Houckster, I don't think that bruce381 is writing off the product, just saying that maybe you should've done a VOA, just for the baseline information that it would have provided. No I'm not one to talk too loud at that subject, since I've never done a VOA myself, but some "oilers" really like to read about exactly what they're pouring into their engines.
I've stated before that my biggest drawback on this product is the layout cost. I have enough trouble convincing my family that I need to do preventative maintenance, let alone fork out $300 or so for a fluid/filters change at one pop. I also NOT saying that this product can't do what it claims, it's just hard to fathom, given what everything else's limitations seem to be after viewing their respective UOA's from others' uses and mileage limits.
I'm eagerly waiting for your data as well.
Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity
People, we need to gain some perspective in all this civility and respect is utmost here even though dissenting opinions fly, please one can disagree yet is hurling caustic comments necessary. I think the worthiness of this topic is merited, yet we seem to forget our comments negating the value of this product is not fully substantiated and yes the cost can be prohibitive this does not in an of itself invalidated it's use or considerations.
Again I go back to the humble beginnings of amsoil such attack on its validity were unsubstantiated and how many of you at that time when you first heard of it dismissed it's usefulness, again without data just on the merits of somebody saying that's ludicrous can't happen of last, let's give the benefit of the doubt here.
It's interesting to see the tenor of the majority here, might it be said if such a spirit were reflected by those in the past that took a chance on concepts and product development I'd venture to say we would've become a non progressive society with a atrophying creativity and innovation.
Again I go back to the humble beginnings of amsoil such attack on its validity were unsubstantiated and how many of you at that time when you first heard of it dismissed it's usefulness, again without data just on the merits of somebody saying that's ludicrous can't happen of last, let's give the benefit of the doubt here.
It's interesting to see the tenor of the majority here, might it be said if such a spirit were reflected by those in the past that took a chance on concepts and product development I'd venture to say we would've become a non progressive society with a atrophying creativity and innovation.
Well said, gsleve.
Regards from inHaliburton!
Regards from inHaliburton!
Houkster writes:
"Chumley you seem to be under the impression that I am going to be disappointed that you're not going use SynLube. I really couldn't care less."
Naaahhh, I really don't care if you are disappointed or not. But for what it's worth, lets give your current level of persuasive effort the "evidence test," OK? I count 85 posts from you in this thread. Clearly you do care and have a big interest (financial or otherwise) in this topic and how others feel/react to it.
My opinion is based on evidence. (85 posts worth, . . . from you)
BRUCE381 writes:
"Wow what a great way to explain away lousy wear rates by saying they use FE in the formula. But how do you know with out a baseline of new unused oil?"
Houkster replies:
"BRUCE381: Congratulations on having such an open mind. With absolutely no evidence to validate such a judgment, you have already written the product off."
Houkster: Your ability to read between the lines and read others minds has no equal. I don't get that at all from Bruce381's comment. In fact, I see nothing in the above comment to indicate that Bruce381 has made the judgement call of writing the product off, although his comment makes perfect sense and it is an excellent observation to which I have yet to see your data rich objective reply. Remember, most of us know that, given the opportunity, chances are that SynLube will give itself an "A" on any tests that they grade/edit themselves.
Chumley
"Chumley you seem to be under the impression that I am going to be disappointed that you're not going use SynLube. I really couldn't care less."
Naaahhh, I really don't care if you are disappointed or not. But for what it's worth, lets give your current level of persuasive effort the "evidence test," OK? I count 85 posts from you in this thread. Clearly you do care and have a big interest (financial or otherwise) in this topic and how others feel/react to it.
My opinion is based on evidence. (85 posts worth, . . . from you)BRUCE381 writes:
"Wow what a great way to explain away lousy wear rates by saying they use FE in the formula. But how do you know with out a baseline of new unused oil?"
Houkster replies:
"BRUCE381: Congratulations on having such an open mind. With absolutely no evidence to validate such a judgment, you have already written the product off."
Houkster: Your ability to read between the lines and read others minds has no equal. I don't get that at all from Bruce381's comment. In fact, I see nothing in the above comment to indicate that Bruce381 has made the judgement call of writing the product off, although his comment makes perfect sense and it is an excellent observation to which I have yet to see your data rich objective reply. Remember, most of us know that, given the opportunity, chances are that SynLube will give itself an "A" on any tests that they grade/edit themselves.
