|
ZDDP article
#1764020
02/26/15 11:37 PM
02/26/15 11:37 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,943
San Angelo, Texas, U.S.A.
1968RR
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,943
San Angelo, Texas, U.S.A.
|
A few months ago, I posted the results of a study in which the ZDDP contents of several motor oils were determined using neutron activation analysis (which is much more accurate than ICP-AES, the standard method used in industry). Anyway, a paper that includes the details of the study has been accepted for publication (Physics Procedia), but in the meantime, a pre-print version has been posted on arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1502/1502.07261.pdfMost of it is written in pretty plain language, and I figured that it might be of interest to a few of you. 
"When I'm in a slump, I comfort myself by saying if I believe in dinosaurs, then somewhere, they must be believing in me. And if they believe in me, then I can believe in me." - Mookie Wilson
|
|
|
Re: ZDDP article
[Re: 1968RR]
#1764022
02/27/15 07:11 PM
02/27/15 07:11 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,894
Florida
Locomotion
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,894
Florida
|
Interesting! Thank you. I was disappointed that Amsoil wasn't mentioned. But I understand that there are limits to what is tested. Amsoil does advertise the zinc content in their racing and "muscle car" oils. Amsoil tech bulliten - Zinc content
|
|
|
Re: ZDDP article
[Re: 1968RR]
#1764024
02/28/15 12:12 AM
02/28/15 12:12 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 685
pennsylvania
poboyengineering
mopar
|
mopar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 685
pennsylvania
|
The most interesting part to me is the statement that levels over 1800ppm can have detrimental effects. Thank you for sharing all this info.
It may be ugly, but it sure is slow.
Girls comb their hair in rear view mirrors and the boys try to look so hard....
|
|
|
Re: ZDDP article
[Re: 67Satty]
#1764029
02/28/15 04:26 AM
02/28/15 04:26 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
72Swinger
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
|
Mobil 1 0w40 and 15w50 both are in the 1000-1100 range last I checked also.
Mopar to the bone!!!
|
|
|
Re: ZDDP article
[Re: Chris'sBarracuda]
#1764031
02/28/15 05:44 AM
02/28/15 05:44 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
72Swinger
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
|
That wear rating was very enlightening! Need to get me some 5w30 Pennz and some Prolong oil treatment!
Mopar to the bone!!!
|
|
|
Re: ZDDP article
[Re: Lefty]
#1764036
03/01/15 05:33 PM
03/01/15 05:33 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
Mattax
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
|
Quote:
Real eye opener if this guy is on the mark? Kinda tosses most diesel oil out the window. Cost per quart looks like Mobil 1 5W-30 Full Synthetic is the winner. 
Scar test is just one of several indicators of actual in use performance to consider. Probably a more important test for greases than motor oil. Although I tip my hat to him for going through the trouble to do this test, there are questions about the control of his procedures, test environment and equipment. That doesn't mean they are or are not valid results, just we can't be sure.
"Choosing engine oil for Corvairs" by Widman is probably the most readable overview of motor characteristics. It covers viscosity, pour point, differences in base stocks, and a bit on additive packages. Read that and you'll have a much more complete view of motor oil performance.
Illustrated Pdf in English from his hobby pages http://www.widman.biz/Corvair/English/Links/Links.html or his business pages http://www.widman.biz/English/Selection/oil.html
Also on his websites are some other good papers on gear oils and case studies of failures he's had to deal with.
|
|
|
Re: ZDDP article
[Re: DusterDave]
#1764039
03/02/15 07:44 PM
03/02/15 07:44 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,943
San Angelo, Texas, U.S.A.
