Kawasaki Concours Forum
The C-14, aka Kawasaki Concours-14, the new one :) => The Bike - C14/GTR 1400 => Topic started by: Angus on July 15, 2014, 04:37:31 PM
-
My shift lever was feeling a bit "notchy" between gears, at 50,000 miles. I had the same issue with my Honda ST 1300, so I tried the same fix. Drained out the Blue Ray 10-40, replaced filter with Bosch 3300. Added 4 1/2 quarts of Rotella T 15-40. After about 100 miles, I noticed smoother shifting and the notchy between gears much less. A 10-40 is fine for the engine, but seems to be too light for the transmission over 50,000 miles.
-
Glad it worked out for ya' but you gotta' know a post like that is the forum equivalent of 'Here kitty, kitty.' Here, let me help: Gee, I wonder if Rotella 15W-40 is the best oil for motorcycle transmissions?
:rotflmao:
I am a fan of the fleet mineral oils myself. Just now running off a crankcase full of Delo 15W-40 (they are all 15W-40 after all)- it is not my favorite of the choices though. I think I will go back to Devlac or Rotella.
Brian
My shift lever was feeling a bit "notchy" between gears, at 50,000 miles. I had the same issue with my Honda ST 1300, so I tried the same fix. Drained out the Blue Ray 10-40, replaced filter with Bosch 3300. Added 4 1/2 quarts of Rotella T 15-40. After about 100 miles, I noticed smoother shifting and the notchy between gears much less. A 10-40 is fine for the engine, but seems to be too light for the transmission over 50,000 miles.
-
Oil thread!!!
-
Gotta love it!
What tires are you running? ;D
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink033.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
Actually, notchy shifting is a valid subject in relation to what oil you run. In contrast to the original post, I noticed notchy shifting on my VFR while running Rotella 5W-40 syn. After changing to Mobil 1 10-40 full syn M/C oil, the shifting became very smooth. I do run the Rotella in an XR650R with no problems. Some bikes are just picky, I guess.
-
Actually, notchy shifting is a valid subject in relation to what oil you run. In contrast to the original post, I noticed notchy shifting on my VFR while running Rotella 5W-40 syn. After changing to Mobil 1 10-40 full syn M/C oil, the shifting became very smooth. I do run the Rotella in an XR650R with no problems. Some bikes are just picky, I guess.
I feel notchy shifting at times, then I change my oil using any motorcycle oil of the correct viscosity, and it is smooth again. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/big/big-smiley-003.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/free-big-smiley.php)
-
My shift lever was feeling a bit "notchy" between gears, at 50,000 miles. I had the same issue with my Honda ST 1300, so I tried the same fix. Drained out the Blue Ray 10-40, replaced filter with Bosch 3300. Added 4 1/2 quarts of Rotella T 15-40. After about 100 miles, I noticed smoother shifting and the notchy between gears much less. A 10-40 is fine for the engine, but seems to be too light for the transmission over 50,000 miles.
Everything else being equal a 10-40 oil is the same viscosity as a 15-40 oil at operating temp. 10-40 is only thinner then 15-40 when cold but both are still way thicker cold then hot.
-
Actually, notchy shifting is a valid subject in relation to what oil you run. In contrast to the original post, I noticed notchy shifting on my VFR while running Rotella 5W-40 syn. After changing to Mobil 1 10-40 full syn M/C oil, the shifting became very smooth. I do run the Rotella in an XR650R with no problems. Some bikes are just picky, I guess.
5-40 =10-40 =15-40 at operating temp. The first number is the equivalent viscosity of a single weight oil when cold. In other words 5W-40 viscosity at 50F should be the same viscosity of a straight 5W oil at 50F. The second number is for operating temp so that 5W-40 at 200F will be the same viscosity of a straight 40W oil at 200F. But even a 5W oil at 50F is way thicker then even a 50W oil at 200F.