Chumley
Thanks for your comments DAD2LEIA. It seems hard, however, to conclude that he isn't writing SynLube off with the comment ". . . to explain away lousy wear rates by saying they use FE in the formula." seems pretty negative to me.
Also, unless the vehicle you are thinking of uses considerably more than 5 quarts of oil, you really won't be spending $300 to get started. My startup cost was less than $200 and that included a quart of Service Fill ($40) instead of Add Oil because I knew my oil consumption would be very low. To date, I've only used about 8 ounces of the Service Fill (4 oz. to replace oil consumption loss and another 4 oz. to replace oil used for samples). The thing to consider is the per mile cost. Dino oil, assuming a 3K OCI and a $25 charge at a quick lube place costs about .8 cents per mile. In contrast, with an initial outlay of $195.50 for SynLube (5 quarts Initial Fill + 1 quart Service Fill + 1 oil filter and magnets), my per mile costs will be equal to that of dino oil by about 23.5K miles. After that, the next 75K miles except for occasional filter changes is free. In addition there is the better condition of the engine, all the time not lost waiting to have an oil change done and the significantly reduced pollution caused by all the waste oil normally generated during a vehicle's life.
With regard to Chumley's comments . . .
First I simply don't believe he has read all the posts I've made about SynLube and he misinterprets my purpose. If he had read my posts he would have seen that I have specifically stated that I derive no income whatsoever from SynLube sales. If everyone one this board suddenly bought SynLube, I wouldn't get one cent. My sole purpose has been to discuss a product that is significantly different from any other competing product on the market and to have people here properly understand what it does. After that, it's for everyone to decide whether SynLube fits into their plans or not.
Secondly, Chumley states that I have not made a persuasive argument in SynLube's favor. If Chumley or anyone else finds the comments I've made to be unconvincing or unclear, then it is up to them to state clearly and without sarcasm why they find fault with what I've written. I can respond to that though perusing the comments on the SynLube website would go far in clearing up a lot of the skepticism and misunderstanding. Frankly, some of my comments have specifically been calculated to discourage negative participation.
Finally, as this post was being composed, BRUCE381 weighed in with some clarifying comments which allowed me to see more clearly what he was trying to say. Frankly, I don't have any idea whether sending an unused sample of SynLube into Dyson would provide the information he would like to have but as I pointed out above, if the results from SynLube indicate a positive result, a sample of unused oil as well as the used oil will be sent in to Dyson.
My final point to BRUCE381 is that because SynLube is so unconventional, his personal experience may make it more difficult, not less, to understand the merits of the product. Since he states he is a CLS, then I think the SynLube website along with a note to Miro Kefurt for clarifying comments would be especially valuable.
Also, unless the vehicle you are thinking of uses considerably more than 5 quarts of oil, you really won't be spending $300 to get started. My startup cost was less than $200 and that included a quart of Service Fill ($40) instead of Add Oil because I knew my oil consumption would be very low. To date, I've only used about 8 ounces of the Service Fill (4 oz. to replace oil consumption loss and another 4 oz. to replace oil used for samples). The thing to consider is the per mile cost. Dino oil, assuming a 3K OCI and a $25 charge at a quick lube place costs about .8 cents per mile. In contrast, with an initial outlay of $195.50 for SynLube (5 quarts Initial Fill + 1 quart Service Fill + 1 oil filter and magnets), my per mile costs will be equal to that of dino oil by about 23.5K miles. After that, the next 75K miles except for occasional filter changes is free. In addition there is the better condition of the engine, all the time not lost waiting to have an oil change done and the significantly reduced pollution caused by all the waste oil normally generated during a vehicle's life.
With regard to Chumley's comments . . .
First I simply don't believe he has read all the posts I've made about SynLube and he misinterprets my purpose. If he had read my posts he would have seen that I have specifically stated that I derive no income whatsoever from SynLube sales. If everyone one this board suddenly bought SynLube, I wouldn't get one cent. My sole purpose has been to discuss a product that is significantly different from any other competing product on the market and to have people here properly understand what it does. After that, it's for everyone to decide whether SynLube fits into their plans or not.
