Aristotelian pure though experimenters
WOW I have already gotten 2 e-mail as a result of this post from people who are not even "registered" on the noria board.
So to those who have missed some basic history / physics education here is the BIT on this as it relates to "SynLube" !
First of all Aristotle (also sometimes Aristotel) that live in 384-322 BD in Greese (not Grease) simply conclude by "pure thought experiments" - i.e. just thinking about it while feasting on grapes (sometimes apparently well fermented) - that heavy objects fall to earth which is their "natural" place much faster than light objects - AND THAT was accepted by "scientists" (in Latin that means :to know) for 2,000 years as no one ever bothered to "test: this absolutely obvious conclusion that was based on "pure thought experiment".
And then there ws Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) that the all knowing Church almost burned at the stake in the center of Vatican, just for suggesting that Earth is NOT the center of all universe, and also figuring out that body in freefal (irrespective of its mass or weight) accelerates at 32 ft/sec2 = that was just too radical.
One of the Ancient Egyptian definitions of "god" (which Vatican secretly embraced) was that the purpose of man is to be better than "god", and the way to do it is to predict a "future and what will happen as "cause-effect" relationship with exact certainity"
Knowing how fast a rock will fall, what its terminal speed will be, where it will fall, BEFORE you drop it, is knowing the FUTURE BEFORE it HAPPENS, and by the Egyptian definition that makes you "better" than "god".
He (god) only creates, but "you" can DESIGN the future and understand it BEFORE it happens TOO !
That has ALWAYS been a very dangerous knowledgge.
So it took 22 years to perfect SynLube (1944 to 1966) it has been in use and available in USA since 1969.
SO do NOT waste any more time, or post space for another YEAR in proving that based on your though all heavy objects MUST FALL FASTER as that is OBVIOUS !
USE SynLube in your own car - as we can already predict what will happen !!!
You will just "love" that stuff, you had a serious phobia about for over a year NOW !!!
Well that is all the time and effort I will spend on this post, if you have any real questions send them direct to
synlube@aol.com
Miro Kefurt
Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity
Mr. Kefurt!
Your three posts were (pretty) educative, but unfortunately, not so much about Synlube. Aristotle (Aristotel), Galileo,… are too far of synthetic lubricants what actually is our present topic. Let me just to mention that I, personally, am not afraid of getting knowledge about these (early) scientists. Not knowing too much about North American school programs I would just mention that (even primary and obviously secondary) school in former Yugoslavia taught me much wider and more about tens of (here not mentioned) scientists or “important persons through history of the world”. It was too boring than (for most part of us) to learn years, happenings and works of some “prehistoric” Greeks, Italians, Brits,… Today, for most part of these “old school guys”, it is our advantage to know it. As “general knowledge” if nothing else.
It is not necessary to be so smart and figure out that all “disputants” here are greatly interested in getting more dubious knowledge about synthetic lubricants. Some of us are doing it for just pleasure reasons, some - because of living and part of us (lucky ones!) made a “combo” of it. As you know it, most dominant method here is rather through conversation than being taught like in school. Having a conversation means having a less or more aggressive opponent, a less or more knowledgeable, a less or more skeptic. Without it conversation would be more like applauding and result of it is – loosing a sense of having a discussion.
Regarding just mentioned you really do not need to be poignant about more skeptic disputants. They are just a little bit more interested about topic and want to know a little bit deeply about things what do not know at present time. For instance, when I had to make more complicated designs I liked to discuss it with most opponent person. It just gave me opportunity to be the most bold and defendable person about that project at same time. You are going to agree with me that there wasn’t effect of having discussion with someone who has been thinking similarly as me or worked as my draftsman.