-
Agreed- the C-14 IS sensitive to oil and oil age regarding both shifting as well as clutch behavior. That said, there is just no way to have an oil thread without having.... well, the inevitable things that go with an oil (or tire or gasoline or....) thread.
But on a serious note, the thing that seems to make the most difference, at least in my own bike, is the ZDDP content of the oil. As all road vehicle oils have had the quantity of that reduced, adding a little more seems to make a significant difference. Beyond that, I find regular auto 10W-40 Pennzoil and Valvoline both allow the bike to shift the best when the oil is fresh but that quality deteriorates pretty rapidly (less than 1,000 miles into an oil change). The fleet oils, Rotella, Devlac, and Delo (the mineral oils, not the synthetics) all seem to last but do not perform as well as the two 10W-40 oils mentioned. So I mix them 50 / 50 and that seems to yield the benefits from both oil families.
Brian
Actually, notchy shifting is a valid subject in relation to what oil you run. In contrast to the original post, I noticed notchy shifting on my VFR while running Rotella 5W-40 syn. After changing to Mobil 1 10-40 full syn M/C oil, the shifting became very smooth. I do run the Rotella in an XR650R with no problems. Some bikes are just picky, I guess.
-
My shift lever was feeling a bit "notchy" between gears, at 50,000 miles. I had the same issue with my Honda ST 1300, so I tried the same fix. Drained out the Blue Ray 10-40, replaced filter with Bosch 3300. Added 4 1/2 quarts of Rotella T 15-40. After about 100 miles, I noticed smoother shifting and the notchy between gears much less. A 10-40 is fine for the engine, but seems to be too light for the transmission over 50,000 miles.
That first number matters when the engines are cold. 40 is 40. Where the WIN is you nailed it here.......
ROTELLA T ;D ;D ;D
-
Blue Ray? I thought this was an oil thread, not a DVD thread... dang. :o
I ran Mobil1 15w50 in my ST1300... she liked it, and it was hot in Houston. My C14 likes Mobil1 10w40.
-
As does mine..
-
Blue Ray? I thought this was an oil thread, not a DVD thread... dang. :o
I ran Mobil1 15w50 in my ST1300... she liked it, and it was hot in Houston. My C14 likes Mobil1 10w40.
As does mine..
+3
-
Oil thread!!!
:cannon:
-
That first number matters when the engines are cold. 40 is 40. Where the WIN is you nailed it here.......
ROTELLA T ;D ;D ;D
+1 I've been using Rotella T in Honda VTX, Honda Rincon ATV, Honda Rancher ATV, Honda Valkyrie, Suzuki DR650 and my C14.
-
I think I get better shifting using redline 10-40, might be due to the high moly level in it. Get it for $103 a case of 12 from a jobber.
But... for those who think their bikes have notchy shifting- do you still have the stock plastic bushing in your shifter?
I replaced mine with a ball bearing one (from Murph) and it made a huge difference.
-
I run whatever motorcycle specific oil happens to be on sale when I stop in at the store. Sometimes I even mix in one quart of one brand when I happen to have one left over. Of course they are all synthetic and the same viscosity. :o
-
I have always just purchased Kawasaki oil and filter from the Kawasaki store and the last time I changed the oil I immediately noticed notchy shifting with the new oil, the notchy shifting smooths out when the motor/transmission reach their nominal operating temperature...this seems backards from what others have described
-
This topic really baffles me. In 422,000 miles on 20 or so bikes I have never noticed shifting problems related to oil. I've had hard or no shifting due to master cylinder leaks or shift lever maladjustment. The term "notchy shifting" perplexes me since in my mind the shift mechanism works by cogs sliding into "notches" thus "notchy" is a good thing when you are talking about shifting quality. What exactly do you riders mean by "notchy shifting"?
-
What exactly do you riders mean by "notchy shifting"?
