Page 4 of 5
• posted on March 16, 2009, 3:39 pm
krp wrote:

You were wrong then, and you are wrong now if you think that the time you hold the fluid at a given temperature matters. The thickness measurements are taken *after* the fluid stabilizes at a given temperature.

Both Scott and I have said this. You are still missing the point. If you plot the curve of thickness vs temperature (no "time" axis comes into play), the viscosity index is the SLOPE of that curve. Different oils have different slopes (change thickness LESS as the temperature changes), and the less steep the slope the higher the VI and the wider the multi-viscosity rating can be.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 16, 2009, 5:27 pm

NOTE: That FLUIDS (and NOT solids as you gave an example) behave
Let's start here since notation doesn't transfer to non-binary groups.
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/NewtonsLawforFluids.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton 's_law_of_cooling#Newton.27s_law_of_cooling
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/compression-expansion-gases-d_605.html
If a compression or expansion takes place under constant temperature conditions - the process is said to be isothermal. The isothermal process can with the Ideal Gas Law be expressed as
p / ρ = constant (1)
where
p = absolute pressure
ρ = density
physics) The dimensional changes exhibited by solids, liquids, and gases for changes in temperature while pressure is held constant.
Most materials are subject to thermal expansion: a tendency to expand when heated, and to contract when cooled. For this reason, bridges are built with metal expansion joints, so that they can expand and contract without causing faults in the overall structure of the bridge. Other machines and structures likewise have built-in protection against the hazards of thermal expansion. But thermal expansion can also be advantageous, making possible the workings of thermometers and thermostats.
How It Works
Molecular Translational Energy
In scientific terms, heat is internal energy that flows from a system of relatively high temperature to one at a relatively low temperature. The internal energy itself, identified as thermal energy, is what people commonly mean when they say "heat." A form of kinetic energy due to the movement of molecules, thermal energy is sometimes called molecular translational energy.
Temperature is defined as a measure of the average molecular translational energy in a system, and the greater the temperature change for most materials, as we shall see, the greater the amount of thermal expansion. Thus, all these aspects of "heat"—heat itself (in the scientific sense), as well as thermal energy, temperature, and thermal expansion—are ultimately affected by the motion of molecules in relation to one another.
Molecular Motion and Newtonian Physics
In general, the kinetic energy created by molecular motion can be understood within the framework of classical physics—that is, the paradigm associated with Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and his laws of motion. Newton was the first to understand the physical force known as gravity, and he explained the behavior of objects within the context of gravitational force. Among the concepts essential to an understanding of Newtonian physics are the mass of an object, its rate of motion (whether in terms of velocity or acceleration), and the distance between objects. These, in turn, are all components central to an understanding of how molecules in relative motion generate thermal energy.
The greater the momentum of an object—that is, the product of its mass multiplied by its rate of velocity—the greater the impact it has on another object with which it collides. The greater, also, is its kinetic energy, which is equal to one-half its mass multiplied by the square of its velocity. The mass of a molecule, of course, is very small, yet if all the molecules within an object are in relative motion—many of them colliding and, thus, transferring kinetic energy—this is bound to lead to a relatively large amount of thermal energy on the part of the larger object

Duhhh that's what I said. The molecular CHAINING in multi-weight oils do NOT change fluid properties, they alter only the TIME frame in which the changes occur. In other words - when the fluid (in this case motor oil) absorbs heat from the engine, a 10 W. 30 weight oil will thin to equivalent of a 10 weight oil in a longer span of time than a straight 30 weight would. But when both fluids attain the destination temperature their viscosity will be essentially the same as will their lubrication potential. The standard test for lubrication potential of motor oils has been for many decades to heat them to a specific temperature akin to the operating temperature of a motor oil in an average internal combustion engine. Then to apply pressure to bearings on a rotating shaft to determine at what point the oil loses its lubrication potential. Texaco for some years was running a TV ad comparing their Havoline 10 W 30 against other oil companies 10 w 30. My argument with the refinery engineer was along the lines that I thought Havoline straight 30 weight would actually perform better than the multi-grade. He said that they had never compared it to our own oils. He then performed the tests in the Texaco labs. He bought me the steak dinner.
That was before 10 W 40 and 10 W 50 came around and later 20 W 50. Long before synthetics which has a very improved lubrication potential. Recently Castrol's Edge deposed Mobil 1 as the champ. By a remarkable degree. I am sure that Mobil won't take that sitting down.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 16, 2009, 5:43 pm
krp wrote:

<irrelevant discussion snipped>
I never mentioned any solid and neither did Scott- he mentioned a non-Newtonian *liquid*.
What I have said is that the rate of change of thickness with temperature is different for different base oils. For example, shell XHVI Group III+ base oil (Rotella synthetic, Pennzoil Platinum) thins out FAR less as you heat it up than a garden-variety group II or III base oil (plain old Valvoline or Castrol non-synthetic, Pennzoil "yellow bottle", etc.) even before you start putting in additives. If you still deny this fact, then you're still wrong.
Its just like my water vs. honey example. Honey changes thickness a lot as you warm it up, water hardly changes at all. The XHVI base oil is more like water in that regard. So are the Group IV PAO base fluids that other synthetics like Mobil 1, Redline, Royal Purple, etc. use. And THAT is why multi-grade motor oils made from high VI base oils are superior to single-grade oils.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 16, 2009, 9:20 pm

Yeah you did. The compound you mentioned last week is more SOLID than fluid.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 16, 2009, 6:00 pm
krp wrote:
<this point separated from the rest>

No that's NOT what you said. And look: you're about to say the same wrong thing again:

By definition a 10w30 and a 30 will be approximately the same thickness AT OPERATING TEMPERATURE (the rating is made at 100C). What matters is the fact that one thins out as you warm it up from a cold start (30 wt), the other more nearly stays constant (10w30).
Besides that, many modern multi-weight oils DO NOT DEPEND on what you call "molecular chaining" additives in order to achieve their thickness stability- it is just inherent in the base oil that it does not thin as much when you heat it as an older oil.
And with or without "chaining," you are missing the point that time is irrelevant. If you take a 10w30 oil and a 30 weight oil and hold them at 40 degrees C for a whole year before you measure the thickness, the 30 weight oil will be far, far thicker than the 10w30. Conversely, if you hold them both at 100 degrees C for a year and then measure the thickness, they will be about the same thickness. "Time" is irrelevant! The slope of the thickness/temperature plot is the issue.
http://tinyurl.com/cctvd9
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 16, 2009, 7:29 pm
Steve wrote:

No your wrong about that. The specification does not require them to be exactly the same but that only the difference to be within a specified amount. At 110C the difference in viscosity becomes significantly larger. 110C or higher would not be an unusual temp for oil in the average car on warm summer day. I don't know if that is what krp is trying to say or not. He is correct that 10w30 will be thinner than straight 30 in the typical car on a typical summer day.
-jim

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 18, 2009, 4:55 pm
jim wrote:

Hence the word "approximately."
At 110C

By the very factor you pointed out, the actual thickness depends on where both the straight 30 and and the 10w30 fall within the allowable range at the measurement temperature.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 18, 2009, 9:32 pm
Steve wrote:

I was disagreeing with your statement that they would be the same AT OPERATING TEMPERATURE. They won't and even at the benchmark temperature you can easily tell the difference.
-jim
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 19, 2009, 8:38 am

The point I made was this. Using the identical benchmark testing that Texaco and independent labs used to compare Havoline 10 w 30 to other major brand 10 w 30 oils that showed a slight advantage to Havoline, when coaxed to compare Havoline 10 W 30 to Havoline straight 30 - the straight 30 had a significant advantage. What wasn't much discussed was some testing Shell did with identical motors with very sensitive temperature sensors. Engines that were run for thousands of hours. The multiweight oils did not fare well at all. The "stress" testing is still the benchmark for testing oil. To this point, the new Castrol Edge is by a significant margin the best performing oil on today's market. But as I said, do not expect Exxon Mobil to take this laying down. Like Arnold - they'll be back with an even better oil.
Better living through chemistry.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 23, 2009, 2:13 pm
jim wrote:

That is _simply_ _not_ _true_.
In just about 30 seconds of web searching, I found the spec page for Royal Purple oils (I'm not promoting RP oils, just found this example and they are API certified oils unlike some other botique synthetics).
At 100C (the benchmark temperature), their 5w30 oil has a viscosity of 11 centistokes, but their straight SAE 30 is *thinner* at 10.6 centistokes! And their 10w30, while thinner than the 5w30, is still slightly thicker than the straight 30 weight, at 10.8 centistokes.
Furthermore, the 5w30 has a VI of 157, but the SAE 30 only has a vI of 119, which tells me that you can go WAY above the benchmark temperature and the 5w30 will remain thicker than the SAE 30.
Here's the link, knock yourself out: http://royalpurple.com/motor-oil-pp.html
click "Product Sheet" for the PDF.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 28, 2009, 2:21 pm
Steve wrote:

Well no it simply is and was true. Your originally statement that at operating temperature the viscosity of 10w30 is the same as 30 w is still false. Does that mean you can't google and find some oil company advertisement. Well of course you can find advertisements no body said you couldn't.
Your original statement is still false. Most of the 30 weight oil tends to have higher viscosity than most of the 10w30 at operating temperature. This is not speaking of some ideal car and oil. It is just how things generally work in the real world where most of the cars on the road don't use synthetic oil and many operate with oil temps higher than 100c on hot days.
**There is a allowable range for viscosity at the standardized temps.
**The economics physical realities of producing motor oils for sale puts most of the 10w30 at the bottom of the allowable viscosity range and the 30w at the top.
**Most engine oil operates at a temperature above 100C on hot summer days
Those facts combined make it generally incorrect to state (as you did) that the 30w and 10w30 oil will have the same viscosity at operating temperature.
-jim

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 30, 2009, 2:59 pm
jim wrote:

I never actually said that, I said that they would be "approximately" the same, and that means that the 30 could be either thinner or thicker than the 10w30 at operating temperature, depending on where operating temperature falls in relation to the SAE benchmark temperature.
You, however, claimed that (quoting from text reprinted above), "He is correct that 10w30 will be thinner than straight 30 in the typical car on a typical summer day," and that is what is categorically false. If you assume that the 30 and 10w30 are within a small percentage of the same viscosity at the benchmark temperature, then the 30 will have to be *thinner* than the 10w30 as you go above the benchmark temperature because it has a lower viscosity index (in other words, a steeper slope to its temp. vs. viscosity curve).
That much is just math.
Does that

Specification sheet, not advertisment. And you can go look up similar numbers for Pennzoil Platinum, Castrol Syntec, GTX, Edge, Mobil 1, Mobil conventional, Kendall, Delo, Rotella, etc. etc. Brand doesn't matter.

See above, this is the part of your argument that is the most incorrect. It is in fact, generally backwards. You seem to think that 30 weights will stay thicker at higher temperatures, but the opposite is in fact true. The simple combination of the fact that the 10w30 and 30 wt. have to be pretty close in viscosity at the benchmark temperature, and the fact that the 10w30 has a higher VI *generally* means that the 30 wt. will be significantly THINNER than the 10w30, not thicker, at temperatures above the benchmark point. It will be thicker when the engine is COLDER than the benchmark temperature.
What makes things interesting is that today it is quite possible to formulate a synthetic oil that meets the requirements for, say, a 10w30 rating and to do it *without* any viscosity index improvers at all. Synthetic base stocks in both group III+ (eg, Shell XHVI base used in Rotella and Pennzoil Platinum and similar stock used by Valvoline and others) and group IV (such as PAOs used by Mobil, Royal Purple, Amsoil, Shaeffers, etc.) have inherent VIs of 140 and higher now. That means that the oil company could, if they wanted to, sell it as a 30 weight as well. And if they do have to add some VIIs to create a multigrade oil of, say, 5w40, then the amount needed is so extremely small that there's very minimal benefit, if any, to the single grade oil. Its not like the old days where making a 10w40 required such a large percentage of VIIs that they, not the base oil, dominated the deposit formation and degradation characteristics of the product.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 30, 2009, 5:38 pm
Steve wrote:

No not approximately the same -they will be noticeably different. It will be noticeable in oil pressure and in the way that it will drain from the oil pan.

You believe this because you rely only on glossy brochures for information?
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 30, 2009, 9:52 pm
jim wrote:

So you keep saying. Dig that hole deeper if you want, I'm done.

No, I believe it both because the math predicts it and because measurements prove it. If you don't believe me, go over to one of the oil forums and pose the question. Make it simple, ask them if a 30wt will be thinner or thicker than a 10w30 at temperatures significantly above 100C.
I'm done beating the dead horse, Jim. You can have the last word now if it'll make you feel better.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 31, 2009, 12:10 pm
Steve wrote:

The math is based on a simplistic model that is little more than taking 2 points and drawing a line thru them. The model is designed to do not much more than prove a claim to the simple minded and it does that as long as one is willing to completely ignore the real world.

