Lubeing the Rear End

[Guest ratchethack]

Probably the Sulfur is separating from the moly molecular compound or somehow oxidizing.

EDIT Maybe something like MoS2 + 3O2 = MoO2 + 2SO (feel free to correct me, I don't remember how to balance an equation)

Probably somehow maybe indeed.

 

This is exactly wot I mean by extreme speculation. I'm afraid there's no "correcting" this, Dave.

 

extreme speculation + uneducated gibberish = 0

 

As it turns out, Dave, when it comes to Chemistry, as with all other scientific, truthbound disciplines on this planet, (unlike designer political propaganda, for example) you can't simply make stuff up out o' thin air and expect that wotever you can dream up without having the slightest idea wot you're doing will fit reality -- that is, earthbound reality -- let alone be accepted as valid by earthlings. . .

 

Although, according to P. T. Barnum, there's one born every minute who's sure to buy wotever you can dream up. . .

 

 

Dave, there comes a time when it's simply merciful (as well as appropriate) to recognize when you've got yourself in way way way way over your head, don't you think?

 

Now if you possess a sincere interest in oxidation states of molybdenum, the International Molybdenum Association, IMOA, has some guidance on the chemistry thereof here:

 

http://www.imoa.info/

 

However, as is so often the case with scientific disciplines, it turns out that an understanding of the chemistry here actually requires knowledge, training, and expertise -- not to mention academic and laboratory credentials to wield this knowledge effectively. I find that my own particular academic and laboratory credentials (Bachelor of Science degree in Biochemistry) is insufficient to demonstrate mastery in this area. You see, I pretty well know exactly how far my knowledge and academic training will take me here -- beyond which I at least possess respect for what I know I don't know. (Got that?) Unlike yourself, I also have enough respect for others not to mislead and confuse people with fabrications of disinformation by speculating beyond my knowledge and understanding under fabulously false and wildly imaginary pretenses. You might consider giving this a whirl sometime yourself (for once) -- just to see how your entire life might improve in so many ways. . .

 

Because I have a solid background in the fundamentals of both organic and inorganic chemistry, I consider myself obligated here to point out that for you to propose the thuddingly ignorant, child-like explanations that you've been spouting here, without the foggiest comprehension of what you're talking about from the get-go, as you've been doing, puts the concept of preposterous to shame.

 

Beyond the valid statements I've presented above in attempt to show you just how far off the track you've careened with your ol' speculation train, I won't presume to speculate about proprietary compounds unknown to the public (I refer to organic forms of "synthetic moly"). But you clearly haven't been capable of following even the simple stuff I've presented so far.

 

Now I'm sure your academic and laboratory credentials (or shall we correctly and er, honestly conclude from your demonstrations above, lack thereof? ) won't deter you in any way from continuing even further with volumes of additional extreme speculation. . .

[dlaing]

This is exactly wot I mean by extreme speculation. I'm afraid there's no "correcting" this, Dave.

 

(gibberish) = 0

 

As it turns out, in Chemistry, as with all other scientific, and all other truthbound disciplines on this planet, you can't simply make stuff up out o' thin air and expect that wotever you can dream up will fit reality -- that is, earthbound reality -- let alone be accepted as valid by earthlings.

 

Although, according to P. T. Barnum, there's one born every minute who's sure to buy wotever you come up with. . .

The following must be true because I found it on the internet:

2(MoS2)(s) + 5(O2)(g) -> 2(MoO3)(s) + 2(SO2)(g)

I suppose you will say it is gibberish and made up out of thin air <_>

This patent appears to be a real world example of creating SO2 from MoS2.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=ghs3AAAAE...ide%22+#PPA1,M1

The temperatures used are much higher than the temperature in the gear box, so it is still questionable whether this could happen in the gear box.

But the Extreme Pressures in the gear box combined with the temperature and maybe the presence of catalytic metal, could possibly free the SO2. By itself that is wild speculation, but knowing SO2 is being generated(it stinks), and knowing that Mo and S are on the safety sheet, and knowing some basic knowledge of what they put in gear and engine lubes, it is not a far stretch to suggest that the source of the sulfur smell is MoS2 or a derivative compound, aka 'Moly'.

But we are beating a dead horse here. If you want to believe synthetic moly or organic moly is not moly and thus moly is not in Shockproof, be my guest, I am done.

[Dan M]

Scott,

Don't let the budding "molly warming" thread worry you. Another from me on the RLSH. Put it in & forget about it. Don't worry about the metal fuzz on the drain plug magnet, it's just doing its job. One thing though, I found on the first time through, there was quite a bit of black paste in the trans that would remain after a simple drain & fill. Removing the side cover for a proper clean out is the best thing. Nothing terribly important but I feel it best to start clean.