I would not agree with your standpoint that all of us have to try (your) product first and than post opinions. Forums are ideal place to get someone’s other experience, discuss a little bit about it and not to make (or repeat) a mistake (if it was like this). Would you suggest us to purchase a new car (for instance) without even reading a tests and other’s opinions? As technically educated person, would you purchase and use product like Synlube, Amsoil, plasma TV, computer, … without getting preliminary info about it? Answer for sure is: no. So, along with mentioning (well known for me) Bertone and other facts please explain us a little bit more about “Synlube magic”. As one of creators you, for sure, know how much to tell and not to reveal “the most important thing”. Do not let us, who are not so deep in your product, to guess and suppose. Give us more technically explainable facts than years (1944 – 1966), wet water and “falling objects”
It is so nice that you are bold about your product. It is understandable either. You spent a lot of time improving it and implementing newer things. There is no guessing if I say that you definitely can help us to better understand and accept your product as reality.
Your three posts were (pretty) educative, but unfortunately, not so much about Synlube. Aristotle (Aristotel), Galileo,… are too far of synthetic lubricants what actually is our present topic. Let me just to mention that I, personally, am not afraid of getting knowledge about these (early) scientists. Not knowing too much about North American school programs I would just mention that (even primary and obviously secondary) school in former Yugoslavia taught me much wider and more about tens of (here not mentioned) scientists or “important persons through history of the world”. It was too boring than (for most part of us) to learn years, happenings and works of some “prehistoric” Greeks, Italians, Brits,… Today, for most part of these “old school guys”, it is our advantage to know it. As “general knowledge” if nothing else.
It is not necessary to be so smart and figure out that all “disputants” here are greatly interested in getting more dubious knowledge about synthetic lubricants. Some of us are doing it for just pleasure reasons, some - because of living and part of us (lucky ones!) made a “combo” of it. As you know it, most dominant method here is rather through conversation than being taught like in school. Having a conversation means having a less or more aggressive opponent, a less or more knowledgeable, a less or more skeptic. Without it conversation would be more like applauding and result of it is – loosing a sense of having a discussion.
Regarding just mentioned you really do not need to be poignant about more skeptic disputants. They are just a little bit more interested about topic and want to know a little bit deeply about things what do not know at present time. For instance, when I had to make more complicated designs I liked to discuss it with most opponent person. It just gave me opportunity to be the most bold and defendable person about that project at same time. You are going to agree with me that there wasn’t effect of having discussion with someone who has been thinking similarly as me or worked as my draftsman.
I would not agree with your standpoint that all of us have to try (your) product first and than post opinions. Forums are ideal place to get someone’s other experience, discuss a little bit about it and not to make (or repeat) a mistake (if it was like this). Would you suggest us to purchase a new car (for instance) without even reading a tests and other’s opinions? As technically educated person, would you purchase and use product like Synlube, Amsoil, plasma TV, computer, … without getting preliminary info about it? Answer for sure is: no. So, along with mentioning (well known for me) Bertone and other facts please explain us a little bit more about “Synlube magic”. As one of creators you, for sure, know how much to tell and not to reveal “the most important thing”. Do not let us, who are not so deep in your product, to guess and suppose. Give us more technically explainable facts than years (1944 – 1966), wet water and “falling objects”
It is so nice that you are bold about your product. It is understandable either. You spent a lot of time improving it and implementing newer things. There is no guessing if I say that you definitely can help us to better understand and accept your product as reality.
Houckster writes:
"Now, just what is the point of sending a sample to Dyson if SynLube reports that the oil is NOT holding up? It is only if SynLube sends back a positive UOA that it makes any sense to submit a sample to Dyson.
Doesn't this make sense?"
No, it doesn't! To any intelligent, rational, and objective person, the above hypothetical comments make no sense at all because SynLube has never supplied any test data, either positive or negative. Neither do most of Houckster's previously and presently unsubstantiated "beliefs" regarding SynLube.
First of all, if you want an objective opinion about SynLube, the best thing to do is have an independent lab test the oil and publish their unedited test results. Having SynLube test it themselves or letting them edit their own or others test results is like letting a student grade their own final exam. Most of us <graduates> are smarter than that!
Second, if anyone disagrees with the results from the first test, then get another independent opinion by having a second independent lab test the oil, without any knowledge of the previous results, and then publish their unedited results. If both of the test results are in agreement, then we are surely closer to reality. If not, get a third opinion and see which of the two previous tests are mostly in agreement with the third. Then we're even closer to reality.
