TOTAL 2,180,100
Total Jeep trk. 51,100
2.34%
Only 2% of all new vehicles sitting in Dealer Inventory are JEEP
U.S. CAR AND LIGHT-TRUCK SALES, MARCH 2010/2009
2010 2009 Car 2010 2009 Truck 2010 2009 Total
Car Car Car Car percent Truck Truck Truck Truck percent Total Total Total Total Point Percent
Make 2010 2009 Share Share change 2010 2009 Share Share change 2010 2009 Share Share change change
Jeep - - - - - 24,393 23,771 4.9% 6.0% 3% 24,393 23,771 2.3% 2.8% -0.5% 3%
Sales of all Brands are up on average 27% = JEEP ONLY 3%
So as you can see there are data to support any TRUTH you wish to prove, but by no stretch of imagination you can proclaim a JEEP to be a success in anything other than off-road operation, and even there Wolrd Wide JEEP has lost to Toyota and Land Rover and even HUMMER.
And what is more something that is now based on 1940's design is great, but only if it is a JEEP and not SynLube (developed from 1944 to 1966).
So again I propose "tollerance" and recognition of FACTS and not "ignorance" and "TOTAL ANGER" when someone does not have the same affection for your JEEP.
And I thought you'd understand !!!
Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity
Miro, I have to say that I see why you are against VOA's and UOA's on your beloved Synlube, you still have not explained how the VOA on your Synlube showed a FE reading of 5 and then Budman's UOA with 19,000 miles on Synlube showed a reading of 166
That is an awfully high FE reading in anyones book, I remember seeing a UOA on Amsoil that had 18,000 miles on the oil and the Iron reading was no way near a reading of 166
I really think that members here are getting tired of your lame statistics and talk of your ancient Yugo.
If you cannot explain the high Iron reading then why should anyone consider buying your product.
That is an awfully high FE reading in anyones book, I remember seeing a UOA on Amsoil that had 18,000 miles on the oil and the Iron reading was no way near a reading of 166
I really think that members here are getting tired of your lame statistics and talk of your ancient Yugo.
If you cannot explain the high Iron reading then why should anyone consider buying your product.
This might help explain the question regarding Iron levesl(FE),and other particulates and various tests. Kirk
Microscopic Optical Analysis
Sample Fluid is examined under 100X to 400X optical microscope. Identifies contaminants, Sol condition, Wear particles.
Spectrochemical Analysis
Determines PPM (parts per million) levels of various chemical elements.
Identifies wear metals, contaminants, additives and additive depletion.
Viscometric Analysis
Determines Fluid Viscosity at 40°C and 100°C from which VI (Viscosity Index) is calculated. Helps to determine Fluid condition and service life.
Chemical Titration Analysis
Determines Fluid TBN (Total Base Number), TAN (Total Acid Number) and/or pH level. Helps to determine Fluid condition and service life.
Proprietary Sludge Formation and Oxidation Test
Determines Fluid tendency to form insoluble deposits such as "sludge" and "varnish" as well as "volatility" and "self-Ignition" in a single Proprietary test, that is capable in same Test Equipment to simultaneously test up to four (4) individual samples, for performance comparison. Helps to determine Fluid condition and remaining service life.
About Oil Tests
We at SynLube, Inc. receive many e-mails with questions about oil tests performed by various laboratories, and how to interpret them. This section should answer most of frequently asked questions, and help to understand the differences between conventional oils (both petroleum and synthetic) and our unique colloidal lubricants.
Specifics:
Iron = Fe
Conventional Petroleum or Synthetic oils will NOT show ANY Iron in FRESH OIL
SynLube™ however due to unique chemical formulation has typically 50 PPM in the INITIAL FILL OIL and about 75 PPM in the ADD OIL of Iron, because some of the ""sacrificial"" antioxidants contain Fe atoms in their chemical molecular make up.
Normally laboratories "Flag" Fe if PPM is greater than 100, although levels below 1,000 rarely translate into any mechanical problems or abnormal wear even in a Conventional Oil.
For practical purposes about 100 should be subtracted from the Lab report to project any "wear" and that is only simple rule.
Labs also usually test oils that are Frequently Changed, therefore oil that remain in the engine for over 10,000 miles will have much higher reading than oil that is changed every 3,000 miles.
The ONLY reliable indication of Relative wear is installation of TriMagnets onto the motor oil filter and replacing the oil filter at regular intervals (2 years or 25,000 miles). Cutting the filter apart with appropriate tool and inspecting visually the quantity and quality of the iron deposits that were trapped by the TriMagnet is much more reliable indication of wear since 80 to 90% engine wear is Ferro-magnetic.
Other less reliable method is taking the Fe reading from lab report, subtracting 100 PPM and dividing that by the miles on the oil.
Example: 114-100 = 14/12,000 = 0.00116
If the Fe value is LESS than 0.01 there is NO NEED for concern about the Iron reading.
Chromium = Cr
This is the ONLY wear element that is of concern in oil analysis of SynLube™, as NO Chromium is present in FRESH SynLube™ Lubricants.
Again Cr level in relation to miles on the oil is of importance and NOT the actual level, frequently
Some Chromium will be in the oil from the initial break in, and the level will remain constant over many thousands of miles or actually DROP with time and miles.
