Well, that makes sense. But when I had saws that required tuning, they seemed a bit twitchy. The adjustment screws did not seem to make really fine adjustments possible. Anyway, whatever I did, I did not burn up the engine.
No, you don't and that's easy to see.
Power draw doesn't matter because tge test doesn't replicate any condition found in a IC motor.
There is a test fir film strength in a motor. It's called tge HTHS test.
Your opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.
Fine. Does it ultimately answer the question about 2-cycle oils? And the Lubrizol site expressly claims that it is possible now to have a low HTHS viscosity and a high film strength. This means not only that viscosity and film strength are not the same thing, but that film strength is important. I think Lubrizol knows more about the importance of film strength than you do, as you seem to disregard it.
It does not have to. The power test shows which oil has more residual friction. I believe that the ranking will be the same in an engine, though the absolute values will differ. I can tell you that in my rather long career I have done many tests using model conditions that involved dummy fluids because we could not replicate the actual conditions in our test lab, but by knowing how fluids behave, we were able to scale-up successfully. If conditions had to be matched exactly, many products and processes would never get done. The space program is an example. We could never have duplicated conditions on the moon exactly here on Earth. But with sound engineering principles, we were able to do it.
You see things that are not true. The basics of how engines work are not complicated at all. The details that a mechanic must know to fix an engine are a different matter from understanding how engines work. In the old days I also adjusted timing and set the distributor points. I knew how to adjust idle and optimize timing for best performance. But those details are secondary to knowing how an engine works. If I did not know how an engine works, though, how would I have had any idea how to make such adjustments? I also often pre-diagnosed problems before taking a vehicle to a mechanic. I was usually correct, which may have saved me some money by not having the mechanic do too many irrelevant tests. So, between zero knowledge and expert knowledge, I am not at either end. You can think I am at the lower end, and that is fine for you to believe. But if you claim I don't know how engines work, you are in effect saying I have zero knowledge, which is clearly false. Now where is your answer on your degree and job description?
My whole point is that it is not necessary to re-create the exact conditions of an engine to comparatively rank oils. One would only need to re-create the exact conditions to quantitatively predict performance. In my career as an engineer I have successfully scaled up many systems where I could not re-create the exact conditions. That is a basic principle of engineering called similarity analysis. In this digital age, an analog computer is not used much anymore. But in the old days, people would often model a process using an analog computer, which had each element of the process simulated by an electronic element that had similar differential equations defining its response to inputs. Typically the analog computer would work on a different time scale from the actual process, completing the results in minutes instead of hours or days. People would construct whole process systems based on these calculations without actually using any process materials in the modeling. I agree that Todd's bar and chain oil test was realistic and excellent. I also think his tests of chainsaw chain were very illuminating and fair. So was his testing or battery powered chainsaws. Overall, he is thorough and meticulous in each thing he chooses to test, though some things he chooses are a bit ridiculous.
No, you have proved so many times. And it's not just my opinion.
Well it is if the comparison is to judge how they will perform in a motor, smart guy.
??? That makes no sense.
I guess I am wasting my time. You refuse to listen to reason or sound engineering principles. An egregious example is your insistence that viscosity can be equated to film strength, when even Lubrizol contradicts that.
I understand that is your belief, but I must say especially when 2-stroke oils are being judged that you absolutely have to get as close to the exact conditions as possible for any test to be reasonably valid.. 2 stroke oils are present in combustion, some burn effectively in the combustion chamber and some do not, there are by-products of that burning which may change the properties of the remaining oil, some fall out of suspension in the A/F mixture better and more effectively coat the bottom-end of the engine and so on. Due to all of these variables often you'll find that what you expect will happen in such a complicated system are going to be far different from a simple low-temp abrasion test using that oil.
You only think his tests are great because you don't have a clue about any of the things he tests.
No they don't. And yes, you're a wasting time. Maybe you should study the first law of thermo dynamics. Then you can try working on chewing gum while walking.
This guy gets it.
Hopes and dreams won't make a 4 ball test approximate a motor... that's why the test, the real ASTM one is typicly used for motor oils. Let alone some homebrewed test in a guys garage to garmer youtube views.
Of course it's possible under boundary conditions, but them your measuring additive treat rates and not the base oil.