[/quote]Never experienced it? Years ago, I had just purchased a used VFR800, a known fine motorcycle. I changed the oil, filling it with Rotella synthetic, which I use in nearly everything. Right out of the garage, the shifting is crap, feels like I filled up with a combo of oil and sand. I changed the oil again, to Mobil 1 10/40 MC oil, the shifting is fine, silky smooth. I still use Rotella in most everything else, fine oil. The VFR had other needs. Ever been inside a modern M/C motor/transmission? Shifting is not just gears sliding across a shaft and dogs engaging. The shift forks have protrusions that move within grooves in the shift drum, the shift forks slide on their own shafts, the shift drum rotates as the shift pawls engage the pins, etc, etc. Anywhere in this scenario a special need for lubricity may arise. Tolerances, material surfaces, and forces from unexpected directions may be unique to a bike. Yeah, I know, TMI.
-
+3
-
What exactly do you riders mean by "notchy shifting"?
Never experienced it? Years ago, I had just purchased a used VFR800, a known fine motorcycle. I changed the oil, filling it with Rotella synthetic, which I use in nearly everything. Right out of the garage, the shifting is crap, feels like I filled up with a combo of oil and sand. I changed the oil again, to Mobil 1 10/40 MC oil, the shifting is fine, silky smooth. I still use Rotella in most everything else, fine oil. The VFR had other needs. Ever been inside a modern M/C motor/transmission? Shifting is not just gears sliding across a shaft and dogs engaging. The shift forks have protrusions that move within grooves in the shift drum, the shift forks slide on their own shafts, the shift drum rotates as the shift pawls engage the pins, etc, etc. Anywhere in this scenario a special need for lubricity may arise. Tolerances, material surfaces, and forces from unexpected directions may be unique to a bike. Yeah, I know, TMI.
Never to much info, just takes more effort to arrive at the correct conclusion(s). I am no engineer but all those tranny parts seem to me to require protection from high pressure metal to metal contact to preserve their useful life more than lubricity to make them function smoothly. I think crankshaft, rod bearings and and camshafts bearings and lobes have a higher need for lubricity. If the oil was bad enough to make the tranny act up then the engine would be in trouble. I suspect the cause of hard shifting, if that is what is meant by notchy" could be a dragging clutch.
I have a 99 VFR800 with 124,541 miles on it, the latest 79 put on today. It still runs and shifts as nice as the day I bought it. I have always used Rotella Synthetic.
-
I run Royal Purple Max Cycle 10-40 in all my bikes, good stuff. :cool:
-
For me, the C-14 really stands out among motorcycles in its sensitivity to oil and the oil's effect on shifting.
Hard to explain but on my bike, it goes like this: Say it takes 5 lbs. of force to shift the transmission between gears. So I try to put 10 lbs. of force on the shifter when I shift. But sometimes, I really only put 7 or 8 lbs. of force because.... well, because my feet are poorly calibrated :-) Now when the bike shifts smoothly, it makes no difference. But when it gets 'notchy', it tends to drag and hang up mid- way in the shifting movement. It is sufficient to get my attention when it gets notchy, otherwise I do not think about shifting. Also, instead of one smooth mechanical motion, it feels like it has little lumps or 'notches' in some part of the mechanism where the shifting tends to resist and hang up. It would be like turning a crank on something like a boat winch and having a little sand on the gears.... it would feel 'notchy' in your hand. It feels like there is sand in the groove of the shifter drum on the bike and the follower is bumping into the grains of sand and has to climb over them to continue to move. Changing the oil makes a surprising difference in the quality, smoothness and ease of shifting this bike, or at least that is what I find.
Also, it is not just dirty or old oil that causes this notchy shifting; I find Rotella 5W-40, the synthetic stuff (new type) causes (or is that allows?) the bike to shift poorly right from the day it is put in. The old Rotella 5W-40 was much, much better.
I believe what is happening is that shifting causes direct metal- to- metal contact (as opposed to virtually all the engine's lubrication for example) and the newer oils have less contact lubricants in them; these are usually called the 'EP' or extreme pressure additives and are almost always ZDDP in motor oil. Final drive or rear end lube (easy boys!) has a lot of EP additive in it and at least part of that is sulfur based, which is what makes it smell so strongly. But back to motor oil.... adding a splash of ZDDP into the motor oil seems to help quite a bit with shifting the C-14 but I find the brand and type of oil is still the most important thing.