The Cr reading must be compensated for accumulated mileage.
Example: 11/12,000 = 0.0009
If the value is LESS than 0.005 there is NO NEED for concern about the Chromium reading.
Silicon = Si
Many OEM’s use Silicone Lubricant spray on engine components to prevent rust and to serve as initial break-in lube during engine assembly.
Readings of OVER 1,000 PPM are NOT uncommon on NEW engines, and as always some Silicone will remain even after several oil changes.
Silicone is usually interpreted by labs as Dirt, Dust or Sand if it is associated with "solids" in the oil test, however since SynLube™ has up to 33% by volume of colloidal solids, this rule can not be applied to SynLube™.
However SynLube™ uses silicone based anti-foam agents in most of the Lube-4-Life™ fluids, therefore silicone levels in 200 to 250 PPM are NORMAL for the formulations and can be as high as 500 PPM for ATF or PSF.
Tin = Sn
Chemicals that contain Tin Sn are component part of the INITIAL FILL OIL and readings of 55 to 67 PPM are NORMAL, the Tin level will actually decrease with the use of ADD OIL, and when it drops BELOW 25 PPM it indicates that either INITIAL FILL OIL or SERVICE FILL OIL should be used during NEXT OIL FILTER CHANGE, instead of the ADD OIL.
Molybdenum
SynLube™ oils contain Moly and therefore the Molybdenum levels will be in 3,000 PPM and above range, when level drops to below 1,000 PPM, INITIAL FILL OIL should be added instead of the ADD OIL, next time oil addition is needed.
Differing test equipment yields different Molybdenum levels from identical test sample, therefore data obtained from different laboratories can not be reliably compared.
Non-Newtonian fluids like SynLube™ will result in differing readings in different equipment design even if the calibration is the same, this sometimes can vary by as much as 200% at low temperatures and about 20 % at 100ºC to 150ºC range.
Therefore viscosity CHANGE between different oil tests is MORE important than any single viscosity reading, which is both temperature and equipment specific.
TBN of SynLube™ also varies greatly with different tests, quick Electro chemical testers often yield false results because colloidal Graphite contained in SynLube™ is electric conductor and that affects the reading.
The ONLY reliable TBN determination is by laboratory titration and this test is time consuming and expensive, therefore unless specifically requested it is NOT performed during typical low cost oil test.
Solids
Unless inspection is done under 100X to 400X microscope, there are NO reliable automatic tests that will correctly indicate presence of Dust, Sand, Dirt, Soot and wear particles in the SynLube™ lubricants. SynLube™ contains as much as 33% by volume of colloidal solids (Graphite, PTFE – Teflon, Moly). Therefore these sub-micronic solids that are present in SynLube™ will not yield correct values for "contamination" tests, since they usually compare wear or impurities to conventional lubricants which contain NO SOLIDS when FRESH and solids only accumulate during their use.
Summary
Low cost oil analysis can be ONLY used for plotting of wear trend or oil viscosity change trend, any single test can not be used to indicate or predict equipment or oil quality.
Since SynLube, Inc. has extensive experience with colloidal lubricants and of course with all SynLube™ products, we can either perform any requested or required oil analysis for our customers, or properly interpret results that are obtained from independent oil test laboratories.
Microscopic Optical Analysis
Sample Fluid is examined under 100X to 400X optical microscope. Identifies contaminants, Sol condition, Wear particles.
Spectrochemical Analysis
Determines PPM (parts per million) levels of various chemical elements.
Identifies wear metals, contaminants, additives and additive depletion.
Viscometric Analysis
Determines Fluid Viscosity at 40°C and 100°C from which VI (Viscosity Index) is calculated. Helps to determine Fluid condition and service life.
Chemical Titration Analysis
Determines Fluid TBN (Total Base Number), TAN (Total Acid Number) and/or pH level. Helps to determine Fluid condition and service life.
Proprietary Sludge Formation and Oxidation Test
Determines Fluid tendency to form insoluble deposits such as "sludge" and "varnish" as well as "volatility" and "self-Ignition" in a single Proprietary test, that is capable in same Test Equipment to simultaneously test up to four (4) individual samples, for performance comparison. Helps to determine Fluid condition and remaining service life.
About Oil Tests
We at SynLube, Inc. receive many e-mails with questions about oil tests performed by various laboratories, and how to interpret them. This section should answer most of frequently asked questions, and help to understand the differences between conventional oils (both petroleum and synthetic) and our unique colloidal lubricants.
Specifics:
Iron = Fe
Conventional Petroleum or Synthetic oils will NOT show ANY Iron in FRESH OIL
SynLube™ however due to unique chemical formulation has typically 50 PPM in the INITIAL FILL OIL and about 75 PPM in the ADD OIL of Iron, because some of the ""sacrificial"" antioxidants contain Fe atoms in their chemical molecular make up.
Normally laboratories "Flag" Fe if PPM is greater than 100, although levels below 1,000 rarely translate into any mechanical problems or abnormal wear even in a Conventional Oil.
For practical purposes about 100 should be subtracted from the Lab report to project any "wear" and that is only simple rule.