Secondly, Chumley states that I have not made a persuasive argument in SynLube's favor. If Chumley or anyone else finds the comments I've made to be unconvincing or unclear, then it is up to them to state clearly and without sarcasm why they find fault with what I've written. I can respond to that though perusing the comments on the SynLube website would go far in clearing up a lot of the skepticism and misunderstanding. Frankly, some of my comments have specifically been calculated to discourage negative participation.
Finally, as this post was being composed, BRUCE381 weighed in with some clarifying comments which allowed me to see more clearly what he was trying to say. Frankly, I don't have any idea whether sending an unused sample of SynLube into Dyson would provide the information he would like to have but as I pointed out above, if the results from SynLube indicate a positive result, a sample of unused oil as well as the used oil will be sent in to Dyson.
My final point to BRUCE381 is that because SynLube is so unconventional, his personal experience may make it more difficult, not less, to understand the merits of the product. Since he states he is a CLS, then I think the SynLube website along with a note to Miro Kefurt for clarifying comments would be especially valuable.
I'm not writing off this product but I have seen NOTHING that makes any sense and I know I have blended PCMO and other lubes for 33 years.
All I said is if I had a oil that I knew had bad wear numbers and I said Oh we use a FE additve so that your test results will be skewed that is a great way to protect yourself when bad wear numbers are reported if you can not understand this concept then we are at an impass. Love to see ANY oil data at all othe than BS from website which uses terms I have never heard in this industry.
bruce CLS
All I said is if I had a oil that I knew had bad wear numbers and I said Oh we use a FE additve so that your test results will be skewed that is a great way to protect yourself when bad wear numbers are reported if you can not understand this concept then we are at an impass. Love to see ANY oil data at all othe than BS from website which uses terms I have never heard in this industry.
bruce CLS
bruce381 writes:
"All I said is if I had an oil that I knew had bad wear numbers and I said Oh we use a Fe additve so that your test results will be skewed that is a great way to protect yourself when bad wear numbers are reported . . . .snip."
It will be interesting to see if SynLube later claims to use additive packages that also contain moderate levels of Aluminum, Chromium, Lead, Silicon, Copper, Tin, Soot, and Carboxylic acids too! We all ready know that they add lots of micro fine solids, (friction modifiers) so they have that covered in advance.
In regard to Houcksters comment: <I hope I'm reading it correctly>
"My sole purpose has been to discuss a product that is significantly different from any other competing product on the market and to have people here properly understand what it does."
If that is your sole purpose, then to this date, in my opinion based on what you've written so far, I'd say that you've failed completely.
Chumley
"All I said is if I had an oil that I knew had bad wear numbers and I said Oh we use a Fe additve so that your test results will be skewed that is a great way to protect yourself when bad wear numbers are reported . . . .snip."
It will be interesting to see if SynLube later claims to use additive packages that also contain moderate levels of Aluminum, Chromium, Lead, Silicon, Copper, Tin, Soot, and Carboxylic acids too! We all ready know that they add lots of micro fine solids, (friction modifiers) so they have that covered in advance.
In regard to Houcksters comment: <I hope I'm reading it correctly>
"My sole purpose has been to discuss a product that is significantly different from any other competing product on the market and to have people here properly understand what it does."
If that is your sole purpose, then to this date, in my opinion based on what you've written so far, I'd say that you've failed completely.
Chumley
bruce381, maybe you could explain to Houckster then, in general terms of course, why the particular methodology and the colliodial components that Synlube is using simply WON'T work for the alloted purpose of its design. I, by no means, am qualified to make a scientific and tribologic assessment of this product, but I can simply state from what I've been reading, extra particulate matter, no matter how microscopic, simply cannot stay permanently in suspension in oil basestock.
Feel free to correct me if my logic is wrong.
Feel free to correct me if my logic is wrong.
SynLube is, technically, a lyophilic sol. That is to say "This is a colloidal state where the suspended particles have a strong affinity for the suspending medium (liquid or gas) and therefore do not separate or settle out." If the colloids were not attracted to the surrounding medium and tended to settle out of suspension, the mixture would be called lyophobic.
