A1/B1-A5/B5 "Low Vis" (vs) A3/B3-B4 LL01-MB 229.5

Status
Not open for further replies.
The graphs are based on logical scientific principles, well-known in the industry. What's speculative is the idea there's a variance from the extrapolated values....YOUR speculation. You have no idea WHICH oil is at a greater or lesser value, do you? For all you know, the oils could diverge even FURTHER, right?

My "free advice", take it or leave it, is correct. The burden is on you to prove me wrong.
 
To be classified as 5W40, the M1 that is graphed above has be be less than 6600 cP at -30C. cP and cSt are measured different ways, but are essentially equal units. So M1 5W40 must have a viscosity of less than 6600 cP at -30C and the graph shows it at nearly 18,000 cST. The extrapolated graphy apparently does not depict reality at -30C. An extrapolation will never prove anything.

An the actual "cold hammer of reality" is that no one in this thread has suggested that any oils are the same viscosity at any particular temperature simply because of winter grade. The general statement is that one cannot assume with accuracy that all 40 weight oils are more viscous than all 30 weight oils at all temperatures.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
The graphs are based on logical scientific principles, well-known in the industry. What's speculative is the idea there's a variance from the extrapolated values....YOUR speculation. You have no idea WHICH oil is at a greater or lesser value, do you? For all you know, the oils could diverge even FURTHER, right?

My "free advice", take it or leave it, is correct. The burden is on you to prove me wrong.


What logical scientific principles? Seriously? Are you serious that something like fitting a "curve" with two points is well-known in any industry???!?

The well established and known principle would be to take multiple fluids, create an experimental design and perform the analysis on a thermally controlled rheometer.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie



My "free advice", take it or leave it, is correct. The burden is on you to prove me wrong.


Actually, the burden is on you to prove yourself right. Just like synlube advocates are suppossed to. Something they repeatedly failed at.

You state this: "The requirements for a 0w-30 are lower than for a 0w-40 as far as cold visc goes." We'll leave aside for now your statement that 0w-XX is a spec and not viscosity.

a statement more than one person has asked for data to back it up.

You claim that this "The data is provided by the oil companies themselves." is the answer.

Without the data to back that up, it is nothing more than an anecdote.

It's my understanding that a 0w-40 will flow as well as a 0w-30 when cold. Is not one reason for a multi grade oil is that one does not have to change oil depending the season?

But then again, some change the air in their tires depending on the season.......
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: GMorg
To be classified as 5W40, the M1 that is graphed above has be be less than 6600 cP at -30C. cP and cSt are measured different ways, but are essentially equal units. So M1 5W40 must have a viscosity of less than 6600 cP at -30C and the graph shows it at nearly 18,000 cST. The extrapolated graphy apparently does not depict reality at -30C. An extrapolation will never prove anything.


It's 6600cSt at -20c, according to the graph, so it's not that far off.

So yeah, umm....none of the posters have addressed the ORIGINAL point, that we still have a discrepancy in the viscs of these 2 "5w" oils, one A3 and one A5.

TDTvsEdge.jpg



Oh noes! Both 5w, but vastly different viscs...unless you say they are the same, kinda hard to tell. Please explain!!!


Bottom line is at 0c, -20c or -30c, the A5 oil is MUCH thinner.

Say you it's not?
 
AAAH, more incorrect maths. A ROUGH approximation can be Centipoise = centistokes x specific gravity. Of course if you don't have cold cranking viscosity information, it is STILL speculation.
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie

It's 6600cSt at -20c, according to the graph, so it's not that far off.


Didn't Widman himself openly admit that his graphs/calcs are very inaccurate below about 0C?
 
Ummm, yeah you do. Plug in a 1 cst difference at 100c and see what it does to your curves. Try a similar error at 40c.

Need to work on your math.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Ummm, yeah you do. Plug in a 1 cst difference at 100c and see what it does to your curves. Try a similar error at 40c.

Need to work on your math.


So changing the data to skew the results? lol, that sure is "working on the math".




Originally Posted By: Falcon_LS
After reading all this, my head is banging.
crazy2.gif
So how do we sum this up?


A3 isn't thicker than A5 unless you can "prove it".
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Ummm, yeah you do. Plug in a 1 cst difference at 100c and see what it does to your curves. Try a similar error at 40c.

Need to work on your math.


So changing the data to skew the results? lol, that sure is "working on the math".






Im not skewing any results. You REALLY dont get it, do you?!?

I said to introduce this variation to see how it changes the result at -30C. It is to get a feel for how the curve fit reacts. Im not saying to skew any results - just show how it works and get an understanding. Why is that so hard to grasp unless youre afraid of what the results will show?
 
Ive never run the calculation sheet, nor am I the one making unsubstantiated claims. If you are so right, why not plug the numbers in and show us a jpeg so we can at least get our hands around the effect of a 1cSt change at 100C and a 1-5 cSt change at 40C? Would be very helpful to see how the curve fit extrapolation works sensitivity-wise...

