Project Farm testing videos

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Black_Thunder

Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
1,778
Location
Wisconsin
Anyone every watch these testing videos this guy does on youtube?


he does all kinds of different testing on oils and additives and also other chemicals/substances like penetrating oils and glue/epoxies etc. and even differences in gas types.





they are interesting to watch and he has some interesting home-made test devices.

here's one vid to get you started.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2zS8MyvJxU
 
I really enjoy his videos. I work in a very technical field (corporate jets) and all of the products we use are very well chosen for the task at hand.

However, this is not so in the real world. Choices matter, and real world information about what works best is rather lacking.

His testing is not really scientific, but rather empirical in nature. (based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience)

When you are choosing a duct tape, don't you want the one that has been observed not to fail quite as quickly as the others?

Anyway, I give PF two thumbs up. His videos are fun.
 
PF is good stuff
smile.gif


At least it's a toe in the door as to what's what
01.gif
 
Last edited:
Wish he didn't do the ABSOLUTELY worthless bearing scar test. The non technical (99%) believe this is valid.

Once you gall the surface on the bearing test - the part has failed - and and difference in the scar length and depth is meaningless.

Maybe alternatively , he can make up some sort of a wet band brake and measure force required to stall a motor.

And can't anyone afford a used viscometer for 200 bucks?? It is more fun to see the mice run through the maze I suppose,

But, The videos are well produced and are fun to watch - -a guilty pleasure.
 
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
Wish he didn't do the ABSOLUTELY worthless bearing scar test. The non technical (99%) believe this is valid.

Once you gall the surface on the bearing test - the part has failed - and and difference in the scar length and depth is meaningless.



ARCO,

You may want to know that all sorts of valid testing is done based on the size or width of a wear scar. HFRR (high frequency reciprocating rig) testing is used to validate lubricity in various fuels. The wear scar width specification is valid, and translates into pass/fail criteria for fuel lubricity.

I agree that the bearing scar test really does not translate into an "motor oil quality" test. Motor oil separates parts with a film, and very few engines have parts that grind together at high speed, under extreme pressure.
 
Originally Posted by Cujet
I really enjoy his videos. I work in a very technical field (corporate jets) and all of the products we use are very well chosen for the task at hand.

However, this is not so in the real world. Choices matter, and real world information about what works best is rather lacking.

His testing is not really scientific, but rather empirical in nature. (based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience)

When you are choosing a duct tape, don't you want the one that has been observed not to fail quite as quickly as the others?

Anyway, I give PF two thumbs up. His videos are fun.

Some times empirical is all we have to go by.
 
Originally Posted by CT8
Some times empirical is all we have to go by.

The absolute joke in all of this is that it isn't all we have to go by. What this guy on YouTube is doing is not illustrating or researching some unknown or untested critical property of oil, there's nothing "missing" from the properties we have now. People in this thread that think he's doing some sort of significant test that's providing missing information on the characteristics of motor oil simply don't have a clue.

What he is, really, is a guy making money on YouTube by doing the same sort of demonstrations as you'd see in the products pavilion at a county fair. A guy with a tester that makes screeching noises and smoke to wow the gullible. That's it. Even if the specific test isn't screeching and smoking the principle is the same, provide a visually captivating test that really does nothing but sell his product - which in this case is hits and views on his videos.
 
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by CT8
Some times empirical is all we have to go by.

The absolute joke in all of this is that it isn't all we have to go by. What this guy on YouTube is doing is not illustrating or researching some unknown or untested critical property of oil, there's nothing "missing" from the properties we have now. People in this thread that think he's doing some sort of significant test that's providing missing information on the characteristics of motor oil simply don't have a clue.

What he is, really, is a guy making money on YouTube by doing the same sort of demonstrations as you'd see in the products pavilion at a county fair. A guy with a tester that makes screeching noises and smoke to wow the gullible. That's it. Even if the specific test isn't screeching and smoking the principle is the same, provide a visually captivating test that really does nothing but sell his product, which in this case are views on his profile.


Nailed it.

I have never watched any of the videos; haven't needed to as the synopsis is typically presented as part of the "presentation" of this "information" when it is posted, oft in revelation format, in threads on here.
 
Never said i would make decisions based off his testing just liked the simple testing with homemade devices or like when he runs engines without oil until they grenade.


I did like the ziptie test
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Cujet
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
Wish he didn't do the ABSOLUTELY worthless bearing scar test. The non technical (99%) believe this is valid.

Once you gall the surface on the bearing test - the part has failed - and and difference in the scar length and depth is meaningless.


ARCO,

You may want to know that all sorts of valid testing is done based on the size or width of a wear scar. HFRR (high frequency reciprocating rig) testing is used to validate lubricity in various fuels. The wear scar width specification is valid, and translates into pass/fail criteria for fuel lubricity.

I agree that the bearing scar test really does not translate into an "motor oil quality" test. Motor oil separates parts with a film, and very few engines have parts that grind together at high speed, under extreme pressure.


Bacon grease came out pretty good on the scar test - lol.
 
It may be true that Mineral oils have very poor lubricity v. animal and plant esters.

Again the way this scar test is done is NOT VALID in ANY way

____________________________________________

Now, I am AGHAST by some responses here

I see a profitable return to door to door Salesmanship with their bag of parlour tricks for the gullible ignoramus.

KSCHACHN summed it well above..
 
A lot of these "project farm" videos produce meaningful evidence, but there are too many variables and he does not always rule them out, but he does the best he can with limited time, limited budget and limited workshop. His methodology is as good as can be expected for a "farm boy" lol. I find the videos more entertaining than informative. I wonder how many cordless drills he has burned up by starting that lawnmower.
 
What I give the guy credit for, is all the YT subscribers and views he has. He's pulling-in some decent money with that channel. I've seen about 10 of his various videos. Speaking as a reliability engineer, the tests and methodology I recall seeing did not come close to passing the sniff test. -But they were nicely produced and are very entertaining.

This guy should flip coins and become a salesman like that really loud guy who used to crazy glue his helmet to a beam and hang from it. This guy would retire easy if he went that route.

Ray
 
Originally Posted by DGXR
A lot of these "project farm" videos produce meaningful evidence,


Meaningful in what way ?

There's an entire set of protocols for the certification of engine oils...how is he producing meaningful evidence in the protection of engines, to both wear and cold starting that would indicate that the API/ACEA/OEMs/SAE etc. missed something ?
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by DGXR
A lot of these "project farm" videos produce meaningful evidence,


Meaningful in what way ?

There's an entire set of protocols for the certification of engine oils...how is he producing meaningful evidence in the protection of engines, to both wear and cold starting that would indicate that the API/ACEA/OEMs/SAE etc. missed something ?



Shannow... LOL: Settle down... You'e looking at this all wrong. The project farm guy is actually proving that all oils are pretty good and that the API/ACEA/OEM/SAE protocols are valid. What his tests point-out, is that lawn mower engines suck even when you put good oil in them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

fantastic
LSjr Tests VOA of 20 yr old Valvoline & 40 yr old Mobil 1 Oil. HPL tests Anti-Foam in Gear Oil.
9 10 11
Replies
204
Views
9K
4WD
C
Do you think they are testing oil filters correctly?
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
Mewbs
fantastic
  • Locked
LSJr's Video Testing Data - Pennzoil and Quaker State's Differences
10 11 12
Replies
235
Views
14K
dnewton3
GON
Outstanding video on home values now and the future
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
2K
GON
jmaster
  • Locked
Oil filter test -Brand Ranks Flow, Capacity, Efficiency
Replies
7
Views
2K
Astro14
Back
Top