1968RR
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,943
San Angelo, Texas, U.S.A.
|
The primary goal of the research was really to see whether or not neutron activation analysis (NAA) was better for quality control purposes than the industry standard, ICP-AES. The uncertainties show that NAA is MUCH more accurate than ICP-AES. I understand that most oil manufacturers don't necessarily have regular access to a nuclear reactor, but ICP-AES is a really lousy way to determine additive concentrations (one guy that we worked with referred to ICP-AES as a "really expensive random number generator"). Which brings me to the 540 Rat blog article... The guy seems to know what he's doing. As he points out, a "Mechanical Engineer is clearly the most qualified Engineer to test motor oil" (but evidently not the most qualified engineer to know the difference between proper nouns and regular ol' nouns  ). The only problems I have with his data: 1. He doesn't provide any uncertainties anywhere. Seriously, numbers without uncertainties are meaningless. If you don't believe me, I'll sell you my 100,000,000 hp 2002 Ram for $100,000 cash (note: +/- 99,999,775 hp). You never know, it could have 199,999,775 hp and be a good deal... 2. The other problem is this statement: "The ppm (parts per million) quantities of zinc, phosphorus, moly and in some cases titanium, shown in the ranking list below, are taken directly from the Lab Reports that came back from the Professional Lab 'ALS Tribology' in Sparks, Nevada. Some oils have MORE ZINC than phosphorus, while other oils have MORE PHOSPHORUS than zinc. It just depends on the particular oil’s formulation. Either way, the numbers below are correct and are NOT typos." The ppm data are mass fractions. Because zinc is ONLY added to oils in the form of ZDDPs (while the phosphorus in oils can be from a variety of molecules) and because ZDDPs always have a 2:1 phosphorus atom to zinc atom ratio, the phosphorus to zinc ppm ratios should never be less than [(30.97*2)/65.39]=0.947. It's pretty basic chemistry. If you take a look at his measurements for "5W30 Joe Gibbs Driven LS30 Performance Motor Oil, synthetic," for example, you can see that the ratio is 1496/1610=0.929. What does this mean? That his data (or the data that he got from ALS Tribology) has some really high uncertainties. That said, there's a lot more to a good motor oil than ZDDP-content. The best way to measure the quality of a motor oil is through mechanical tests, which is exactly what the guy who wrote the 540 Rat blog article does.
"When I'm in a slump, I comfort myself by saying if I believe in dinosaurs, then somewhere, they must be believing in me. And if they believe in me, then I can believe in me." - Mookie Wilson
|
|
|
Re: ZDDP article
[Re: Mattax]
#1764041
03/02/15 08:16 PM
03/02/15 08:16 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,516
Santa Cruz, California
Lefty
master
|
master
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,516
Santa Cruz, California
|
Quote:
Quote:
Real eye opener if this guy is on the mark? Kinda tosses most diesel oil out the window. Cost per quart looks like Mobil 1 5W-30 Full Synthetic is the winner.
Scar test is just one of several indicators of actual in use performance to consider. Probably a more important test for greases than motor oil. Although I tip my hat to him for going through the trouble to do this test, there are questions about the control of his procedures, test environment and equipment. That doesn't mean they are or are not valid results, just we can't be sure.
"Choosing engine oil for Corvairs" by Widman is probably the most readable overview of motor characteristics. It covers viscosity, pour point, differences in base stocks, and a bit on additive packages. Read that and you'll have a much more complete view of motor oil performance.
Illustrated Pdf in English from his hobby pages http://www.widman.biz/Corvair/English/Links/Links.html or his business pages http://www.widman.biz/English/Selection/oil.html
Also on his websites are some other good papers on gear oils and case studies of failures he's had to deal with.
Good info thanks. I'm mostly interested in flat tappet cam lobe protection. I figure if it can protect the cam lobe, the crank/rod/cam bearing wear will be low as well.
So now I'm thinking I want the highest HTHS (ASTM D4683) combined with the lowest viscosity.
What is the difference between the "viscosity index" and the viscosity ratings at 40C and 100C or more importantly, which rating/measurement is most important to look for in motor oil? I'm thinking the 100C measurement.
|
|
|
Re: ZDDP article
[Re: Lefty]
#1764042
03/02/15 10:26 PM
03/02/15 10:26 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
Mattax
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,645
Phila. Pa.