Please, lets not cloud reality by claiming that any good test lab is incapable of properly testing Synlube. That is just not true. Anybody who is willing to pay (or expecting others to pay) $32 a liter for synthetic motor oil surely wouldn't scoff at paying $40 each for a few ICP + TBN used oil analysis (UOA) tests now would they? Or is "belief" preferable to fact?
Chumley
"Now, just what is the point of sending a sample to Dyson if SynLube reports that the oil is NOT holding up? It is only if SynLube sends back a positive UOA that it makes any sense to submit a sample to Dyson.
Doesn't this make sense?"
No, it doesn't! To any intelligent, rational, and objective person, the above hypothetical comments make no sense at all because SynLube has never supplied any test data, either positive or negative. Neither do most of Houckster's previously and presently unsubstantiated "beliefs" regarding SynLube.
First of all, if you want an objective opinion about SynLube, the best thing to do is have an independent lab test the oil and publish their unedited test results. Having SynLube test it themselves or letting them edit their own or others test results is like letting a student grade their own final exam. Most of us <graduates> are smarter than that!
Second, if anyone disagrees with the results from the first test, then get another independent opinion by having a second independent lab test the oil, without any knowledge of the previous results, and then publish their unedited results. If both of the test results are in agreement, then we are surely closer to reality. If not, get a third opinion and see which of the two previous tests are mostly in agreement with the third. Then we're even closer to reality.
Please, lets not cloud reality by claiming that any good test lab is incapable of properly testing Synlube. That is just not true. Anybody who is willing to pay (or expecting others to pay) $32 a liter for synthetic motor oil surely wouldn't scoff at paying $40 each for a few ICP + TBN used oil analysis (UOA) tests now would they? Or is "belief" preferable to fact?
Chumley
Chumley, I think that you've just about summed it up for everyone following this topic.
I've been dying to see some results from someone who has used this product, to no avail. $32 per liter for ANY type of oil is hard to swallow unless the proof says that this stuff is liquid gold for your engine. (I personally draw the line at $10 per or so, which is whay I posted my other questions about the other oils)
I've been dying to see some results from someone who has used this product, to no avail. $32 per liter for ANY type of oil is hard to swallow unless the proof says that this stuff is liquid gold for your engine. (I personally draw the line at $10 per or so, which is whay I posted my other questions about the other oils)
I think Synlube's market is not geeks that lurk around these web sites. I think they have matched their production (small) to a market that is willing to pay (small) for such a product. The unit cost is high and that's part of the pitch. Wouldn't you pay more for a product that does what Synlube claims? Evidently there is enough response to support a business. The oil may be very good, but they are sure keeping us (geeks) from finding out. The minimum to get started would be one voa and two or three uoa's each, on different vehicles. If we are not hearing anything it's just because we are not the focus of any of Synlube's marketing. If our small slice of the market is missed it will be no great loss to Synlube. The geek market is probably too much work or Synlube is not up to it, after all.
There is a solution. Start a fund, pick someone with a near new car that coummutes a lot and go after it. But that would take some work and maybe the question of hype or not just isn't worrth the effort.
To do it right would take a couple of hundred dollars for oil and a couple of hundred dollars for analysis. Start with the oil, a voa and a uoa every 5k miles and publish the results. And we need someone that drives a lot with that near new car. This thread is at 11 pages, maybe that's an indicator of the interest and a possibility to generate a test fund. I'm in for $20.00US, how 'bout you?
There is a solution. Start a fund, pick someone with a near new car that coummutes a lot and go after it. But that would take some work and maybe the question of hype or not just isn't worrth the effort.
To do it right would take a couple of hundred dollars for oil and a couple of hundred dollars for analysis. Start with the oil, a voa and a uoa every 5k miles and publish the results. And we need someone that drives a lot with that near new car. This thread is at 11 pages, maybe that's an indicator of the interest and a possibility to generate a test fund. I'm in for $20.00US, how 'bout you?
Very true and great point Barkerman, but let me ask this: After purchasing a new car, who's got that kind of disposable cash just waiting around to be poured into a crankcase at the start?
