Chlorinated Paraffin

Tempest · Oct 20, 2006

Yes, yes...I know...HCl, corrosion, rust, etc...etc. I'm not trying to start that debate again.

So, ASSUMING that CP is safe and non-corrosive, what makes it so great? Is it that much better than Sulphur and Phos EP additives? If it is, what is going on with CP that is not going on with the others (like on the surface)?

I know that it is used in the metal cutting/forming world, so there must be something to this stuff.

tenderloin · Oct 20, 2006

FWIW Frank discussed X-1R which uses Chlorinated Paraffin

Frank
Group III Member
Reged: 05/29/02
Posts: 1228
Loc: Jacksonville Beach Fl Re: X-1R OIL ADDITIVE
#270264 - 07/31/03 04:05 PM Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply

Dr. Leonard Marra was the original inventor of X-1R and how NASA gave endorsement was because of friendship between Dr. Marra and than head of security for base vehicles including the crawler.
He got Leonard a test to use X-1R in gear boxes
to reduce friction. X-1R was a standard long chain chlorinated parrafin technology with instructions to change oil and X-1R every 3000 miles, (before chain started to dedigrate) thereby not having corrosion issues such as Duralube and others had, who never told you to change out oil and there additive in 3000 miles. Newest wrinkle in long chain chlorinated parrafin technology is chain will stay stable longer ("neutralized" is new term). A person who posts on this board is the best long chain chlorinated additive chemist Marra or myself know. He found a way to keep chain from dedigration and the company we all worked for and Dr. Marra consulted for, sent a gallon to an oil company. Can you guess the name of there oil and grease that uses this technology? I am not posting anymore on this subject - just a FYI.

Post Extras:

Thatwouldbegreat · Oct 20, 2006

Thats quite a teaser! My first thought was Synerlec in Royal Purple.

Tempest · Oct 20, 2006

Quote:

My first thought was Synerlec in Royal Purple.

Indeed! The MT-10 that I am trying right now lists VERY similar "micro-polishing" capabilities.

Is this capability to "roll out" asperities in order to increase film strength what makes CP's different?

MT-10 also claims to form an EP film that embeds itself into the valleys between the asperities, further "flattening" the surface to maintain film strength. Another difference?

TooSlick · Oct 20, 2006

Terry Dyson can tell you about Synerlec...as I recall, it's a lot older than this story.

TS

Thatwouldbegreat · Oct 20, 2006

I hate riddles like this one!

I wish I could find out which company, and which forum member, is linked to this improved CP.

It did get me thinking. We manufacure injector nozzles and there are various ultra precise finishing techniques we use that are quite subtle.

I wonder if a CP product use for a brief time could be used to produce a smoother surface, and then drained out before the corrosive problems started. [ This assumes that the surfaces in the engine needed to be smoother ]

Thatwouldbegreat · Oct 20, 2006

MT-10 does list that it contains 31.62 % halogens.

http://www.mpc-home.com/MT10Comparison.pdf

So maybe that is a chlorinated or fluorinated product?

We do use flourinated ski waxes which are quite fast in certain conditions, but can be harmful when they break down at temperature. I think some of them are also used in liquid form in hard drives or ultra low temp applications as lubricants.

---------------
http://www.chemicalelements.com/groups/halogens.html

The halogens are five non-metallic elements found in group 17 of the periodic table. The term "halogen" means "salt-former" and compounds containing halogens are called "salts". All halogens have 7 electrons in their outer shells, giving them an oxidation number of -1. The halogens exist, at room temperature, in all three states of matter:

Solid- Iodine, Astatine
Liquid- Bromine
Gas- Fluorine, Chlorine

The Halogens are:
Fluorine
Chlorine
Bromine
Iodine
Astatine

Thatwouldbegreat · Oct 20, 2006

I did find these two sites:

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/indexes/bios_item_no_30.htm

http://www.oilanalysis.com/message_board...sagenumber=1%20

Tempest · Oct 22, 2006

Quote:

So maybe that is a chlorinated or fluorinated product?

Yes, it is a C22 CP. The formulator used to post quite heavily on the gun boards supporting his FP10 CLP a few years ago.

One of the most interesting posts at the Firing line, posts # 105 & 106.

Quote:

"Heating the guns" as you say would be not only silly, but pointless, as the process requires more than just heat (being only a catalyst) to work properly. It requires the use of other chemical reagents to properly address the metal surfaces in order to produce the desired transitional effects of asperity roll-out, surface spread characteristics, and the desired inhibition of runaway proteonic reactions. This is where all of that so called "hundreds of thousands of dollars research" that you referred to in another post about synthetic lubricants, comes in.
It is NOT just a simple "breaking of the chain" to form HCl and then the HCl attaching to the Ferrous molecules to form FeCl2. That process has been so heavily modified today that the acids you refer to are inherently "locked up" by the additional chemistries provided to the Halo-Carbons upon the release of the chlorine, fluorine, or bromine. The transitional reagents are THEN reacted to the surface in a more efficient and non-corrosive manner, using organo-metallic reagents similar to olefins and others of the same nature

and

Quote:

1. lapping and rolling out surface irregularities and asparity contact points (these are those "rough spot" and "burrs" that I mentioned previously.
2. Establishing a boundary film (prox 3 microns thick) on each contacting surface.
3. Reducing the coefficient of friction on these surfaces so dramatically, that the springs function as they were designed to, in cycling the weapon to cause precice extraction/ejection and return to full battery conditions.