|
My memory is the VI is another way of describing the spread between 40 C and 100 C. But I'm going to have to reread the article to be sure. Since this is the 'race' forum, the important temperature ought to be done with a temperature sensor in the oil pan. So, for example, my old 340 ran 280-300 F on the highway. There were some issues in my exhaust and remote oil filter routing, which I eventually addressed. It still ran 260-270F at highway speeds. Unfortunately, I didn't understand about pour points and was suspicous of the synthetic sales pitches. So I ran non synthetic 20W-50 racing oil. That might have made sense for the highway driving and racing once warmed up, but probably was not getting the flow needed until it was up to full temperature. Certainly was caused accusumps 100 psi relief valve to pop open a few times. yuck. The oil in my current 340 runs 160-190 degrees F on the street. At the beginning of a run, sometimes its not even at 160. So for this engine, both the 40 C and 100 C viscosity are important to me, as is the pour point. With the higher valve spring pressures, the tried and true ZDDP type anti-wear package was also important. Brad Penn 5W-30 fit the bill. ------------------ edit: That was a long way of saying that I've come around to placing first priority on viscosity. The article that helped me understand that was Oil 101 by AE Haas. There's a couple versions floating around the web. I linked this one because it has the final paragraphs where he starts to get into temperature on road course versus street driving. Haas was a physician applying his understanding of fluids to explain viscosity, pressure and flow to his fellow auto enthusiasts.
Last edited by Mattax; 03/02/15 11:02 PM.
|
|
|
Re: ZDDP article
[Re: 1968RR]
#1764043
03/02/15 10:53 PM
03/02/15 10:53 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,314
Prospect, PA
BSB67
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,314
Prospect, PA
|
Quote:
The primary goal of the research was really to see whether or not neutron activation analysis (NAA) was better for quality control purposes than the industry standard, ICP-AES. The uncertainties show that NAA is MUCH more accurate than ICP-AES. I understand that most oil manufacturers don't necessarily have regular access to a nuclear reactor, but ICP-AES is a really lousy way to determine additive concentrations
:
I don't think there was a scientific analysis between the two regarding uncertainty. I don't think his method for uncertainty analysis is necessary even valid. I would think matrix spike would be the method of choice or at a minimum part of the analysis. And in the final analysis, if the ICP is 5% off, does that really change anything. Does anyone think that good verses bad oil would have anything to do with it being 1200 ppm +/- 5%.
Finally, I've done undergrad research, and have managed undergrad researchers. Always interesting stuff. Never even close to authoritative. 
|
|
|
Re: ZDDP article
[Re: BSB67]
#1764044
03/02/15 11:19 PM
03/02/15 11:19 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,943
San Angelo, Texas, U.S.A.
1968RR
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,943
San Angelo, Texas, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The primary goal of the research was really to see whether or not neutron activation analysis (NAA) was better for quality control purposes than the industry standard, ICP-AES. The uncertainties show that NAA is MUCH more accurate than ICP-AES. I understand that most oil manufacturers don't necessarily have regular access to a nuclear reactor, but ICP-AES is a really lousy way to determine additive concentrations
:
I don't think there was a scientific analysis between the two regarding uncertainty. I don't think his method for uncertainty analysis is necessary even valid. I would think matrix spike would be the method of choice or at a minimum part of the analysis. And in the final analysis, if the ICP is 5% off, does that really change anything. Does anyone think that good verses bad oil would have anything to do with it being 1200 ppm +/- 5%.
Finally, I've done undergrad research, and have managed undergrad researchers. Always interesting stuff. Never even close to authoritative.
ICP-AES can only achieve 5% uncertainties if concentrations are very high. For concentrations in the range of motor oil ZDDPs, the uncertainties are more like 15%. I think uncertainties that high would be significant, maybe not for the consumer, but certainly for quality control purposes.
While the research was done as part of an undergraduate project (I'm not one of the undergrads), it was done at a facility that has a dedicated NAA lab (UT's Pickle Research Center). Simply put - there is literally no method of detecting trace elements more accurate than NAA. Given the fact that charges for analyzing samples are in the $50 to $100 range, it seems like a viable option for quality control.
"When I'm in a slump, I comfort myself by saying if I believe in dinosaurs, then somewhere, they must be believing in me. And if they believe in me, then I can believe in me." - Mookie Wilson
|
|
|
|
|