I mean you do have time while the engine is finishing breaking in, but by then the first payment's due, the tanks required about $200 or more worth's of fuel, and the wife is complaining that she doesn't have any money to buy new clothes?!?
Seriously though, I WOULD be willing to try this stuff, but I am just so hung up on the cost end of it. Let's see $32 x 5 (average crankcase of a 4 cylinder) = $160 + roughly $24 for their filter = $184 + liter of add oil @ $22 = $206 plus the magnets for their filter @ $12 = $218 That's roughly 1 2/3 cases of the most expensive racing motor oil out there, which @ 21 liters, gives 4 changes (using extended drains) plus 1 liter of oil to top off with the filter changes, which wouldn't require much due to the smaller size of the filters on 4 cylinder engines these days (granted, Mobil 1 oil filters are $10 to $12 a piece and higher in some states, so that might add a little to the filter cost.)
Then you've got the analysis as you said @ $40 a pop for the good ones (such as the Dyson Analysis). This just seems to be a lot for MAYBE having the benefit of not having to do oil changes for quite a while, but to get the sample an most vehicles these days, you have to get under the car and get it from the drain plug hole. I know that Fram makes a device that you can screw in and just turn it to drain, but what about the contaminants that build up inside the tube while driving. Not taking the first bit will help in the flushing of this tube, but you won't get all of the excess contaminants out. And while I'm under said car, why not just change all of it, since I still have to get under my particular car to change the oil filter too.
So, in the long run, I'm I really saving money AND time, or am I just hoping that this product is still doing it's job? I guess you're right, we need to find someone willing to do this and follow a strict schedule and get UOA's done to post results and find out for sure if this is the greatest lubricant since synthetics started...
I mean you do have time while the engine is finishing breaking in, but by then the first payment's due, the tanks required about $200 or more worth's of fuel, and the wife is complaining that she doesn't have any money to buy new clothes?!?
Seriously though, I WOULD be willing to try this stuff, but I am just so hung up on the cost end of it. Let's see $32 x 5 (average crankcase of a 4 cylinder) = $160 + roughly $24 for their filter = $184 + liter of add oil @ $22 = $206 plus the magnets for their filter @ $12 = $218 That's roughly 1 2/3 cases of the most expensive racing motor oil out there, which @ 21 liters, gives 4 changes (using extended drains) plus 1 liter of oil to top off with the filter changes, which wouldn't require much due to the smaller size of the filters on 4 cylinder engines these days (granted, Mobil 1 oil filters are $10 to $12 a piece and higher in some states, so that might add a little to the filter cost.)
Then you've got the analysis as you said @ $40 a pop for the good ones (such as the Dyson Analysis). This just seems to be a lot for MAYBE having the benefit of not having to do oil changes for quite a while, but to get the sample an most vehicles these days, you have to get under the car and get it from the drain plug hole. I know that Fram makes a device that you can screw in and just turn it to drain, but what about the contaminants that build up inside the tube while driving. Not taking the first bit will help in the flushing of this tube, but you won't get all of the excess contaminants out. And while I'm under said car, why not just change all of it, since I still have to get under my particular car to change the oil filter too.
So, in the long run, I'm I really saving money AND time, or am I just hoping that this product is still doing it's job? I guess you're right, we need to find someone willing to do this and follow a strict schedule and get UOA's done to post results and find out for sure if this is the greatest lubricant since synthetics started...
Barkerman writes:
Thanks but, I'm out, and I'll pass. This thread has been going on now for over a year. If anyone representing SynLube had anything of value to say/add or were planning on posting any more relevant data, chances are it would have happened by now! Jeeze, 83 mind numbing posts in 11 pages at present? I'd be more optimistic about the polar ice caps melting.
Hummmmm. Could someone please explain to me why I should have to pay to test an unknown fledgling companies outrageously priced unproved product, (clearly they don't want to) or why I should take a chance on using it on my equipment, when acceptable, cost effective, and well proven industry accepted products all ready exist which I have no issue with? What's in this exercise for me? Not much unless SynLube wants to "give me" say, 5 quarts of their claimed "golden elixir" for my own testing. As Richard Gere implied in the movie Pretty Woman, "We're going to need some major sucking up here if you want my business." If it does all they say it does, I could be one of SynLubes best proponents. But as this thread initially began, skepticism was mentioned, which I am full of. Now here we are a year later. Nothing's changed, except my increased level of skepticism.
