I can tell you that it works along the lines of a multibeam Klystron in a nuclear bomb, but without the nasty radiation.

This is a technology developed by the Dutch, in 1892 but kept secret from mankind until I learned of its existence at a seminar near Sparks , NV.

German scientists worked on this secretly at the end of WWII in a coal mine in the Black Forest as a way to detonate mines in the North Atlantic by collecting muons from the upper atmosphere.

I was working on a black project with DOD to use nanotechnology to create a two-cavity amplifier Klystron.

I realized if I could get the amplitude reversed that I could create an engine which ran entirely on low IQ's and Paypal.

"The two-cavity amplifier klystron is readily turned into an oscillator klystron by providing a feedback loop between the input and output cavities. Two-cavity oscillator klystrons have the advantage of being some of the lowest-noise microwave sources available, and for that reason have often been used in the illuminator system of missile targeting radars. The two-cavity oscillator klystron normally generates more power than the reflex klystron—typically watts of output rather than milliwatts. As there is no reflector, only one high-voltage supply is required, but the voltage must be adjusted to a particular value for the tube to oscillate. This is because the electron beam must produce the bunched electrons in the second cavity in order to generate output power. as the location of the second cavity is physically fixed with respect to the first, this must be done by varying the velocity of the electron beam to a suitable level. Often several 'modes' of oscillation can be observed in a given klystron."

The nano Klystron is like a miniature particle accelerator that adds energy to the gasoline by putting electrons into proprietary sub atomic orbits that are in harmony with the metal crystal lattice of the cylinder walls.

This nano version Klystron fits inside a little pill which is now available at K-Mart for $19.99 with a 100% money back guarantee.

In testing, Mrs Rose Turnbull ran her 1973 Bluebird school bus on the Dyno at Fred's Truck Repair and Donut Shop in Rewnid, MO for 120 minutes and we saw a 4000% increase in both power and efficiency.

If you go to our web site you'll read the nice letter in which she mentions that the school board is now thinking of converting both school busses to our revolutionary system.

A wonderful additional benenfit is that you'll be able to run a typical engine for over 500,000 miles without changing the lubricant or making a loan payment.

 

[FowVay]

My local K-mart has the nano version of the Klystron for $17,99 so maybe they aren't including all of that nano technology like your K-mart.

I also heard that Fred's donut shop was falsifying the results that they were getting on their dynamometer and therefore they were cheating people out of the calories they were paying for with each donut.

 

[Thatwouldbegreat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FowVay:
My local K-mart has the nano version of the Klystron for $17,99 so maybe they aren't including all of that nano technology like your K-mart.

I also heard that Fred's donut shop was falsifying the results that they were getting on their dynamometer and therefore they were cheating people out of the calories they were paying for with each donut.

---

I've worked for 47 years perfecting this technology that I purchsased at a bankruptcy sale last November.

So I hope you understand that I can't be repsonsible for the regional pricing structures of major corporations.

Since MsK0-7 does not contain any bad things [regardless of what any lab says] and I can't explain how it works, but let me say that every US Astronaut Soviet Kosmonaut who's ever driven in Nascar or the Indy 500 uses and endorses Magical snaKe 0il 7 tm Pat. pending.

Please follow the directions to the letter* and if your vehicle doesn't run better I will personally go with you to Fred's Truck Repair and Donut Shop and act suprised and change the formula... or at least the web site.

I may even blame one of my partners and move the global offices of MsK0-7 from a P.O. Box at Mailboxes Etc to Antigua.

Unfortunately due to non-disclosure agreement I've entered into on a new United States Air Force hovercraft I won't be available for some time.

For a limited time only, when you order 3 bottles of MsK0-7 I'll include our incredible new car wax and headlight amplication system.

Your paint will be so unbelievably shiny that you'll never need headlights again.

Just try our test! Drive your car for 15 minutes in the dark without headlights and it will never need to be waxed again.


*Please use only the heavy rubber glove and breathing apparatus specified on the MsK0-7 web site when applying MsK0-7.

 

[wulimaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buster:
Unless this product can substantially increase your MPG, it won't pay to use this product. I just came across it at Pepboys.

---

You are correct in that it would depend on the price of fuel, vehicle efficiency, retreat interval, cost of product. For OTR trucks getting 6mpg driving 150k miles per year at $3.00 a gallon of diesel, doing 30k OCI and retreat intervals, and paying fleet prices for the Xentx it is a no brainer.

For a Honda Civic doing 3k OCI, 3k retreat rates, and getting 38mpg average fuel economy the savings would not be so spectacular and would amount to about $12 saving per OCI at 8% gain in fuel economy.

 

[goodvibes]

Mojo showed is a bunch of chlorine in the mix. Maybe the high tbn of diesel oil kept things in check but I would be wary to use it in my car. I've always wondered if using a chlorinated add was still a big problem if you could keep the tbn above safe levels in an OCI. Does the HCL acid cause moments of corosion before neutralized. I suspect not and keeping the tbn high makes these products acceptable to use but how can you be sure. I don't understand the friction loss since we don't actually have much to any metal to metal contact during mileage runs anyway. I wonder if some of the gains could be from a form of cleaning or freeing up rings during the reaction process and there are better ways to do those.

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by wulimaster:
I have seen many, many UOA of fleet vehicles and the oil analysis usually show a reduction of certain wear metals and no change to the rest. Iron is reduced as is soot in diesels. TBN actually ends up slightly higher or no change compaired to baseline.