Labs also usually test oils that are Frequently Changed, therefore oil that remain in the engine for over 10,000 miles will have much higher reading than oil that is changed every 3,000 miles.
The ONLY reliable indication of Relative wear is installation of TriMagnets onto the motor oil filter and replacing the oil filter at regular intervals (2 years or 25,000 miles). Cutting the filter apart with appropriate tool and inspecting visually the quantity and quality of the iron deposits that were trapped by the TriMagnet is much more reliable indication of wear since 80 to 90% engine wear is Ferro-magnetic.
Other less reliable method is taking the Fe reading from lab report, subtracting 100 PPM and dividing that by the miles on the oil.
Example: 114-100 = 14/12,000 = 0.00116
If the Fe value is LESS than 0.01 there is NO NEED for concern about the Iron reading.
Chromium = Cr
This is the ONLY wear element that is of concern in oil analysis of SynLube™, as NO Chromium is present in FRESH SynLube™ Lubricants.
Again Cr level in relation to miles on the oil is of importance and NOT the actual level, frequently
Some Chromium will be in the oil from the initial break in, and the level will remain constant over many thousands of miles or actually DROP with time and miles.
The Cr reading must be compensated for accumulated mileage.
Example: 11/12,000 = 0.0009
If the value is LESS than 0.005 there is NO NEED for concern about the Chromium reading.
Silicon = Si
Many OEM’s use Silicone Lubricant spray on engine components to prevent rust and to serve as initial break-in lube during engine assembly.
Readings of OVER 1,000 PPM are NOT uncommon on NEW engines, and as always some Silicone will remain even after several oil changes.
Silicone is usually interpreted by labs as Dirt, Dust or Sand if it is associated with "solids" in the oil test, however since SynLube™ has up to 33% by volume of colloidal solids, this rule can not be applied to SynLube™.
However SynLube™ uses silicone based anti-foam agents in most of the Lube-4-Life™ fluids, therefore silicone levels in 200 to 250 PPM are NORMAL for the formulations and can be as high as 500 PPM for ATF or PSF.
Tin = Sn
Chemicals that contain Tin Sn are component part of the INITIAL FILL OIL and readings of 55 to 67 PPM are NORMAL, the Tin level will actually decrease with the use of ADD OIL, and when it drops BELOW 25 PPM it indicates that either INITIAL FILL OIL or SERVICE FILL OIL should be used during NEXT OIL FILTER CHANGE, instead of the ADD OIL.
Molybdenum
SynLube™ oils contain Moly and therefore the Molybdenum levels will be in 3,000 PPM and above range, when level drops to below 1,000 PPM, INITIAL FILL OIL should be added instead of the ADD OIL, next time oil addition is needed.
Differing test equipment yields different Molybdenum levels from identical test sample, therefore data obtained from different laboratories can not be reliably compared.
Non-Newtonian fluids like SynLube™ will result in differing readings in different equipment design even if the calibration is the same, this sometimes can vary by as much as 200% at low temperatures and about 20 % at 100ºC to 150ºC range.
Therefore viscosity CHANGE between different oil tests is MORE important than any single viscosity reading, which is both temperature and equipment specific.
TBN of SynLube™ also varies greatly with different tests, quick Electro chemical testers often yield false results because colloidal Graphite contained in SynLube™ is electric conductor and that affects the reading.
The ONLY reliable TBN determination is by laboratory titration and this test is time consuming and expensive, therefore unless specifically requested it is NOT performed during typical low cost oil test.
Solids
Unless inspection is done under 100X to 400X microscope, there are NO reliable automatic tests that will correctly indicate presence of Dust, Sand, Dirt, Soot and wear particles in the SynLube™ lubricants. SynLube™ contains as much as 33% by volume of colloidal solids (Graphite, PTFE – Teflon, Moly). Therefore these sub-micronic solids that are present in SynLube™ will not yield correct values for "contamination" tests, since they usually compare wear or impurities to conventional lubricants which contain NO SOLIDS when FRESH and solids only accumulate during their use.
Summary
Low cost oil analysis can be ONLY used for plotting of wear trend or oil viscosity change trend, any single test can not be used to indicate or predict equipment or oil quality.
Since SynLube, Inc. has extensive experience with colloidal lubricants and of course with all SynLube™ products, we can either perform any requested or required oil analysis for our customers, or properly interpret results that are obtained from independent oil test laboratories.
How convenient….no labs can analyze it, I love the part when you say: we can either perform any requested or required oil analysis for our customers …..
Sorry I forgot, you are not Miro for a moment.
Sorry I forgot, you are not Miro for a moment.
This is budman......another synlube user like me getting scammed(sarcasm). We are so dumb!!(LOL).
Look how clean his engine is just like my engines, including my vw 1.8t. My engines also are just as clueless as me and don't know they have been scammed for almost ten years now(joke).
My engines just keep ignoring all the naysayers and keep on running and running and running and running,using no oil,sludge free and clean,and always passing all the emission inspection tests here in NJ. I guess I will never learn why store oil is so much better!(lol).
Maybe this scam will finally blow up my engines in about 30 years or so when cars fly because they don't know any better!!!! (more sarcasm!) I really miss using MMO now days to flush my engine thanks to Synlube! Life is so boring when you're being scammed like me for almost a decade now using the same product when everyone else knows better(lol).