[Guest ratchethack]

This patent appears to be a real world example of creating SO2 from MoS2.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=ghs3AAAAE...ide%22+#PPA1,M1

The temperatures used are much higher than the temperature in the gear box, so it is still questionable whether this could happen in the gear box.

But the Extreme Pressures in the gear box combined with the temperature and maybe the presence of catalytic metal, could possibly free the SO2.

"Questionable", yet "could happen"?? "Maybe" and "could possibly"??

 

Dave. Do you EVER pick up ANY HINTS that you're in way way waaaaaaaaay over your head?

 

Do you really expect to post this kind of childish nonsense here without being called on it?!?!

 

This stuff is getting truly hilarious. . . Extreme pressures inside a vented gearbox. Reactor furnace temperatures inside a bevel drive. Catalytic metal freeing S02 from a compound that isn't in there. Stop it, Dave. Y'er killin' me. My sides 'r splittin'.

 

In your wildly speculative and woefully uneducated Web search, you've stumbled upon a patent for a proposed industrial process for production of oxides of molybdenum that combines MoS2 with finely divided MoO3 under tightly controlled feedback loop conditions in an industrial reactor furnace.

 

Dave, let's take a look at a few of the realities here on this planet that have once again somehow compelled your familiar Speculation Train to jump the ol' reality track so often and so easily, sending it careening wildly down so many dead-end dirt roads.

 

For starters, as we've already well established, RLSH has no moly (MoS2) in it by the definition of the compound as it has been commonly known and used in commercial lubricants for well over a century. No one here or anywhere else has attempted to refute what Redline actually says is in their product -- synthetic, organic moly (proprietary patented chemical forumula unknown) -- not MoS2, which is inorganic. And yet, you have submitted a chemical equation for an industrial reactor furnace production process for oxidation of MoS2, in an attempt to demonstrate an extraordinarily irrational rationalization for your unfounded, woefully ignorant, ridiculous, and entirely baseless foregone conclusion that the smell of RLSH is due to the breakdown of MoS2 -- in spite of the fact that RLSH doesn't contain MoS2.

 

Now tiptoeing on past the first great wallopping 800 lb gorilla in the corner above and pretending it isn't there, as if one were somehow able to ignore the fact that RLSH has no MoS2 in it in the first place, if we actually take a few seconds to scan the patent you submitted at overview level, none of the processes necessary for the chemical reaction represented by the equation you cited are even remotely possible to achieve in a Guzzi bevel drive -- not the least of which is the requirement for temperatures of 750-950 degrees C , not to mention the requirement for adding MoO3 vapor (not ever present in a Guzzi bevel drive) -- let alone under 40 mm mercury pressure via the requisite two-stage industrial reactor furnace feedback mechanism specified in the patent laboratory requirements!!!

 

To put more earthbound perspective around this, Dave, at least for the benefit of those of us whose feet actually reach all the way down to terra firma, the reaction you've proposed above requires temperatures of more than 500-700 degrees C higher than the flash point of Redline Shockproof Heavy (232 degrees C) -- that would be 500-700 degrees C higher than the temperature at which RLSH spontaneously bursts into flame in the presence of oxygen.

 

Bringing the reactants up to the temperatures you're suggesting presents a few more problems in a Guzzi bevel drive, Dave. Long before even approaching the reactor furnace temperatures required for the reaction you cited above, but well after all traces of RLSH would have been incinerated, the cast aluminum housing of the bevel drive would pour onto the ground in a puddle of molten aluminum alloy, which melts at 300 - 500 degrees C lower than the temps required for the reaction you've suggested.

 

Now then. Lacking the usual occurrence of reactor furnace temps of 750-950 degrees C inside Guzzi bevel drives, not to mention the absence of pressures of 40 mm Hg (in the vented housing!), the absence of a required finely-divided reaction catalyst that doesn't exist in a bevel drive, AND lacking the required pressurized injection of MoO3 vapor anywhere on or near our Guzzi's, it would seem that suggesting the above patented reactor/furnace production process as even the remotest of possibilities in Guzzi bevel drives is not only light-years beyond the most extreme speculation, but umm. . . deep into the wildest, most contorted, distorted, and aborted outer stretches of utter, abject folly -- at least from any perspective on this planet -- would it not?

 

All of this begs the question: Are you attempting to use some sort of an extra-terrestrial shoe-horn to force-fit a 100-gallon tub of idiotic nonsense into a 5-gallon bucket of reality on some other planet, Dave?? I'm asking you this question, because here on Earth, indulging in this kind of wildly nonsensical hallucination and then sharing it on a public Forum as if it could have any basis in reality wotsoever borders on the DANGEROUSLY DELUSIONAL. . .