---

So an oil additive is supposed to reduce soot loading in the oil?

Soot is a function of sulfur content, by virtue of the aromatic content that most often is connected with the sulfur species in the fuel..

Even if MPG is increased by 10%, the overall soot loading won't be all that much different.

If sulfur/aromatic content in the fuel is reduced, it will be more substantial.

soot loading IMO will effect Fe wear numbers, even if fully dispersed in the oil, there is still the chance for localized increased wear due to the soot presence.

JMH

 

[bruce381]

Interesting the guy says no chlorine but report shows 47%. But chlorine is a gas. Where as chlornated esters, fats, fatty acids, parrafins are all liquids so maybe he is not lieing?
bruce

 

[wulimaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHZR2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wulimaster:
I have seen many, many UOA of fleet vehicles and the oil analysis usually show a reduction of certain wear metals and no change to the rest. Iron is reduced as is soot in diesels. TBN actually ends up slightly higher or no change compaired to baseline.

---

So an oil additive is supposed to reduce soot loading in the oil?

JMH

---

It wasn't designed in if that is what you mean. It is just a nice secondary effect. I have seen soot reduced from 2.x% over a 30k mile oil change interval to 0.1%.

 

[bruce381]

Re read my post I agree.

"Thats Interesting the guy says no chlorine but report shows 47%.

But since chlorine is a gas. Where as chlornated esters, fats, fatty acids, parrafins are all liquids so maybe he is not lieing?

If he says NO CHLORINE if he means Elimental chlorine, unreacted chlorine he is right his product has none. But as You and I pointed out there are a lot of Recated chlorinated compounds avalible.
bruce

 

[Thatwouldbegreat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by bruce381:
Re read my post I agree.

"Thats Interesting the guy says no chlorine but report shows 47%.

But since chlorine is a gas. Where as chlornated esters, fats, fatty acids, parrafins are all liquids so maybe he is not lieing?

If he says NO CHLORINE if he means Elimental chlorine, unreacted chlorine he is right his product has none. But as You and I pointed out there are a lot of Recated chlorinated compounds avalible.
bruce

---

That's how I read your post, a clintonesque sort of word game might be possible.

All I know is I read every thread on this product, and the former names and I sure don't have any interest in trying it.

My attempts at humor reflected how I feel about the snake oil marketing of hucksters.

Maybe this stuff has some merit, but his answers were just a bit too clever and evasive for my taste.

 

[wulimaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thatwouldbegreat:

Originally posted by bruce381:
[qb] Maybe this stuff has some merit, but his answers were just a bit too clever and evasive for my taste.

---

Knowing Lonnie, I would say the clever answers have more to do with his personality and don't translate very well to the written word. You would have to have a conversation with him to get a better understanding of him. As for evasiveness, there are valid legal and business reasons for being evasive.

Ask Molecule why he wont go into the secret ingredient in MX2T that he alluded to in a recent post. I assume he has signed a nondisclosure agreement and wont disclose it but it could be another reason.

I know what the Xentx molecule is made of but I do not know how it is created. Likewise, I will not be discussing anything that wasn't made public knowledge. I can tell you that there are no bases in it to neutralize any acidic compounds that you may imagine are created by adding it to your crankcase. I can tell you that there are no acids formed by its addition to the crankcase. I can also tell you that after a short while you can drain the oil and not find any Xentx in it.

Xentx is a pure stabile synthetic molecule much in the same way the PAO in Mobil and Amsoil are pure.

The attacks by certain individuals on Xentx tells me more about those individuals personalities than it tells me about their knowledge of Xentx. I have seen enough ad hominem attacks to last me for quite a while. I am still waiting for the first attack on its performance.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

But chlorine is a gas. Where as chlornated esters, fats, fatty acids, parrafins are all liquids so maybe he is not lieing?

---

Huh?

How about chlorinated compounds with chlorine atoms bonded to other elements?

Sounds like Dover Chemical Co. is really trying to rid themselves of chlorinated waxes.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

Ask Molecule why he wont go into the secret ingredient in MX2T that he alluded to in a recent post. I assume he has signed a nondisclosure agreement and wont disclose it but it could be another reason.

---

There were traces of the same component in Xentx as there was in MX2T, but not enough of it in Xentx to make a difference for the dosage recommended, IMHO.

And yes, I cannot divulge the compound since they are also an additive supplier to SF. However, I do not use this compound in any of my products for various technical reasons.

Other than what appears to be brightstock as the carrier/thickener, I saw nothing but the one compound discussed above in Xentx. And the test done was not mine, nor did I request it, since I have very little interest in the product and since I am doing testing for my own products and have very little time to work other's questions.

It WOULD be interesting to see a side-by-side test and UOA of say Chevron Supreme 5W30 or SuperTech 5W30 with AND without Xentx. I would think those pushing and supporting this product would conduct said test and report results, or give the product to a third party and have them do it.

If a responsible third party would volunteer to do the test, I would provide some SX-UP samples for a side-by-side comparison as well.

[ September 14, 2005, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: MolaKule ]

 

[Terry]

Xentx folks.

I respectfully request you to secure a spokesperson who will publicly address in a meaningful and honest way,(without harming proprietary needs) to compel me scientifically why I should recommend this product for my valued oil analysis customers.

Auto-RX and Lubecontrol did it.