Meanwhile take a look at this sweet looking/running engine!!! This engine is being scammed too,just doesn't know it!(lol).
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...1842031&#Post1842031
Look how clean his engine is just like my engines, including my vw 1.8t. My engines also are just as clueless as me and don't know they have been scammed for almost ten years now(joke).
My engines just keep ignoring all the naysayers and keep on running and running and running and running,using no oil,sludge free and clean,and always passing all the emission inspection tests here in NJ. I guess I will never learn why store oil is so much better!(lol).
Maybe this scam will finally blow up my engines in about 30 years or so when cars fly because they don't know any better!!!! (more sarcasm!) I really miss using MMO now days to flush my engine thanks to Synlube! Life is so boring when you're being scammed like me for almost a decade now using the same product when everyone else knows better(lol).
Meanwhile take a look at this sweet looking/running engine!!! This engine is being scammed too,just doesn't know it!(lol).
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...1842031&#Post1842031
Captain Kirk, sorry to say this, but nobody is buying what you are saying here, UOA's do not lie, they just tell it like it is.
quote:Originally posted by Big Bear:
Captain Kirk, sorry to say this, but nobody is buying what you are saying here, UOA's do not lie, they just tell it like it is.
NO.....my engines tell it like it is... like in the above post. My engines keep on running and running,and passing all emission tests,and use NO OIL.
That is the ultimate bottom line. What the engine does and for how long.
Also,just what do you mean regarding UOA's don't lie. How much was the test as in cost and how extensive was the study. How accurate is the lab.
I started the other thread UOA/VOA vs the real world just to make a point showing the real world is very different from what some lab may indicate.
Did you not read this above post as well???? Here it is again below!
http://www.machinerylubricatio...1384/ferrous-density
Bottom line.........the engines are the best oil analysis/proving labs that never lie!!!!
http://webcache.googleusercont...&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Looks like another article on the perils of engine sludge using so called.....approved oil....also an issue in the aviation industry,now that's deadly serious!!!
Looks like another article on the perils of engine sludge using so called.....approved oil....also an issue in the aviation industry,now that's deadly serious!!!
http://www.vclassmotorsport.co...mplate.asp?menuid=59
The Asian countries typically have much better oils available to the public as do the Europeans vs. the USA. They have done a nice job protecting their engines with superior motor oils compared to the U.S.
They offer 100% group IV PAO synthetic oils to match their high tech engines to avoid engine issues......no MMO or Auto-Rx is ever needed. Sludge and excess wear is prevented in the first place using these very good lubricants!
As usual.....the Americans are behind the curve....including motor oil technology along with automotive technology!! I thought it was just math and science where we lag behind........wait a minute.......now it all makes sense.......education is the key that they apparently seem to have to appreciate this concept!!
The Asian countries typically have much better oils available to the public as do the Europeans vs. the USA. They have done a nice job protecting their engines with superior motor oils compared to the U.S.
They offer 100% group IV PAO synthetic oils to match their high tech engines to avoid engine issues......no MMO or Auto-Rx is ever needed. Sludge and excess wear is prevented in the first place using these very good lubricants!
As usual.....the Americans are behind the curve....including motor oil technology along with automotive technology!! I thought it was just math and science where we lag behind........wait a minute.......now it all makes sense.......education is the key that they apparently seem to have to appreciate this concept!!
quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
This is budman......another synlube user like me getting scammed(sarcasm). We are so dumb!!(LOL).
Look how clean his engine is just like my engines, including my vw 1.8t. My engines also are just as clueless as me and don't know they have been scammed for almost ten years now(joke).
My engines just keep ignoring all the naysayers and keep on running and running and running and running,using no oil,sludge free and clean,and always passing all the emission inspection tests here in NJ. I guess I will never learn why store oil is so much better!(lol).
Maybe this scam will finally blow up my engines in about 30 years or so when cars fly because they don't know any better!!!! (more sarcasm!) I really miss using MMO now days to flush my engine thanks to Synlube! Life is so boring when you're being scammed like me for almost a decade now using the same product when everyone else knows better(lol).
Meanwhile take a look at this sweet looking/running engine!!! This engine is being scammed too,just doesn't know it!(lol).
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...1842031&#Post1842031
You mean, look at all the clean engines that use name brand oil at a fraction of the cost.
quote:Originally posted by Trajan:quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
This is budman......another synlube user like me getting scammed(sarcasm). We are so dumb!!(LOL).
Look how clean his engine is just like my engines, including my vw 1.8t. My engines also are just as clueless as me and don't know they have been scammed for almost ten years now(joke).
My engines just keep ignoring all the naysayers and keep on running and running and running and running,using no oil,sludge free and clean,and always passing all the emission inspection tests here in NJ. I guess I will never learn why store oil is so much better!(lol).
Maybe this scam will finally blow up my engines in about 30 years or so when cars fly because they don't know any better!!!! (more sarcasm!) I really miss using MMO now days to flush my engine thanks to Synlube! Life is so boring when you're being scammed like me for almost a decade now using the same product when everyone else knows better(lol).
Meanwhile take a look at this sweet looking/running engine!!! This engine is being scammed too,just doesn't know it!(lol).
