Understanding Viscosity and HTHS

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
Just because you're an engineer doesn't mean you're always right. An engineer designed the Mustang II after all.

If anything, it's more unsettling that an engineer is willing to push what is essentially psuedoscience.


Please don't lump us practicing engineers (mechanical with 30 years of bearing design, construction, turbine operation and maintenance, and lubrication) in with this...
 
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
Just because you're an engineer doesn't mean you're always right. An engineer designed the Mustang II after all.

I agree but not necessarily for the Mustang II part.

Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
If anything, it's more unsettling that an engineer is willing to push what is essentially psuedoscience.

So, with no degree, training, and experience in engineering and science, you claim to have a better engineering and scientific judgement.

Also, when you first joined this forum, I was the one to welcome you and answer your question about ZDDP in glory detail.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4853520/primary-vs-secondary-zddp
 
Originally Posted by Shannow
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
Just because you're an engineer doesn't mean you're always right. An engineer designed the Mustang II after all.

If anything, it's more unsettling that an engineer is willing to push what is essentially psuedoscience.

Please don't lump us practicing engineers (mechanical with 30 years of bearing design, construction, turbine operation and maintenance, and lubrication) in with this...

+1
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
Just because you're an engineer doesn't mean you're always right. An engineer designed the Mustang II after all.

I agree but not necessarily for the Mustang II part.

Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
If anything, it's more unsettling that an engineer is willing to push what is essentially psuedoscience.

So, with no degree, training, and experience in engineering and science, you claim to have a better engineering and scientific judgement.

Also, when you first joined this forum, I was the one to welcome you and answer your question about ZDDP in glory detail.

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/4853520/primary-vs-secondary-zddp


At no point did I claim to have better engineering and scientific judgement. Where you got that, I have no idea. I don't have a degree. I build and race engines, and am mostly self-taught. I look to engineers, like yourself, to expand my knowledge. Which is why it's upsetting for someone like myself when pseudoscience gets presented as hard facts as it feels like I'm being taken for a fool. I may not be an engineer, but I know when information is incompatible with the scientific method.

Nikola Tesla said it best... "Today's Scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off though equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."
 
Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
At no point did I claim to have better engineering and scientific judgement. Where you got that, I have no idea. I don't have a degree. I build and race engines, and am mostly self-taught. I look to engineers, like yourself, to expand my knowledge.

It's fair enough, but when you call an honest scientific effort pseudoscience, it implies that. Pseudoscience refers to astrology, alchemy, alternative medicine, etc. If you do hold a degree and make similar statements, it implies that you either don't respect your colleagues because you lack maturity or simply are not capable of understanding their work and lack a deep understanding of science and engineering beyond a superficial knowledge from your training or more likely some combination of the two.

Originally Posted by RDY4WAR
Which is why it's upsetting for someone like myself when pseudoscience gets presented as hard facts as it feels like I'm being taken for a fool. I may not be an engineer, but I know when information is incompatible with the scientific method.

It is not pseudoscience. It's based on the ASTM D341 viscosity - temperature relationship (are you calling that pseudoscience?) and a simple empirical relationship between the VII content, viscosity, and shear. Don't forget that it's meant as an estimator and prone to certain errors.

I told you to send me the parameters of your boutique oils so that I can take a look but you never did. In your case, no VII is involved; so, the only error could result from ASTM D341 or the errors in your KV, HTHSV, and density values.[/quote]
 
I was and still am suggesting that online motor oil patent data be used to check how accurately the tool's various predictions/outputs are. I would do it myself but I don't want that to encroach on my too-little free time. Creating and using models has been my profession for well over a decade. The tool should undergo a process with the catch phrase name (that I dislike) called verification and validation (V&V). There is little to criticize until it is known how accurate its outputs are. Also, after seeing how it performs, the model could and should be tweaked to improve it. This is how it's done in this line of work.

There are many valid ways to build models. Some of those ways can even result in models that can make predictions about things involving highly complex Newtonian physics (ex. maneuvering missile flight) or other complex laws without the model having explicit "knowledge" of said physics or laws. Those models typically gain their predictive capabilities by analyzing a lot of input data, then their internal variables get tuned such that the models' outputs match the input data's associated outputs as well as possible. One famous example of this is machine learning. On the much more primitive end, there is curve-fitting data to make predictions at other locations for which there is no input data. Enough rambling from me...
 
Originally Posted by JAG
I was and still am suggesting that online motor oil patent data be used to check how accurately the tool's various predictions/outputs are. I would do it myself but I don't want that to encroach on my too-little free time. Creating and using models has been my profession for well over a decade. The tool should undergo a process with the catch phrase name (that I dislike) called verification and validation (V&V). There is little to criticize until it is known how accurate its outputs are. Also, after seeing how it performs, the model could and should be tweaked to improve it. This is how it's done in this line of work.

There are many valid ways to build models. Some of those ways can even result in models that can make predictions about things involving highly complex Newtonian physics (ex. maneuvering missile flight) or other complex laws without the model having explicit "knowledge" of said physics or laws. Those models typically gain their predictive capabilities by analyzing a lot of input data, then their internal variables get tuned such that the models' outputs match the input data's associated outputs as well as possible. One famous example of this is machine learning. On the much more primitive end, there is curve-fitting data to make predictions at other locations for which there is no input data. Enough rambling from me...

It sounds like you do some great interesting engineering work, JAG!
 