Colloids are extremely small particles that are invisible to the naked eye. To be seen clearly, a 400x microscope is required. The PTFE particles are about 1 micron in size. By way of comparison, red blood cells are 7.5 microns. The graphite and synthetic moly colloids are equally small.
Colloids account for about 1/3 the volume of the oil and do most of the actual lubrication work because they have a polar attraction to the engine parts or they are embossed into the surface of the metal under great pressure. Either way, they are the first layer of lubricant protection and do not drain to the oil pan. Consequently, no dry lubrication condition ever exists in a SynLube-protected engine.
I have had a sample of SynLube in a clear bottle sitting on a shelf at home for weeks and there has been no settling whatsoever.
Colloids are extremely small particles that are invisible to the naked eye. To be seen clearly, a 400x microscope is required. The PTFE particles are about 1 micron in size. By way of comparison, red blood cells are 7.5 microns. The graphite and synthetic moly colloids are equally small.
Colloids account for about 1/3 the volume of the oil and do most of the actual lubrication work because they have a polar attraction to the engine parts or they are embossed into the surface of the metal under great pressure. Either way, they are the first layer of lubricant protection and do not drain to the oil pan. Consequently, no dry lubrication condition ever exists in a SynLube-protected engine.
I have had a sample of SynLube in a clear bottle sitting on a shelf at home for weeks and there has been no settling whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by Houckster:
SynLube is, technically, a lyophilic sol. That is to say "This is a colloidal state where the suspended particles have a strong affinity for the suspending medium (liquid or gas) and therefore do not separate or settle out." If the colloids were not attracted to the surrounding medium and tended to settle out of suspension, the mixture would be called lyophobic.
Colloids are extremely small particles that are invisible to the naked eye. To be seen clearly, a 400x microscope is required. The PTFE particles are about 1 micron in size. By way of comparison, red blood cells are 7.5 microns. The graphite and synthetic moly colloids are equally small.
Colloids account for about 1/3 the volume of the oil and do most of the actual lubrication work because they have a polar attraction to the engine parts or they are embossed into the surface of the metal under great pressure. Either way, they are the first layer of lubricant protection and do not drain to the oil pan. Consequently, no dry lubrication condition ever exists in a SynLube-protected engine.
I have had a sample of SynLube in a clear bottle sitting on a shelf at home for weeks and there has been no settling whatsoever.
If I undersdtand you this product has PTFE, MOLY, Graphite? if so that is more info than has been shown on there web site and in this long thread.
I'm a fan of graphite and moly but not PTFE it will Not wet oily metal but in a small amount would not be a negitive.
Also I though some pages ago there was mention of steartes or soap if this product if it has a sterate it my in situ product a soap with metal wear particle but I think that may be wishful thinking, but it would be be a good FM and dry lube.
I would have trouble perhaps with sludge and acid control ovet time and think that is where the problem would be. Even if the base lube is made of a flor carbon or other exotic there will be some acid build up which would lead to wear and corrosion.
As I said before show me a VOA and UOA at 10k,20k,30k,40k etc. Then I will coment further.
bruce
quote:Originally posted by Chumley:
bruce381 writes:
"All I said is if I had an oil that I knew had bad wear numbers and I said Oh we use a Fe additve so that your test results will be skewed that is a great way to protect yourself when bad wear numbers are reported . . . .snip."
I will be interesting to see if SynLube later claims to use additive packages that also contain moderate levels of Aluminum, Chromium, Lead, Silicon, Copper, Tin, Soot, and Carbolic acids too! We all ready know that they add lots of micro fine solids, (friction modifiers) so they have that covered in advance.
Chumley
LOL
The information I presented comes directly from the SynLube website.quote:If I undersdtand you this product has PTFE, MOLY, Graphite? if so that is more info than has been shown on there web site and in this long thread and as such will reserve opinion for now untill I see a UOA,s and a VOA.
No offense Houckster, but I think that by page 12, we've all checked out the website and can read that information.
I've said all that I'm going to say 'till those results come back.
I've said all that I'm going to say 'till those results come back.
Just a slight comment on here on this colloidal technology, do not know this technology intimately however I was able to grasp some fundementals and did some research outside of what synlube presented and found this technology to very interesting and enlightening, information I've not known before didn't realize how much colloidal technology exist.