This still sounds somewhat similar to other EP additives as they contain metal deactivators and form films. Is CP that much better than the more accepted EP adds?

bruce381 · Oct 22, 2006

""So, ASSUMING that CP is safe and non-corrosive, what makes it so great""

Biggest advantage IMHO is Non corrosive to copper alloys and very HIGH anti scuff properties at low percent useage, also works in temp range lower than sulfur so when used with correct additives will allow anti scuff protection from cold to hot since sulfur will not be active till HOT CP's will do the work at colder temp such as warm up or lube systems that run at a "normal" temp range.

CP's were used in the big EMD locomotives and gear oils but due to enviromental concerns about Chlotnated anything they are being phased out BUT still used in metalworking and some boutique oils.

They can be inhibited with acid neutralizers, AO, and chlorine scavengers BUT will still break down to let out HCL no way to stop just slow down.

Work best IMHO is all loss lubericants where any breakdown is not a problem or at least HCL/Acids will not be recirculated.

Like any additve they must be in a balanced system to work the best.

would be OK for engine use if OCI and TAN were watched but it is a race to react someting (addditive) to the free CL/HCL before if causes corrosion to any ferrous metals present in lube system also hydrolitic stability is not very good.

Some C numbers like long chian >C18 are More stabil than others BUT still will react or breakdown over time and the more stabil the less the anti scuff properties are kinda a trade off.

bruce

Tempest · Oct 23, 2006

Thanks Bruce for again coming through with good info. A couple of follow ups and comments:

Quote:

also works in temp range lower than sulfur so when used with correct additives will allow anti scuff protection from cold to hot since sulfur will not be active till HOT CP's will do the work at colder temp such as warm up or lube systems that run at a "normal" temp range.

Would the low temp properties infer an AW function?...and not just an EP function.

Quote:

CP's were used in the big EMD locomotives and gear oils

Indeed, MPC does make locomotive products, and one of the tech articles deals with this.

Quote:

They can be inhibited with acid neutralizers, AO, and chlorine scavengers

In one of their papers, they talk about the saponification of the reactants to form different compounds, which are then attached to the surface. This through the use of epoxidized oils and oxirane scavengers. From what I read, epoxidized oil are used in the production of plastics, so if one were to add the Cl in the mix, one might get some kind of polymer (like PVC? just a guess). The oxiranes are used as acid scavengers. Are these typical methods for dealing with CP's, or is this "out of the box" thinking?

Quote:

would be OK for engine use if OCI and TAN were watched

I have a UOA into the lab right now (no results yet, should be this week). Is it TAN or TBN to watch for with engines?

TooSlick · Oct 23, 2006

I believe that Amsoil may be using this additive chemistry in their Series 2000/3000 engine oils and racing grease. These products first appeared on the market back in 1995; first the 20w-50 and then the 0w-30 and Series 3000, 5w-30.

This unique additive technology would explain why the VOA's of their Series 2000 oil look similar to their 5w-30/10w-30, yet the four ball wear test results are much better. The most recent data showed a wear scar of only 0.36 mm for their TSO formulation (40kg load, 150C oil temp; 1800 rpms for 1 hr), vs 0.45 mm for their ASL and ATM formulation, despite using significantly thinner basestocks.

TS

bruce381 · Oct 23, 2006

""Would the low temp properties infer an AW function?...and not just an EP function.""

Never have got a real good answer to what a AW is vs a EP or more correctly (anti scuff)

IMHO CP reacts at ? 100-300F forgot exactly sulfur compounds start at about 300F and go to ??.
Low temp is not in this cas ment to be like COLD but room temp.

""CP's were used in the big EMD locomotives and gear oils""

As AW to replace ZDDP which reacts and cases corrosion of the Silver bearings in the piston think wrist pin.

""In one of their papers, they talk about the saponification of the reactants to form different compounds, which are then attached to the surface. This through the use of epoxidized oils and oxirane scavengers. From what I read, epoxidized oil are used in the production of plastics, so if one were to add the Cl in the mix, one might get some kind of polymer (like PVC? just a guess). The oxiranes are used as acid scavengers. Are these typical methods for dealing with CP's, or is this "out of the box" thinking?""

read that stuff years ago IMHO a lot of Physco babbel
Epoxidized soybean oil is used to scavenge free CL where sulfonates nuetralize any HCL.
Common stuff for metaworking oils.

""I have a UOA into the lab right now (no results yet, should be this week). Is it TAN or TBN to watch for with engines?""

CP when they degrade will drop the TBN and raise the TAN I'd keep an eye on that and use no more than 2-3% in ANY lube oil I do not want to have problems with the EMD diesels ran I think 1-2% but they also had high TBN 14 or maybe higher and a big dispersant load and are tested.

bruce

Tempest · Oct 24, 2006

TooSlick - Interesting...I too had seen the differences in those oils but never thought that CP's might be the reason. I'll have to look up the VOA's and have a look.

Bruce - Thanks again for the info. VERY informative. The UOA should be interesting, and I will post it. I did use about 3 cans of throttle body cleaner + fuel adds while the oil was in there though, so that might skew things a little.

Based on the %31 halogen # posted above, the treat rates recommended by MPC seem to be in % rate that you spec'd, also.

Tempest · Oct 24, 2006

Forgot to mention - oil is Amsoil ASL 5W30.

Chlorinated Paraffin

Similar threads