Originally Posted by GaryPoe
Keep the wheels turning. I like your content and frankly look forward to it @Gokhan
57.gif


Thanks, GaryPoe!

Here is an application of the base-oil/HTHSV calculator to the Valvoline Advance Synthetic oils, which have unusually superior viscosity characteristics:

https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/foru...vii-and-wear-its-complicated#Post5120623
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
It sounds like you do some great interesting engineering work, JAG!

Thank you. I do find it very interesting and will likely spend my whole career at the same place. I avoid mentioning identifying details of it online because of its nature. It's awkward to always be vague about it but it's best to keep it that way.
 
Originally Posted by Gokhan
It's based on the ASTM D341 viscosity - temperature relationship (are you calling that pseudoscience?) and a simple empirical relationship between the VII content, viscosity, and shear. Don't forget that it's meant as an estimator and prone to certain errors.

The relationship has not yet been demonstrated in an empirical fashion. We're barely reaching out of the thought experiment juncture.
 
Engineers put a spacecraft in orbit around the moon, and men on the moon surface with slide rules, pencil drawings/blue prints with no actual test simulations in near zero gravity and no atmosphere to verify the LEM could actually land successfully on the moon surface.
whistle.gif
Pretty amazing stuff done by Engineers with mathematical equations.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Engineers put men on the moon with slide rules, pencil drawings/blue prints and no actual test simulations in near zero gravity and no atmosphere to verify the LEM could actually land successfully on the moon surface.
whistle.gif
Pretty amazing stuff done by Engineers with mathematical equations.

Shark: jumped.

Someone please lock this thread.
 
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Engineers put men on the moon with slide rules, pencil drawings/blue prints and no actual test simulations in near zero gravity and no atmosphere to verify the LEM could actually land successfully on the moon surface.
whistle.gif
Pretty amazing stuff done by Engineers with mathematical equations.

Shark: jumped.

Someone please lock this thread.

ZeeOSix is not a shark. He's a knowledgeable engineer, specialized in fluids and heat. He makes very good posts. What he said here is true.
 
Why train drivers (British) are called Engineers in US?
grin2.gif
can you even find a calculator in the cab?
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Engineers put a spacecraft in orbit around the moon, and men on the moon surface with slide rules, pencil drawings/blue prints with no actual test simulations in near zero gravity and no atmosphere to verify the LEM could actually land successfully on the moon surface.

True, but Newtonian mechanics was already well, well understood and verified. They were dealing with real, experimentally verified relationships and using well established formulae.
 
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Engineers put a spacecraft in orbit around the moon, and men on the moon surface with slide rules, pencil drawings/blue prints with no actual test simulations in near zero gravity and no atmosphere to verify the LEM could actually land successfully on the moon surface.

True, but Newtonian mechanics was already well, well understood and verified. They were dealing with real, experimentally verified relationships and using well established formulae.

And, you know... testing everything.

There had been dozens of spaceflights by that time, including some uncrewed moon landings. Every single physical piece of the mission was tested as rigorously and realistically as possible at the time. The astronauts trained for months.

The idea that NASA went from equations to the moon is ludicrous.
 
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Engineers put a spacecraft in orbit around the moon, and men on the moon surface with slide rules, pencil drawings/blue prints with no actual test simulations in near zero gravity and no atmosphere to verify the LEM could actually land successfully on the moon surface.

True, but Newtonian mechanics was already well, well understood and verified. They were dealing with real, experimentally verified relationships and using well established formulae.

And, you know... testing everything.

There had been dozens of spaceflights by that time, including some uncrewed moon landings. Every single physical piece of the mission was tested as rigorously and realistically as possible at the time. The astronauts trained for months.

The idea that NASA went from equations to the moon is ludicrous.


Never said Engineers went directly from equations to a moon landing. How many of those unmanned moom landings failed? Regardless if those spacecraft were manned or not doesn't change the fact that equations were derived and used by Engineers to get to that point, and no testing on earth was a 100% verification/ simulation of a real moon orbit insertion and landing of the actual orbiting vehicle and LEM.

Instead of shooting down Gokhan's equations and model by saying: "It hasn't been tested in the lab to verify accuracy, so it's useless.", how about start by analyzing his equations and model to see exactly how he derived it, and showing why it's not a decent way to model and estimate what he claims it does.
 
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by Garak
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Engineers put a spacecraft in orbit around the moon, and men on the moon surface with slide rules, pencil drawings/blue prints with no actual test simulations in near zero gravity and no atmosphere to verify the LEM could actually land successfully on the moon surface.

True, but Newtonian mechanics was already well, well understood and verified. They were dealing with real, experimentally verified relationships and using well established formulae.

And, you know... testing everything.

There had been dozens of spaceflights by that time, including some uncrewed moon landings. Every single physical piece of the mission was tested as rigorously and realistically as possible at the time. The astronauts trained for months.

The idea that NASA went from equations to the moon is ludicrous.

Our cell phones have more technology than the crafts that took us to the moon and back. But when Apollo 13 explode, it was engineering and equations that got them home. Love that movie btw...
 
OP
I have never walked down the oil aisle at Walmart and based my oil-buying decision on HTHS, PAO content or TBN.
My vehicles still last 18 years and perhaps I should walk down a different aisle at Walmart and consider a cure for what actually kills my 18 year-old vehicles....... that being rust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top