What measurements? You have provided only 2 measurements for one particular brand and that comes with a caveat that you may see some variance from the measurements in the actual product. You are talking about one particular brand of synthetic that has a tiny tiny share of the market. That is pretty thin soup you are calling proof.
-jim
?If you don't believe me, go over to one of the

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 31, 2009, 2:27 pm
OK, I swore I wouldn't respond again, but this is just too much.
jim wrote:
>The math is based on a simplistic model that is little more than taking 2 points >and drawing a line thru them.
Its not a line, its a curve.
But apart from that the "simplistic model" also happens to be EXACTLY correct for a Newtonian fluid, which is precisely what defines a straight-grade oil (no viscosity index improvers are permitted in straight-grade rated oils). Therefore, the only deviation from the model in the "real world" will be for the non-Newtonian fluid, which the multi-grade may or may not be depending on whether it has VII additives or not. Assuming it does, then it's viscosity will always be higher at high temperatures and lower at low temperatures than the Newtonian fluid up to the temperature at which the VIIs disintegrate, but by then both oils are oxidizing as well! Assuming that it does not have VIIs, then the "2 point" model is also correct for *it* at the high end (the low end may still be non-Newtonian because of pour-point depressant additives) and the two curves will never cross again above the temperature at which the two fluids have equal viscosity (which in the example is already BELOW the 100c benchmark).
Duh.

Chosen only because they make their data readily available and popped up first on a Google search. It also happens to be representative of all PAO-based synthetics in this regard, there's nothing special about it. In fact in doing a little more research, that brand's multi-grade oils are apparently considered in the thin side and prone to shearing for their rating, so in that sense they are a bad case for my argument. Pick any brand you want, or pick a different brand of straight from multi-grade. Go ahead. Find a counter-example! Please! Its quite likely that you can find at least one combination of oils that meet your criteria, especially since so many of the synthetic single-grades could easily qualify as multi-grades if dual rating were allowed. I didn't find such an example, but then I didn't go looking very hard for the oddball counter-example that may be out there.

At least I produced actual numbers instead of just waving my hands and saying the same thing over and over Lloyd Parker style. Or talking about how you "notice it when it drains out of the pan," which means that its already well below the 100C benchmark for one thing, and I seriously question your eyeballs as an accurate measure of viscosity for another. If my soup is thin, yours isn't even soup yet.
I'm really done this time.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 31, 2009, 6:16 pm
Steve wrote:

Right it is a curve not a line. And you haven't a clue as to what the formula for the curve is in reality. But that doesn't stop you from pretending you are making a mathematical calculation. All you have really done is read some glossy brochures and are parroting the buzzwords that you read therein.

What an idiot. If you actually did have even a smattering of understanding of the math you would recognize that I am saying the 2 curves never cross - that is in most comparisons the 30 weight is always going to be thicker than the 10w30 at any temp that you might find in an engine crankcase. I don't know (and neither do you) what the formula is for either curve but it is obvious that they do not intersect.     Since you don't actually have a precise formula for the curve for either type of oil it is just babbling nonsense when you claim you can prove your point using mathematics.

Maybe for some particular well chosen examples it will cross at a point below 100C. But in general if you compare what is most commonly available on the market and what is commonly used in engines that won't be the case.
It is not as if all oil comes in perfect discrete steps of 10 20 30 40 weights. These are categories describing a range. And even in your fancy brochure that you offer as proof, there is a disclaimer to that effect.

Nothing special except it is not what is in most engines on the road. And in part that is why it costs more than what most people use.

You mean I should go find my own glossy brochures?

Who is loyd parker? Another wannabee mathematician?
I'm not the one that made the bogus claim with nothing believable to back it up. I'm perfectly happy with the information I get from observing a pressure gauge or watching as it pours thru an opening. You on the other hand keep insisting that the crap you read in glossy brochures is mathematical proof. Did it ever occur to you that no company ever puts anything but the information that casts them in a good light in their advertising literature? So if a company does make a product that is a cut above average they are going to try to promote that as selling point and put it in their advertising.

HA HA HA
-jim
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 18, 2009, 1:45 am

How many miles and years on the engine. If it's a long time I would just switch to 5w30 non-synthetic. Running synthetic in an old engine could cause it to start leaking. For those cold northeast mornings just install a block heater and solve any cold start worries.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 18, 2009, 2:01 am

Second the block heater suggestion....better yet, one in each bank.