Brian
This topic really baffles me. In 422,000 miles on 20 or so bikes I have never noticed shifting problems related to oil. I've had hard or no shifting due to master cylinder leaks or shift lever maladjustment. The term "notchy shifting" perplexes me since in my mind the shift mechanism works by cogs sliding into "notches" thus "notchy" is a good thing when you are talking about shifting quality. What exactly do you riders mean by "notchy shifting"?
-
I can't stand it anymore!!!
I got sucked in again. I'm gonna try the Mobile Delvac in the new ZX14. I already changed it yesterday, but haven't ridden it yet. I have very cheap access to it at work.
Too bad the Wix filters are so high. ::)
-
The parts sliding in the transmission and the rotating parts of an internal combustion engine are lubricated in fundamentally different ways. The shifting is as you describe, two metal surfaces sliding against one another with an extreme lubrication package (ZDDP, moly, graphite, sulfur) acting like tiny little ball bearings between them. Things like engine bearings (main bearings, rod bearings) cam lobes and almost everything else use hydrodynamic lubrication; the parts never actually touch. So an oil can be very good, excellent and even outstanding at one and lousy at the other at the same time. And in fact, as the same oil gets better at one, it almost always loses ground on the other one; ZDDP will actually <cause> an increase in wear in the hydrodynamic bearings if too much is used.
I doubt you are interested but I think I can give a quick overview of hydrodynamic lubrication while waiting for the A/C to take hold and before the wine takes hold. :o :D Think of a crankshaft journal rotating inside a main bearing shell. The two surfaces are very smooth and very close- no more than 3 to 5 thousandths of an inch gap (diametral, not radial so it is 1/2 of that on either side). Now picture the oil that is in contact with the the crankshaft surface- it has virtually no movement relative to that crankshaft, which means it is moving at the same velocity as the crankshaft surface. But the oil in contact with the bearing shells also has no movement relative to the shells, which means that that oil is not moving, just as the bearing shell is not moving. So the film of oil that is only 1 or 2 thousandths of an inch thick has a gradient of velocity across it: one surface is not moving and the other surface is moving very rapidly. Now that gradient, where the oil is, and MUST, shear, has a pressure gradient in it as well, caused by those very shear forces. Those shear forces are all around the crankshaft and do not do anything for anyone other than to use power to shear the oil in the first place (which is why it gets hot). But here comes the key.... when we also push on the crankshaft, we knock it out of the center of the bearing, and the exact same amount of shearing force is now made up in a small gap..... which means there is less oil to shear and it must absorb more force where it is thinner (less oil having the same shear force means the oil must shear faster where the gap is less). That increase in shear forces pushes back on the crankshaft and viola! we have a hydrodynamic bearing. As the engine tries its best to push the crankshaft down (mostly down in a vertical engine), the shearing force increases and resists the crankshaft moving downward until the forces balance and the crankshaft is merrily spinning away, with TONS of force on it, literally, without ever touching the bottom of the bearing housing. If taken to extremes, as the oil film gets thinner, the forces increase until the chains of oil are forced out of the way (unlikely) or the oil simply gets so hot it vaporizes (likely) at which point a main bearing failure is almost inevitable.
The best analogy of a hydrodynamic bearing I have heard is that it works exactly like water skiing- the faster you go, the more force is generated and the less the skis sink in the water. The rotating part of the bearing is literally oil- skiing on top of the bearing shells.
Remember those old commercials for STP where the Sumo wrestler could not pick up the screwdriver once it was coated with STP thereby proving how slipper it was? Yeah, it does not and never did work like that and that 'test' was meaningless as far as showing the qualities of a motor oil.
Brian (cooler here now! where is my wine?)