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...1842031&#Post1842031
You mean, look at all the clean engines that use name brand oil at a fraction of the cost.
No......I said look at budmans engine. We all know,myself included that clean engine is possible with cheap oil because I have used the cheap stuff and kept my engine clean.
I have seen you and everyone on these threads talk about and admit too frequent oil/filter changes(every 3,000 miles at least?) ..using various flushes all year long,MMO,Auto-Rx etc. We all know about that process.
The alternative to all that work and expensive is do what budman is doing in the above post. It works!!! It's cheaper in the long run and way less work!!
https://forums.noria.com/eve/fo...=603106024#603106024
This should explain what I am talking about regarding keeping an engine clean the old fashioned way!!
The expensive, high maintenance,loads of effort way that some of you still can't break from,you included trajan!!
REMEMBER THIS MESS BELOW! YOU GUYS ARE ALL IN PANIC MODE TRYING TO AVOID THIS!!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...er=873562#Post873562
This should explain what I am talking about regarding keeping an engine clean the old fashioned way!!
The expensive, high maintenance,loads of effort way that some of you still can't break from,you included trajan!!
REMEMBER THIS MESS BELOW! YOU GUYS ARE ALL IN PANIC MODE TRYING TO AVOID THIS!!
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...er=873562#Post873562
quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:quote:Originally posted by Trajan:quote:Originally posted by Captain Kirk:
This is budman......another synlube user like me getting scammed(sarcasm). We are so dumb!!(LOL).
Look how clean his engine is just like my engines, including my vw 1.8t. My engines also are just as clueless as me and don't know they have been scammed for almost ten years now(joke).
My engines just keep ignoring all the naysayers and keep on running and running and running and running,using no oil,sludge free and clean,and always passing all the emission inspection tests here in NJ. I guess I will never learn why store oil is so much better!(lol).
Maybe this scam will finally blow up my engines in about 30 years or so when cars fly because they don't know any better!!!! (more sarcasm!) I really miss using MMO now days to flush my engine thanks to Synlube! Life is so boring when you're being scammed like me for almost a decade now using the same product when everyone else knows better(lol).
Meanwhile take a look at this sweet looking/running engine!!! This engine is being scammed too,just doesn't know it!(lol).
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...1842031&#Post1842031
You mean, look at all the clean engines that use name brand oil at a fraction of the cost.
No......I said look at budmans engine. We all know,myself included that clean engine is possible with cheap oil because I have used the cheap stuff and kept my engine clean.
I have seen you and everyone on these threads talk about and admit too frequent oil/filter changes(every 3,000 miles at least?) ..using various flushes all year long,MMO,Auto-Rx etc. We all know about that process.
The alternative to all that work and expensive is do what budman is doing in the above post. It works!!! It's cheaper in the long run and way less work!!
You mean all those engines that are clean using approved name brand oil.
And you will of course show where I said I do 3K oil changes.
I know you can't, so you'll just fabricate something.
quote:sorry to say this, but nobody is buying what you are saying here, UOA's do not lie, they just tell it like it is.
They indedeed do NOT lie, but they are not so accurate (accuracy) and not so replicable (Reproducibility) and you need at least 5 samples to determine trand.
And a second test of the same sample few weeks later form the same lab to determine how accurate and reproduceable the first test was.
If you want to be scientific about UOA then you have to employ statistical and scientific means, or else you are just an amateur taking bunch of random numbers as a gospel.
I have been telling people for years to send a second sample of the same used oil to the same lab few weeks later, and those who did all lost faith in Oil Analysis - the results are that "different"
Also tests that are set up for FLUID with basically nothing much in it, when used on Colloidal Sol with electro conductive graphite that is opaque are even less accurate or repeatable.
It is amazing that you would spend $25.00 to get bunch of numbers from somebody else somewhere else and give it total FAITH, rather than invest $40 into a microscope and look at the Oil (any oil) you see in 15 seconds what the condition is - wear or no wear, and you do not even have to drain anything, ONE drop form a dipstick will do !!!
100% accurate and 100% repeatable, that is if you know how to focus a microscope !!!
If you add to it the sense of "smell" then you can duplicate $6,000 hydrocarbon oxidation test, with rather good result - but that required "experience".
Now I get Miro: So the colloidial solids have electro conductive graphite. That explains everything.
So will having the magnets on the filter somehow change the polarity of the oil, this i imagine occurs during weather patterns with high electro-conductivity...AAAHHH yes it's all so much clearer now.
So will having the magnets on the filter somehow change the polarity of the oil, this i imagine occurs during weather patterns with high electro-conductivity...AAAHHH yes it's all so much clearer now.
Maybe you do not know it but graphite has been used in ARC lamps and "brushes" in electric motors, so it is electro conductive - current flows through it.
Some low cost quick "analysis" machines use probes and electric charge or current to "guess" at the present chemicals, and those are affected by graphite colloids.
Magents on the filter remove and Feromagnetic materials - mostly Iron - from the Oil Flow and since 80 to 90% of the wear materials have Iron in them Strong Magnets will be more effective than any mechanical filter for ANY size of Iron particle removal, except when it becomes dis-solved (molecular level Iron is not that easily attracted by magnetic filed.