Due to my ignorance I made it a matter of research so as to be more informed and have a better grasp or understanding and indeed it is quite amazing. This is aside from synlube
Due to my ignorance I made it a matter of research so as to be more informed and have a better grasp or understanding and indeed it is quite amazing. This is aside from synlube
gsleve writes:
"Just a slight comment on here on this colloidal technology . . . . "
Well just because this is all new technology to you that requires more "research" on your part, to think that thousands of others who have all ready spent their lives doing what you now decide "needs further research" surely qualifies you as an internet automotive expert!
Chumley
"Just a slight comment on here on this colloidal technology . . . . "
Well just because this is all new technology to you that requires more "research" on your part, to think that thousands of others who have all ready spent their lives doing what you now decide "needs further research" surely qualifies you as an internet automotive expert!
Chumley
quote:Well just because this is all new technology to you that requires more "research" on your part, to think that thousands of others who have all ready spent their lives doing what you now decide "needs further research" surely qualifies you as an internet automotive expert!
Such arrogance!
And your reponse to my arrogance is:
It is hard for me to believe that Chumley has any sincere or objective interest in SynLube. He's getting attention and that's what's important to im.
My personal policy with regard to Chumley will be to ignore him unless he makes a responsible statement and then I will try to respond as positively as possible. Troublemakers usually go away if no one responds to them.
On a positive note, I have sent SynLube a request for information about when the results of the tests of the oil sample I sent will be available. I will post them when I get them. If they're good, another sample will be sent to Dyson.
My personal policy with regard to Chumley will be to ignore him unless he makes a responsible statement and then I will try to respond as positively as possible. Troublemakers usually go away if no one responds to them.
On a positive note, I have sent SynLube a request for information about when the results of the tests of the oil sample I sent will be available. I will post them when I get them. If they're good, another sample will be sent to Dyson.
Chumley I sense some irritation here allow me to point out that during all your discussions I have not responded in a negative tone whatsoever and have reserved the right for your on dignity and respect to flow thru this discussion, how unfortunate it is to see that during such discussions you have the proclivity to be either condecending, sarcastic and even confrontational.
This forum is nothing more than information gathering and I think a number of us have mantained a modest view of our knowledge on these matters so as to ascertain what can be contributed here, many of us have accorded you the respect just as a person regardless of your knowledgebase on oil, I believe this in of itself is fundemental and just, primarily when dealing with people, again unfortunately it appears this basic element and others seemed to be missing, and it's quite indicative why.
Nonetheless such condecension is unecessary ones facade of superiority does not give you the tamerity to deal with others in the manner that you have obviously chosen.
This forum is nothing more than information gathering and I think a number of us have mantained a modest view of our knowledge on these matters so as to ascertain what can be contributed here, many of us have accorded you the respect just as a person regardless of your knowledgebase on oil, I believe this in of itself is fundemental and just, primarily when dealing with people, again unfortunately it appears this basic element and others seemed to be missing, and it's quite indicative why.
Nonetheless such condecension is unecessary ones facade of superiority does not give you the tamerity to deal with others in the manner that you have obviously chosen.
You guys are so funny. You actually think my ideas are mine? Sorry to disappoint you, but I did my homework 20 years ago (even then before the internet was popular there were those looking for others to do their homework for them too) When I was learning about chemistry, I chose guys with PhD's to teach me. I had to pay dearly for that. <you expect it for free> Trust me, you'll get, and you are currently getting what you pay for! Sorry but, No free lunch today! Good luck!
Keep your dignity, and hide your arrogance right underneath your ignorance. Your choice. Ya see, pointing out my political incorrectness won't make you smarter. Even still today, you will have to do your own homework to have any level of understanding! Nice try but Sorry!
Ignore all the guys with PhD's in Chemistry and listen to Houkster. Step right up and buy your $32 a liter synthetic oil.
Good luck!
Chumley
Keep your dignity, and hide your arrogance right underneath your ignorance. Your choice. Ya see, pointing out my political incorrectness won't make you smarter. Even still today, you will have to do your own homework to have any level of understanding! Nice try but Sorry!
Ignore all the guys with PhD's in Chemistry and listen to Houkster. Step right up and buy your $32 a liter synthetic oil.
Good luck!
Chumley