 

 

Here's a process that all adult earthlings who successfully transcend the naïveté of childhood understand inherently, Dave:

 

extreme speculation + ignorance + illogic + junk science ==> DANGER + confusion + abject folly + absurdity

 

Methinks you must've got too many gold stars in 2nd grade from some equally naïve, overly-generous, starry-eyed, imbecile New Age teacher, which in retrospect, was evidently the most toxic kind of reward possible for dreaming up impossibly wrong -- yet extremely creative, falsely and childishly rationalized -- delusional answers to questions in class. . . But wotever it was that went so spectacularly wrong with your education and development and got it permanently stuck back in early elementary school, Dave, at least you've accumulated an entire lifetime supply of The Holy Grail of Government Education. I refer, of course, to the astronomically immense reserve of great wallopping unfounded, false self-esteem which takes the form of the most outrageously flamboyant displays of wild speculation in entire fields of knowledge of which you haven't the faintest clue, that you consistently demonstrate here whilst attempting to back up your delusional thinking processes. I have truly never seen the likes of anything approaching it -- anywhere.

[Scotch]

Scott,

Don't let the budding "molly warming" thread worry you. Another from me on the RLSH. Put it in & forget about it. Don't worry about the metal fuzz on the drain plug magnet, it's just doing its job. One thing though, I found on the first time through, there was quite a bit of black paste in the trans that would remain after a simple drain & fill. Removing the side cover for a proper clean out is the best thing. Nothing terribly important but I feel it best to start clean.

 

Hi Dan,

Thanks,

Yep, I didnt mean to start a volcano, but I am sure not going to get in the middle of it. Both these guys have given me good advise on past questions and I value their opinions, but jeez - that chemistry lesson is what I left college for after nearly blowing up the lab.

 

I did the lube changes, didnt take off the cover, but I'll be back in there before long to look at those plugs and I probably will pull the cover and have a look see then. I still need to check those problamatic bearing anyway that I didnt get a chance to look at before.

 

Scott

[Ryland3210]

I use Dow Corning's Molykote M in my transmission as well.

I believe it is compatible with both synthetic and conventional oils.

 

Belts and suspenders, perhaps, but I think, what the heck. With the price of gasoline and drop of the dollar these days, I can justify all kinds of neat enhancements as they become a smaller percentage of the cost per mile.

[JoeV11]

I just found out something good that I wanted to share: I asked the valvoline techs about using additives in their SynPower 75W-90 full synthetic gear oil which is rated GL-5/MT-1 and this is their reply:

 

From investigation, it looks like the additive is going to be Agip Rocol ASO/R or a Molykote Type 4. Either way, these two products look to be an additive required for the extreme pressure properties of the fluids. Our SynPower Full Synthetic SAE 75w90 does contain EP additives, but nothing that is matching up to the specifications of each of these additives, therefore we would still recommend using the additive with our synthetic gear oil product.

 

On another note I just received a quart of Dow-Corning Molykote in the mail, so I'll be adding a bit of that shortly.

Thanks for the heads-up on free samples.

 

Joe

[Guest ratchethack]

Interesting stuff, Joe.

 

I most heartily agree that you gotta go with the recommendation of Valvoline here.

 

I've been keeping up on this topic in greater depth on other Forums.

 

GL-5 additives have evolved substantially, and have begun to vary considerably from mfgr to mfgr in recent years.

 

On BITOG (Bob Is The Oil Guy) Forum, there's an extremely knowlegeable and well-respected Tribologist who posts regularly. He has headed up his own synthetic lube company. Those familiar with BITOG will know that oil and lube products have become progressively diverse and complex in recent years, partially due to mounting pressure from the Green Lobby. Suffice it to say that this stuff gets very deep very quickly lately. BITOG regulars will also immediately know and recognize the guy I quote below by the now World Famous Forum moniker, "MolaKule".

 

MolaKule stated thus with regard to GL-5 lubes:

 

GL-5; Specified for hypoid gear service but with shock loads and severe service operation. Usually meets Mil-L-2105D and in most cases, is the multipurpose automotive gear oil. Most 75W90 to 75W140 grades meet the GL-5 classification. This grade has a high level of Extreme-Pressure additives that could be mildly corrosive to nonferrous parts, such as brass, bronze and aluminum parts. Most of the modern GL-5 lubes contain metal deactivators that prevents attacks by the extreme-pressure additives. In addition to EP additives, these lubes contain rust inhibitors, defoamants, friction modifiers, thickeners, and Viscosity Index Improvers.

. . .

Here is some data averaged over 3 conventional (mineral) Hypoid GL-5 gear oils of SAE 90 weight as to range of additives:

 

As stated before, the additive package may occupy from 3.5% to 10% by weight of each quart of oil.

 

KV - 17.42 to 18.24 (100 C)

VI - 98-101

 

Additive EP Elements (% by weight)

Sulfur - 2.72 to 2.93%

Phosphorous - 0.11% to 0.12%

Chlorine - 0.02%

Nitrogen - 0.08 to 0.09%

Borons – 0.5% TO 2%.