Fe+ Containing Chemical acts as anti-oxidant and also has some other properties that are beneficial - but is "expensive" to use in low cost petroleum. (The technology was verified by ESSO in UK)
You have to understand colloidal chemistry, Van der Waals force and magnetism, di-pole structure, if you do not it will not be "clear".
Explain how Water which is lot heavier than air can freely float in the air ? (fog) and may be you will start catching on with colloidal physics.
Lot of "natural" phenomena are not that easily comprehended by populus that lacks scientific education.
Some low cost quick "analysis" machines use probes and electric charge or current to "guess" at the present chemicals, and those are affected by graphite colloids.
Magents on the filter remove and Feromagnetic materials - mostly Iron - from the Oil Flow and since 80 to 90% of the wear materials have Iron in them Strong Magnets will be more effective than any mechanical filter for ANY size of Iron particle removal, except when it becomes dis-solved (molecular level Iron is not that easily attracted by magnetic filed.
Fe+ Containing Chemical acts as anti-oxidant and also has some other properties that are beneficial - but is "expensive" to use in low cost petroleum. (The technology was verified by ESSO in UK)
You have to understand colloidal chemistry, Van der Waals force and magnetism, di-pole structure, if you do not it will not be "clear".
Explain how Water which is lot heavier than air can freely float in the air ? (fog) and may be you will start catching on with colloidal physics.
Lot of "natural" phenomena are not that easily comprehended by populus that lacks scientific education.
quote:Tater-n Budman
-Noodles
19k miles
VOA UOA UOA-VOA
FE 5 166 161
CR <1 3 >2
NI <1 2 >1
AL 2 39 37
PB <1 2 >1
ZN 588 588 0
CU <1 44 >44
SN <1 1 >0
AG <1 <1 >0
TI <1 <1 >0
SI 10 44 34
B 37 15 -22
NA 9 62 53
Can YOU explain why 3 other chemicals that are part of any decent UOA are not listed ? Those that would actually identify this really is a SynLube ? Can you also explain how can Boron just disappear ? (-22)
Somehow conveniently they were omitted !
So expalain that one FIRST
I also just got e-mail form a person I though to be "budman" and he tells me it is NOT HIM and he gave up on BITOG
So WHO is the person
Which is The car
Until you do supply such information I just have to take this as jet another attempt to discredit SynLube with unverifiable data that someone just made up.
if you do not wish the WHO info to be public then you can send it by e-mail to synlube@aol.com
and also do not forget to scan and attach the Lab Report (WHO when and where did the test and on what equipment).
Till that happens I can not take this seriously.
You are so predictable. LOL Lets cast some doubt........Right on schedule >>>> LOL
AD
AD
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...umber=1855937&page=1
I guess he'll say this isn't from budman either.
Still waiting for the verifiable proof that synlube passed the tests it claims.
We already know it isnt' API or ACEA certified.
I guess he'll say this isn't from budman either.
Still waiting for the verifiable proof that synlube passed the tests it claims.
We already know it isnt' API or ACEA certified.
Would you have expected anything else from him?
AD
AD
I forwarded Miro my Polaris VOA results that I just received today.
quote:Originally posted by ADFD1:
Would you have expected anything else from him?
AD
I shouldn't. 66 pages of the Synlube Shuffle, and we're no closer to finding out the truth.
I suspect that those tests he claims to pass is a sham. The same guy who declared that Shell and its other brands are not API certified, then whines about Japan when it is pointed out that they are.
The same guy who says that OBD-II cars are built to fail. Who thinks the Yugo was the best car ever. Who thinks cars can't last 100K miles unless they use Swindlelube.
The same guy who claimed I doctored the MSDS he sent to Tater....
quote:Taterandnoodles
I can verify I got report from him and that he is a real person, so far no one e-mailed me and claimed to be budman.
To 3 people I thought may be him, one replied it is not him and the other 2 have not yet responded.
And unlike Taterandnoodles no one else has sent me a verifiable Lab Report on SynLube.
That is where that stands, so if any of you have contact to budman, ask him to e-mail any such report to me.
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Tater-n Budman
-Noodles
19k miles
VOA UOA UOA-VOA
FE 5 166 161
CR <1 3 >2
NI <1 2 >1
AL 2 39 37
PB <1 2 >1
ZN 588 588 0
CU <1 44 >44
SN <1 1 >0
AG <1 <1 >0
TI <1 <1 >0
SI 10 44 34
B 37 15 -22
NA 9 62 53
Can YOU explain why 3 other chemicals that are part of any decent UOA are not listed ? Those that would actually identify this really is a SynLube ? Can you also explain how can Boron just disappear ? (-22)
Somehow conveniently they were omitted !
So expalain that one FIRST
I also just got e-mail form a person I though to be "budman" and he tells me it is NOT HIM and he gave up on BITOG
So WHO is the person
Which is The car
Until you do supply such information I just have to take this as jet another attempt to discredit SynLube with unverifiable data that someone just made up.
if you do not wish the WHO info to be public then you can send it by e-mail to synlube@aol.com
and also do not forget to scan and attach the Lab Report (WHO when and where did the test and on what equipment).
Till that happens I can not take this seriously.