Barkerman writes:
"I think Synlube's market is not geeks that lurk around these web sites. I think they have matched their production (small) to a market that is willing pay (small) for such a product. The unit cost is high and that's part of the pitch. Wouldn't you pay more for a product that does what Synlube claims?"
So, do you have any idea about what SynLubes current market actually IS, (and what their yearly sales are) or are you going to just guess about what it isn't? So far that links you with Houckster's thinking. (which makes no sense)
SynLube has made a lot of claims. To date, they have not offered one shred of evidence to support them. Bablink! A double bond that further closely links Barkerman with Houckster's thinking!
The posts offered as evidence in this thread by the President of SynLube Company need no reply. Clearly, that should tell the reader something.
Chumley
quote:I'm in for $20.00US, how 'bout you?
Thanks but, I'm out, and I'll pass. This thread has been going on now for over a year. If anyone representing SynLube had anything of value to say/add or were planning on posting any more relevant data, chances are it would have happened by now! Jeeze, 83 mind numbing posts in 11 pages at present? I'd be more optimistic about the polar ice caps melting.
Hummmmm. Could someone please explain to me why I should have to pay to test an unknown fledgling companies outrageously priced unproved product, (clearly they don't want to) or why I should take a chance on using it on my equipment, when acceptable, cost effective, and well proven industry accepted products all ready exist which I have no issue with? What's in this exercise for me? Not much unless SynLube wants to "give me" say, 5 quarts of their claimed "golden elixir" for my own testing. As Richard Gere implied in the movie Pretty Woman, "We're going to need some major sucking up here if you want my business." If it does all they say it does, I could be one of SynLubes best proponents. But as this thread initially began, skepticism was mentioned, which I am full of. Now here we are a year later. Nothing's changed, except my increased level of skepticism.
Barkerman writes:
"I think Synlube's market is not geeks that lurk around these web sites. I think they have matched their production (small) to a market that is willing pay (small) for such a product. The unit cost is high and that's part of the pitch. Wouldn't you pay more for a product that does what Synlube claims?"
So, do you have any idea about what SynLubes current market actually IS, (and what their yearly sales are) or are you going to just guess about what it isn't? So far that links you with Houckster's thinking. (which makes no sense)
SynLube has made a lot of claims. To date, they have not offered one shred of evidence to support them. Bablink! A double bond that further closely links Barkerman with Houckster's thinking!
The posts offered as evidence in this thread by the President of SynLube Company need no reply. Clearly, that should tell the reader something.
Chumley
That just might happen Chumley if we keep up the good work of running our internal combustion engines at loads and speeds that require us to talk about products like Synlube.
As for me, after my last post, I'll take my $20 to the beer distributor and buy some cold ones to go with my racing oil package and not be thirsty while changing my oil and filter!
As for me, after my last post, I'll take my $20 to the beer distributor and buy some cold ones to go with my racing oil package and not be thirsty while changing my oil and filter!
Honestly, I've never seen a group of people who are more intent on missing the point of a bit of common sense.
Chumley, you really do need to read my posts over again. You've completely misinterpreted my comments. The only person, INHALIBURTON, that did understood what's going on. Please, please read the posts!
For the last time: I have sent a sample of oil into SynLube. That was about a week ago. When I get the results I will post them. IF THE RESULTS ARE GOOD, then I will send a sample to Dyson for their analysis and post them.
Again, if I can't get a good report out of SynLube, the company that makes the stuff and would be expected by people here to give a good report (and therefore would not be trusted), what chance do I have of getting a good report out of an independent source? I am not going to waste $40 if SynLube itself won't tell me the oil is holding up. If SynLube itself tells me that the oil is NOT working, everyone will believe it, it's only if SynLube gives me a great report that I'm going to have to send the oil to Dyson so people will give the oil the credit it deserves.