Im really not asking for much, just some data-based substantiation for the claims. There is more to thi than gut feel logic. Just prove little chunks and then your story will be more acceptable.
 
In my little corner of the science world, any data that is outside the known end points of the curve by more than 10% are considered invalid.

Any data derived from the charts posted here that was below 36C or above 110C would be considered invalid under my required analytical protocols.

If I wanted to see how those oils behaved at 0C through -40C, i would have to generate a curve that included those points. I would also need more than two points, likely a minimum of four. Two points defines a straight line. I can tell you from 30+ years of experience that nothing, I mean nothing behaves perfectly linearly at the extremes.

Ed
 
Just a reminder, the subject is A5 vs A3, not visc calcs. Maybe you guys should let Shell know their online calc is so fatally flawed.

Again, it's not a matter of accuracy, were not launching satellites, it's a tool to make a rough comparison between 2 oils. I have yet to hear a better method.


So, you guys seriously have no idea which oil is thicker, Edge 5w-30 or TDT 5w-40? You're saying they are the same "5w" oils...if I understand correctly. Let me say I think it's you guys who have LITERALLY nothing to back that up, only that my visc calc is "inexact", so the results are "incorrect".

That's a logical fallasy...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false.[1] It is also called argument to logic (argumentum ad logicam), fallacy fallacy,[2] or fallacist's fallacy.[3]

Fallacious arguments can arrive at true conclusions, so this is an informal fallacy of relevance.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading


Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.


Special pleading: where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Perfect solution fallacy: where an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it was implemented


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the Perfect solution fallacy.

Example: "If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be NO traffic whatsoever."

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. The choice is not between real world solutions and utopia; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic possibility and another which is merely better.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_repetition

Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe an argument which has been continuing "to [the point of] nausea".[1] For example, the sentence, "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam", signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively, and that those involved in the discussion have grown



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

It is the refusal to admit that at a particular point in time when the momentum of individual or group opinion exists for a particular course of action or, for action without any particular preferred course; that there is in fact no justification to take any action. And what is being sought, is in fact merely a rationalization (based upon fallacy), that temporarily assuages justifiable doubt that proposed action(s) are auto de fe (act of faith) alone, with no justification in the knowledge that is at hand.

This should not, however, be taken to mean that one can never possess evidence that something does not exist; an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof


The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.


When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim.[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Fallacy of many questions (complex question, fallacy of presupposition, loaded question, plurium interrogationum): someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

Moving the goalpost (raising the bar): argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring


Red herring: This occurs when a speaker attempts to distract an audience by deviating from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy

Regression fallacy: ascribes cause where none exists. The flaw is failing to account for natural fluctuations. It is frequently a special kind of the post hoc fallacy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect), argumentum ad potentiam (Latin: argument to power), or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie

I have yet to hear a better method.


Well, it was proposed earlier:
Quote:
The well established and known principle would be to take multiple fluids, create an experimental design and perform the analysis on a thermally controlled rheometer.


You might want to give it a try instead of spending time on researching and posting wiki links.

Just because there is no better theoretical method doesn't make yours acceptable.
 
Audi Junkie, if the issue is A3 vs A5 cold viscosity, then why doesn't the graph above that includes GC (A3) and Edge 10W30 (A5) demonstrate the opposite of your position. Doesn't it show the A3 oil as thinner than that the A5 oil via the calculator?
 
Originally Posted By: Audi Junkie
Just a reminder, the subject is A5 vs A3, not visc calcs. Maybe you guys should let Shell know their online calc is so fatally flawed.

Again, it's not a matter of accuracy, were not launching satellites, it's a tool to make a rough comparison between 2 oils. I have yet to hear a better method.


So, you guys seriously have no idea which oil is thicker, Edge 5w-30 or TDT 5w-40? You're saying they are the same "5w" oils...if I understand correctly. Let me say I think it's you guys who have LITERALLY nothing to back that up, only that my visc calc is "inexact", so the results are "incorrect".




Precisely because your calculator is inexact, and you have not shown any analysis or data to back up your "assumed" results, YOU do not know either which is thinner at what temperatures.

Sure, we can speculate all day long, but that is all that it is - speculation. What you pose as the rule is speculation just like anything else. It was said just above what is indeed established in industry - that such extrapolations are not assumed valid in any way.

You may be right. You may be wrong. But just posting things as rule because of some two-bit curve generator does not make them reality. Why not at least do what I proposed and show the error at -40 when you make a slight change such as 1cSt at 100 and/or 40C. Let's see how things can vary without any reflection on A3, A5 or anything else - just variation on viscosity terms within the curve generator program?

Im recommending how to try to make your assumptions start to be validated in lieu of a temperature-controlled rheometer. At least give us the pleasure of reviewing such results rather than just posting wikipedia links that dont substantiate anything real.
 
If you can't dazzle them with data, baffle them with wikipedia links.

I'm going to stick with A3 oil year round. Not convinced otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top