What's laughable is he claims to want to correct errors in logic, but he doesn't even understand how a motor works or the forces involved.I guess your not perfect if your "stomach churning passive aggressive"
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Whatever is cheap when I need to buy oil. It's an old IDI Toyota 1KZ diesel from the '90's, manual says CF oil. Any modern diesel oil will be fine, and due to soot loading, frequent oil changes will be more important than exact spec..............so whatever is cheap.
Maybe but that is not reason for a post like that. Besides, your not exactly the paragon of reasonableness on this forum as I and others have noticed.
You may not like my approach, but when I talk about something A. It has a factual basis and B. I have experience in and understand what's going on.
The problem IMO is that people are use to being treated with kid gloves when they are stupid. I refuse to do this within forum limits.
That and I am not here to be buddies per se. This forum use to be and ahoukd be a repository of knowledge. You let the morons slide and it clogs up with garbage and bad information.
Can't go wrong with Rottella, Delo and Delvac
If they ran diesel, I don't think that had lead compounds. But breathing soot is not so good either.
That may be what you are trying to do. But apparently you did not know about ASTM D2782 testing and the Timken test rig, which essentially is what Todd Osgood duplicated for his oil testing. It was not some kluge job made up by a guy in his garage.
Solutions do not separate. To separate, there needs to be at least 2 phases. Suspensions can separate.
You didn't know about it until you googled it to support your stupid argument. I have been aware if it since at least the year 2001.
PF test is a home brewed piece of crap. Get over it. In addition testing motor oils the way he did shows he knows as much about motors as you. Which is to say, not much.
If you were aware of it, on what basis did you say PF's rig was a piece of crap? It does exactly what the Timken apparatus does. Ergo, the results are valid. Also, try to understand that knowledge of engines is completely irrelevant when it comes to judging the efficacy of lubrication testing. It is about fluid dynamics, and is independent from the device to be lubricated. Also try to understand that a detailed knowledge of the petroleum industry is not necessary either. I work in the field of fluid dynamics. That knowledge applies to all fluids; petroleum products are just one of many. You mentioned earlier that I did not publish any papers on petroleum applications. That is true. However, I have consulted to several petroleum companies. But that industry is very mature, and there is little in my field to write about for the petroleum industry. My articles are geared towards new technologies and industries. You also expressed skepticism about Amsoil having a good product. While I will not argue that point specifically here, I can give you an analogy. My wife and sister-in-law are retired chemical engineers. Both worked at P&G and one worked on Olay products. Now they have formed a company to market skin care products using high-end ingredients, using their expert formulation skills. Their products are demonstrably better than Olay or any other mass-produced brand. They use more expensive ingredients than the big brands and charge for their products accordingly. Yet they are only a 2-person company. The principal is that small companies can produce better formulations that the big ones, depending on the market segment the big companies choose to serve.
Let me point out another fallacy. You said I am not as smart as I think I am. To know that, you would have to know two things: 1) How smart I think I am, and 2) How smart I actually am. Since I have never made any claims on this forum about how smart I am, you cannot know how smart I think I am. And of course, you have no way of knowing how smart I actually am. Therefore, your statement has no basis in fact or logic.I guess your not perfect if your "stomach churning passive aggressive"
There is static film strength (such as what grease has) and there is hydrodynamic film strength (which oil has). That is why ASTM has two tests on the same Timken apparatus. But viscosity is not film strength. They have completely different units. In SI terms, viscosity has units of Pascal-seconds, whereas film strength has units of Pascals. And some low viscosity oils have higher film strength than high viscosity oils.
For starters, even if PF test was valid, which it's not, THE TEST ISNT MENT FOR MOTOR OILS! In addition it replicates nothing going on inside a motor. There for its its a useless test. Made all the worse by being done in a garage by a guy that has about zero understanding of what makes a good motor oil.
You don't seem to understand that there's a mile wide gap between research papers and book learning, and practical application.
I once saw you say you didn't understand why retuning a saw would be needed when switching between pump gas the user has mixed with their own two stroke oil, and canned premix fuel, because the fuel : oil ratio was the same.
https://www.arboristsite.com/thread...odest-pro-level-chainsaws.364166/post-7879132
I have disregarded basically everything you've said ever since.
I see your point. Better to mess up the saw than you.
That's not been my experience with red armor personally or with the equipment I maintain that's used professionally. I've never seen any carbon build up in the muffler and extremely little to non on the piston. It exhibits about the best cling I've ever seen inside an engine, even one that's been sitting for a long time.
While we usually refer to something electric powered as a motor, technically either engine or motor can be applied to an internal combustion engine.
You can run about whatever 5w40 to 15w40 in that engine. Years ago I switched over to rotella t6 and have been running it about ever since. During covid I ran dello since I couldn't get rotella. Didn't pull any samples (not free anymore.) But I'm sure it's just as good as the rotella.
Right, it'll all work for this engine. I'm also one of the "clean cheap oil is better than dirty expensive oil" folks. Change it often! I'll be looking for bulk oil deals, and oil filters by the case. Wouldn't be averse to a 55 gallon drum.
Wish I could get some use out of the used oil, vs. taking it to the oil recycling place at the dump. They just burn it in the waste oil heater at the county shop, but I don't generate enough oil or need to heat my shop enough to make a waste oil heater make sense.
Lower viscosity oils do not have higher film strength than higher viscosity oils under hydrodynamic conditions.
And yes viscosity is basically film strength under hydrodynamic conditions...for the tenth time.
In addition film strength is a huge issue with motors oils and hasn't been for some time. Much more important stuff to worry about.
As itboertains to two cycle oils film strength is just not a factor one should worry about. Actually running two high a film strength oil is counter productive because they don't combust cleanly.
Ok, Spock.
BTW smarty guy. The correct test for film strength of motor oils is the HTHS test.
Again your googling, but you don't know anything about motors, or motor oils. Therefor you jump to all sorts of ignorant and false conclusions. Your fall back is "because I'm and engineer and I know fluid dynamics".
Go back to church. I liked you slightly better for a day or so after you attended.
Again your googling, but you don't know anything about motors, or motor oils. Therefor you jump to all sorts of ignorant and false conclusions. Your fall back is "because I'm and engineer and I know fluid dynamics".
Go back to church. I liked you slightly better for a day or so after you attended.