Finally, the point that was made about not having the money to buy SynLube after purchasing a new vehicle is unpersuasive as well. That's exactly what I did. I changed the oil in the engine, the transmission, differential, transfer case, front axle and power steering. No, it's not cheap but when it comes to ROI, that's when the return is highest when you can eliminate the dino oil before it has deteriorated and leaves deposits behind for SynLube to deal with. As of 16.5K miles w/SynLube, my truck has consumed 4 oz. of oil. By any system of measurement, that's an impressive stat.
Chumley, you really do need to read my posts over again. You've completely misinterpreted my comments. The only person, INHALIBURTON, that did understood what's going on. Please, please read the posts!
For the last time: I have sent a sample of oil into SynLube. That was about a week ago. When I get the results I will post them. IF THE RESULTS ARE GOOD, then I will send a sample to Dyson for their analysis and post them.
Again, if I can't get a good report out of SynLube, the company that makes the stuff and would be expected by people here to give a good report (and therefore would not be trusted), what chance do I have of getting a good report out of an independent source? I am not going to waste $40 if SynLube itself won't tell me the oil is holding up. If SynLube itself tells me that the oil is NOT working, everyone will believe it, it's only if SynLube gives me a great report that I'm going to have to send the oil to Dyson so people will give the oil the credit it deserves.
Finally, the point that was made about not having the money to buy SynLube after purchasing a new vehicle is unpersuasive as well. That's exactly what I did. I changed the oil in the engine, the transmission, differential, transfer case, front axle and power steering. No, it's not cheap but when it comes to ROI, that's when the return is highest when you can eliminate the dino oil before it has deteriorated and leaves deposits behind for SynLube to deal with. As of 16.5K miles w/SynLube, my truck has consumed 4 oz. of oil. By any system of measurement, that's an impressive stat.
Houckster writes:
"Honestly, I've never seen a group of people who are more intent on missing the point of a bit of common sense."
Naaahhh. Not true at all. Just the opposite is true. Most of us are patiently waiting for you to MAKE A POINT which is based on common sense! Our intentions are in FINDING THAT POINT, and then discussing it, if you would just make one! We're waiting . . . .
Then Houckster writes:
"Chumley, you really do need to read my posts over again."
I would make the same comment to you except that you should read my posts twice, three times, or however many times it takes to bring your hibernating brain back to life!
Most of us don't care about what grade SynLube gives themselves. (every idiot will give themselves an "A" if they have the opportunity to decide their own grade) We're interested in reality and documented performance here. When you have some independent objective test data, feel free to post it, there's lots of people here who would love to read it.
If you have more mindless psychobabble like you've previously posted in this thread, rather than post more of it in a public forum and further embarrass yourself, I suggest you put it in MSWord documents and store it on you own PC. Then after your meds take effect, go back and read it!
Chumley
"Honestly, I've never seen a group of people who are more intent on missing the point of a bit of common sense."
Naaahhh. Not true at all. Just the opposite is true. Most of us are patiently waiting for you to MAKE A POINT which is based on common sense! Our intentions are in FINDING THAT POINT, and then discussing it, if you would just make one! We're waiting . . . .
Then Houckster writes:
"Chumley, you really do need to read my posts over again."
I would make the same comment to you except that you should read my posts twice, three times, or however many times it takes to bring your hibernating brain back to life!
Most of us don't care about what grade SynLube gives themselves. (every idiot will give themselves an "A" if they have the opportunity to decide their own grade) We're interested in reality and documented performance here. When you have some independent objective test data, feel free to post it, there's lots of people here who would love to read it.
If you have more mindless psychobabble like you've previously posted in this thread, rather than post more of it in a public forum and further embarrass yourself, I suggest you put it in MSWord documents and store it on you own PC. Then after your meds take effect, go back and read it!
Chumley
Chumley, you're simply hopeless.
Yeah, I agree with you completely. I am totally hopeless as a potential customer if your thinking that I might buy SynLube's $32 a liter synthetic oil. Find another sucker!