Miro, this is your oil, you obviously mix the stuff up in your garage so you should know what is in it, unless you have no clue about the base oil since it is either used motor oil or whatever you go and buy at Wal-Mart.
You are not doing very well in this thread and I doubt anyone reading your comments is calling you up to buy your Synlube.
Are you going to explain the high iron numbers, can you explain it without going into some scientific MUMBO JUMBO.
If I was selling this worthless Synlube I would probably demand that anyone buying it not do a VOA or get a UOA done from what I have seen here recently.
Back in the day Terry Dyson wanted to visit your facilities and you turned him down, now I can see why, maybe this is all a game to you Miro, but members here want to use a good oil and so far Synlube does not seem to be a very good oil, it actually looks TERRIBLE.
quote:Originally posted by Taterandnoodles:
I forwarded Miro my Polaris VOA results that I just received today.
Can we see?
quote:Originally posted by RobertC:quote:Originally posted by Taterandnoodles:
I forwarded Miro my Polaris VOA results that I just received today.
Can we see?
Here it is.
Synlube VOA Attempt - Set-Up Thread [Re: bruce381]
TaterandNoodles Offline
Registered: 01/16/06
Posts: 1202
Loc: NENC
I received the results from Polaris. Both samples are from the same liter drawn at the same time and sent out the same day.
Bruce----Polaris
FE-5-----6
CR-<1---0
NI-<1----0
AL-2-----0
PB-<1----0
CU-<1----2
SN-<1----0
AG-<1----0
TI-<1----0
SI-10----18
B-37-----32
NA-9-----7
K-<10----0
MO-1246-1035
P-1085--954
ZN-588--599
CA-596--557
BA-<10--3
MG-366--396
SB-<30--0
V-<1----0
Vis@100C-10.5---23.5 confused
TBN-------6.27----4.10 confused
Ox-----------------12
Nit-----------------7
fuel---------------.3%
Soot---------------.8%
This only proves what I have known for years that LAB results are sometimes inaccurate, inconsistent and highly variable:
****
Reported by Taterandnoodles, I know who he is and indeed he purchased only ONE SynLube INITIAL FILL, so the "samples" indeed are from the SAME BOTTLE !!!
****
I received the results from Polaris. Both samples are from the same liter drawn at the same time and sent out the same day.
Bruce----Polaris
FE-5-----6
CR-<1---0
NI-<1----0
AL-2-----0
PB-<1----0
CU-<1----2
SN-<1----0
AG-<1----0
TI-<1----0
SI-10----18
B-37-----32
NA-9-----7
K-<10----0
MO-1246-1035
P-1085--954
ZN-588--599
CA-596--557
BA-<10--3
MG-366--396
SB-<30--0
V-<1----0
Vis@100C-10.5---23.5
TBN-------6.27----4.10
Ox-----------------12
Nit-----------------7
fuel---------------.3%
Soot---------------.8%
****
Reported by Taterandnoodles, I know who he is and indeed he purchased only ONE SynLube INITIAL FILL, so the "samples" indeed are from the SAME BOTTLE !!!
****
I received the results from Polaris. Both samples are from the same liter drawn at the same time and sent out the same day.
Bruce----Polaris
FE-5-----6
CR-<1---0
NI-<1----0
AL-2-----0
PB-<1----0
CU-<1----2
SN-<1----0
AG-<1----0
TI-<1----0
SI-10----18
B-37-----32
NA-9-----7
K-<10----0
MO-1246-1035
P-1085--954
ZN-588--599
CA-596--557
BA-<10--3
MG-366--396
SB-<30--0
V-<1----0
Vis@100C-10.5---23.5
TBN-------6.27----4.10
Ox-----------------12
Nit-----------------7
fuel---------------.3%
Soot---------------.8%
As predicted by so many, the synlube hive mind would attack any result that was not in keeping with their delusions.
Nice to see you're true to form.
Nice to see you're true to form.
Using our equipment (CANNON CAPILARY) this is the results I get on the same batch SynLube INITIAL FILL SAE 5W-50 sample.
Viscosity cSt at 100 C cSt 17.7
Viscosity cSt at 40 C cSt 97.5
Result: Viscosity Index 199.6
***
Now explain the results reported in above post !
Viscosity cSt at 100 C cSt 17.7
Viscosity cSt at 40 C cSt 97.5
Result: Viscosity Index 199.6
***
Now explain the results reported in above post !
quote:Trajan
So now that it is SynLube you do not trust to the trusted reports form trusted Lab send to them by a trused BITOG member ?
WHY NOT - after all it is the ABSOLUTE PROOF - you have been seeking for so long !!!
HAVE FAITH - and do not waiver - Numbers CAN NOT LIE (like you do).
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Trajan
So now that it is SynLube you do not trust to the trusted reports form trusted Lab send to them by a trused BITOG member ?
WHY NOT - after all it is the ABSOLUTE PROOF - you have been seeking for so long !!!
HAVE FAITH - and do not waiver - Numbers CAN NOT LIE (like you do).
No, numbers do not lie. Rather it's the one who makes them up. Like you.
Third party tests are much more beleivable than what you use. You want to sell this swill, so any test that *you* do is instantly suspect at best. An outright fabrication or worse.
I do have faith lad. I have faith that you peddle swill. I have faith that you made up those test results. That you made up passing those tests you crow about.