 

The Borons and Cacium carbonates are slowly replacing the chlorines.

 

Now for certain oils, you might see additional AW/EP components such as Moly and Antimony in less than 1%-3% concentrations.

By all means, leave us not confuse long-time users of Redline Shockproof Heavy in the bevel drive (of which I am one)!

 

RLSH is rated GL-5, but it is also a relativey unique GL-5, in that it is a 100% Polyol Ester (POE) Group V base stock synthetic with its own proprietary friction modifiers. According to Redline's specific recommendation, adding moly is STILL NOT NECESSARY for use with RLSH in the Guzzi bevel drive, as is the case with other GL-5 rated lubes.

 

Again, and as always, don't take my word for it. For a conversation with a real Tech kinda guy at Redline, deeply knowledgeable, glad to confirm the above and answer any other Q's, call Dave at the Red Line WW HQ Tech Dept., (800) 624-7958. Office hours are Monday through Friday from 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PST.

[mike wilson]

Interesting stuff, Joe.

 

I most heartily agree that you gotta go with the recommendation of Valvoline here.

 

I've been keeping up on this topic in greater depth on other Forums.

 

GL-5 additives have evolved substantially, and have begun to vary considerably from mfgr to mfgr in recent years.

 

On BITOG (Bob Is The Oil Guy) Forum, there's an extremely knowlegeable and well-respected Tribologist who posts regularly. He has headed up his own synthetic lube company. Those familiar with BITOG will know that oil and lube products have become progressively diverse and complex in recent years, partially due to mounting pressure from the Green Lobby. Suffice it to say that this stuff gets very deep very quickly lately. BITOG regulars will also immediately know and recognize the guy I quote below by the now World Famous Forum moniker, "MolaKule".

 

Do you have a link to the thread? I tried to join that forum but was refused for having a different login to registered name (??? one had a space in, the other didn't....) and then when I tried to rejoin, there was no confirmation email. So I can't search.

[Guest ratchethack]

Do you have a link to the thread? I tried to join that forum but was refused for having a different login to registered name (??? one had a space in, the other didn't....) and then when I tried to rejoin, there was no confirmation email. So I can't search.

Mike, here's a link to Part I of one of MolaKule's dissertations on Gear Tribology and Lubrication:

 

http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbth...p;Number=729255

 

I've found MolaKule's stuff to be pretty easily accessed without a BITOG registration, simply using a Web search engine.

 

I got to the above link by searching on "MolaKule" AND "GL-5".

[Tom M]

In case anyone was wondering about the difference between Redline Shockproof Heavy and Redline V-Twin transmission oil with shockproof...there is none! I emailed them about it a while back and they said the Vtwin product was RSH in a motorcycle package.

 

http://www.redlineoil.com/products_gearlub...ubCategoryID=16

[Guest ratchethack]

The marketing brilliance of packaging.

 

How to quadruple sales with ZERO overhead costs for development and introduction of a new product?

 

Offer an existing product with a new label on it that the huge market represented by the Motor Davidson Harley Cycles and "Metric Cruiser" crowd can understand without reading.

 

They can all at least understand a great big, "V-TWIN" sign. . . um, can't they?

[gstallons]

Shhhh! Don't give sales secrets away.

[Tom M]

The marketing brilliance of packaging.

 

How to quadruple sales with ZERO overhead costs for development and introduction of a new product?

 

Offer an existing product with a new label on it that the huge market represented by the Motor Davidson Harley Cycle and "Metric Cruiser" crowd can understand without reading.

 

They can all at least understand a great big, "V-TWIN" sign. . . um, can't they?

 

I have to give Redline credit for admitting it's the same oil, instead of saying it's a new formulation that you should be using in your motorcycle and oh by the way we'll be charging a little more for it.

[Guest ratchethack]

Gotta give credit where credit's due. More power to 'em.

 

If they're actually charging more for the same thing with a different label (and getting it) -- well then, it's just one more form of stupidity tax, ain't it?

 

And thankfully, there's no law against charging stupidity tax, or the global economy would surely collapse (no -- I mean completely collapse) overnight!

 

From the "Nothin' new under the sun" department:

 

My Dad's first job out of college was as an engineer at one of the largest oil refineries in the US. One of his first lessons on "the miracle of marketing" came with the discovery that the same oil was going into entirely different end-product containers -- at double the wholesale market price from one product label to the next -- according to supply and demand, of course. . .

 

But ain't a Free Market Economy a Truly Marvelous Thing of Beauty and Joy Forever -- compared to all other alternatives, that is??

 

And yet, with centuries of history, knowledge, and expertise behind it, we still have fools screaming, "This is morally wrong, and IT'S GOT TO BE STOPPED!". . .

 

. . . And waddayagonna do?