And when you do, I've got a whole tanker full of $30 a gallon premium synthetic extra special ultra high octane low emission deodecyl methylcyclopental orthdimethylbenzyl methadexil racing gasoline I'd love to sell them too. And by the way, for every gallon of gasoline you sell for me at $30, I'll give you $5 bucks as a commission. Sounds good?
Chumley
And when you do, I've got a whole tanker full of $30 a gallon premium synthetic extra special ultra high octane low emission deodecyl methylcyclopental orthdimethylbenzyl methadexil racing gasoline I'd love to sell them too. And by the way, for every gallon of gasoline you sell for me at $30, I'll give you $5 bucks as a commission. Sounds good?
Chumley
Page 12 must be getting very close.
Relaxing inHaliburton...
Relaxing inHaliburton...
Chumley, you seem to be under the impression that I am going to be disappointed that you're not going to use SynLube. I really couldn't care less.
INHALLIBURTON: We wouldn't be at page 11 and close to 12 if a few people here had read and tried to understand a few clear sentences about my intentions.
INHALLIBURTON: We wouldn't be at page 11 and close to 12 if a few people here had read and tried to understand a few clear sentences about my intentions.
Any chance of a brief overview of base oil and reason for high Fe while waiting for results.
SynLube's formula is proprietary so other than what's on the website, I have no clue.
Where did you get the information about the Fe? SynLube does have a section on their website to answer the most frequent questions that arise from the results of independent testing. Fe, for example will usually flag and SynLube advises that they use a sacrificial iron additive as part of the formula so the reading has to be reduced by about 100.
So for anyone interested in the results that I'll get back, hopefully within a couple of weeks, that section would be very important for a proper perspective. The link was posted in a previous post.
As I've mentioned several times, if the results of the test are good, then a sample will be sent to Dyson to see if he can confirm the good result. I will also send him a sample of new oil for comparison purposes.
Where did you get the information about the Fe? SynLube does have a section on their website to answer the most frequent questions that arise from the results of independent testing. Fe, for example will usually flag and SynLube advises that they use a sacrificial iron additive as part of the formula so the reading has to be reduced by about 100.
So for anyone interested in the results that I'll get back, hopefully within a couple of weeks, that section would be very important for a proper perspective. The link was posted in a previous post.
As I've mentioned several times, if the results of the test are good, then a sample will be sent to Dyson to see if he can confirm the good result. I will also send him a sample of new oil for comparison purposes.
quote:INHALLIBURTON: We wouldn't be at page 11 and close to 12 if a few people here had read and tried to understand a few clear sentences about my intentions.
Right on. Btw, I'm not associated with those hucksters at Halliburton. I live in Haliburton, Ontario with one (1) "L."
Regards, inHaliburton.
quote:Fe, for example will usually flag and SynLube advises that they use a sacrificial iron additive as part of the formula so the reading has to be reduced by about 100.
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?
bruce
Houckster, have you ever kept a car long enough to prove the claims of Synlube?
Bruce381 wrote regarding the sacrificial iron wear additives in the SynLube formula:
BRUCE381: Congratulations on having such an open mind. With absolutely no evidence to validate such a judgment, you have already written the product off.
Regarding the baseline unused oil, see my previous post.
BARKERMAN wrote: Houckster, have you ever kept a car long enough to prove the claims of Synlube?
No, I haven't, if you're referring to the 10 year, 150K mile, or 3K engine hour service life of the lubricant. My current ride, a Ford Ranger has 16K miles on the oil. The sample I've sent into SynLube has 15.3K miles on it. The oil has been in use for a little over a 1.6 years.
quote: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?
BRUCE381: Congratulations on having such an open mind. With absolutely no evidence to validate such a judgment, you have already written the product off.
Regarding the baseline unused oil, see my previous post.
BARKERMAN wrote: Houckster, have you ever kept a car long enough to prove the claims of Synlube?
No, I haven't, if you're referring to the 10 year, 150K mile, or 3K engine hour service life of the lubricant. My current ride, a Ford Ranger has 16K miles on the oil. The sample I've sent into SynLube has 15.3K miles on it. The oil has been in use for a little over a 1.6 years.
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.
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.
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