I have faith that giving somebody synlube si banned by the US Constitution as cruel and unusual punishment.
quote:Terry Dyson wanted to visit your facilities
No one by such name ever contacted me, so another story that is not true.
The only person who eve wanted to visit was
Hydie Neyman who ever he is, and when I asked him for the information we need to file with the DoE (and leave copy of with the entry guard)
He sent me back this polite mesage:
You do know that this is the internet, and I'm useing my real name on here right. Trust me I can get into Mercury. So I ask you whats your location in Mercury? If this is really a fraud company, which it's starting to sound like. Then I will have to report your company to the proper officials. Since I know know private company has access to any government files.
You can contact him directly:
hydie69@live.com
Ah Miro.................Dream on!
AD
AD
quote:Originally posted by RobertC:quote:Originally posted by Taterandnoodles:
I forwarded Miro my Polaris VOA results that I just received today.
Can we see?
I see they have cut and past my VOA data from BITOG. If you would like to see the report as sent to me from Polaris I can email you a copy.
I am having the 100C viscosity rerun and the 40C tested since Miro stated it was to far out of line. I will contact Bruce in reference to his sample. The oil I have is not a 30wt that is certain.
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Terry Dyson wanted to visit your facilities
No one by such name ever contacted me, so another story that is not true.
The only person who eve wanted to visit was
Hydie Neyman who ever he is, and when I asked him for the information we need to file with the DoE (and leave copy of with the entry guard)
He sent me back this polite mesage:
You do know that this is the internet, and I'm useing my real name on here right. Trust me I can get into Mercury. So I ask you whats your location in Mercury? If this is really a fraud company, which it's starting to sound like. Then I will have to report your company to the proper officials. Since I know know private company has access to any government files.
You can contact him directly:
hydie69@live.com
I'd love to visit. If there is a conference in the Vegas area in the future I may have to attend. Shouldn't be any problems with access. I don't know about the DOE portion but DOD I'm covered.
quote:Originally posted by Miro Kefurt:quote:Terry Dyson wanted to visit your facilities
No one by such name ever contacted me, so another story that is not true.
The only person who eve wanted to visit was
Hydie Neyman who ever he is, and when I asked him for the information we need to file with the DoE (and leave copy of with the entry guard)
He sent me back this polite mesage:
You do know that this is the internet, and I'm useing my real name on here right. Trust me I can get into Mercury. So I ask you whats your location in Mercury? If this is really a fraud company, which it's starting to sound like. Then I will have to report your company to the proper officials. Since I know know private company has access to any government files.
You can contact him directly:
hydie69@live.com
: SynLube Lube-4-Life
Terry
Registered: 05/27/02
Posts: 3845
Loc: Greenville , Texas I have done some research on this product and evaluated tests provided by Miro.
I asked to visit their blending plant and was told no for security reasons.
I think they are for real but undercapitalized like many products I've seen that have merit but can't get past the big guys.
I am amazed at the small companies who fear my seeing and testing their products lest I smoke them publicly. Little do they know that if the product is for real what a benefit the light of analysis reports can do for them when interpreted properly.
Top
Miro, it seems Terry Dyson did contact you.
Count me in Miro: As I have access to DOE sites. Savannah River/South Carolina, WIPP/New Mexico, Oak Ridge/Tennessee. Along with those I have clearances through the FBI, and NRC.
"Security reasons."
Yeah, sure.
Yeah, sure.
quote:Originally posted by Nucleardawg:
Count me in Miro: As I have access to DOE sites. Savannah River/South Carolina, WIPP/New Mexico, Oak Ridge/Tennessee. Along with those I have clearances through the FBI, and NRC.
Doubt you'll get a response, but if you do there will be some excuse or new ultra TS site that even the President couldn't visit.
AD
Probably get one like this:
"Once the approval is granted, no problem:
Just ask at the guard at the gate, and the guard will call us, you will have to leave your car in front of the security entrance.
Bring your clearance card and your proof of Citizenship.
When do you want to make the appointment ?
Date/Time
Also please e-mail
your full name, address (residence), vehicle plate and VIN (The one you will be driving to Mercury)
Address and Employer Identification Number of your employer
Your current position
Contact information for yo Supervisor
Your Clearance ID card number and your Passport number
Date of Birth
SS#
Once we get the approval I will let you know.
Normally it takes about 90 days."
Then they when to say that they've check my email name with DoD, DoE or FBI Clearance Files and my name doesn't show up.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...mber=1843517&page=46
"Once the approval is granted, no problem:
Just ask at the guard at the gate, and the guard will call us, you will have to leave your car in front of the security entrance.
Bring your clearance card and your proof of Citizenship.
When do you want to make the appointment ?
Date/Time
Also please e-mail
your full name, address (residence), vehicle plate and VIN (The one you will be driving to Mercury)
Address and Employer Identification Number of your employer
Your current position
Contact information for yo Supervisor
Your Clearance ID card number and your Passport number
Date of Birth
SS#
Once we get the approval I will let you know.
Normally it takes about 90 days."
Then they when to say that they've check my email name with DoD, DoE or FBI Clearance Files and my name doesn't show up.
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/...mber=1843517&page=46