Never to much info, just takes more effort to arrive at the correct conclusion(s). I am no engineer but all those tranny parts seem to me to require protection from high pressure metal to metal contact to preserve their useful life more than lubricity to make them function smoothly. I think crankshaft, rod bearings and and camshafts bearings and lobes have a higher need for lubricity. If the oil was bad enough to make the tranny act up then the engine would be in trouble. I suspect the cause of hard shifting, if that is what is meant by notchy" could be a dragging clutch.
I have a 99 VFR800 with 124,541 miles on it, the latest 79 put on today. It still runs and shifts as nice as the day I bought it. I have always used Rotella Synthetic.
-
Ya' just cannot beat a good oil thread..... unless you trump it with KiPass of course. :-)
Any of the fleet oils are excellent. They are often used in very large, very expensive engines and no one in his / her right mind would pour a lousy or questionable oil into one of those things.
The only problem I find with them on a motorcycle is that they are pretty 'draggy' when the engine is cold. Hey, they are 15W (cold) oils, right? By the way, I am speaking of the mineral 15W-40 oils, not the <sorta'> synthetic 5W-40 oils here. But the engine will crank a bit slower, the clutch will be a bit more sluggish and 'sticky' and the first gear clunk will be pretty intense with those heavy multi- weight oils. It does not cause any harm but it is noticeable. Cut it 50/50 with 10W-40 of another brand and it acts pretty good though. ;)
Brian
I can't stand it anymore!!!
I got sucked in again. I'm gonna try the Mobile Delvac in the new ZX14. I already changed it yesterday, but haven't ridden it yet. I have very cheap access to it at work.
Too bad the Wix filters are so high. ::)
-
Rode mine on Tuesday and for the first time for me, some up shifts of 2-3 and occasionally 3-4 were notchy. Mobil 1 10-40 with around 3500 miles on it. Gonna ride again this weekend and see if the feeling is still there.
For those who still don't understand the feel, take a ride on an airhead/oilhead boxer BMW, or 5 speed or less Harley. Kinda like that....tp
-
Rode mine tonight, changed the oil 700 miles ago using Suzuki 10W40 dino oil, shifts smoothly. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink033.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
OK, I'll bite. Isn't there a potential problem with and additive like ZDDP with a wet clutch?
The parts sliding in the transmission and the rotating parts of an internal combustion engine are lubricated in fundamentally different ways. The shifting is as you describe, two metal surfaces sliding against one another with an extreme lubrication package (ZDDP, moly, graphite, sulfur) acting like tiny little ball bearings between them. Things like engine bearings (main bearings, rod bearings) cam lobes and almost everything else use hydrodynamic lubrication; the parts never actually touch. So an oil can be very good, excellent and even outstanding at one and lousy at the other at the same time. And in fact, as the same oil gets better at one, it almost always loses ground on the other one; ZDDP will actually <cause> an increase in wear in the hydrodynamic bearings if too much is used.
I doubt you are interested but I think I can give a quick overview of hydrodynamic lubrication while waiting for the A/C to take hold and before the wine takes hold. :o :D Think of a crankshaft journal rotating inside a main bearing shell. The two surfaces are very smooth and very close- no more than 3 to 5 thousandths of an inch gap (diametral, not radial so it is 1/2 of that on either side). Now picture the oil that is in contact with the the crankshaft surface- it has virtually no movement relative to that crankshaft, which means it is moving at the same velocity as the crankshaft surface. But the oil in contact with the bearing shells also has no movement relative to the shells, which means that that oil is not moving, just as the bearing shell is not moving. So the film of oil that is only 1 or 2 thousandths of an inch thick has a gradient of velocity across it: one surface is not moving and the other surface is moving very rapidly. Now that gradient, where the oil is, and MUST, shear, has a pressure gradient in it as well, caused by those very shear forces. Those shear forces are all around the crankshaft and do not do anything for anyone other than to use power to shear the oil in the first place (which is why it gets hot). But here comes the key.... when we also push on the crankshaft, we knock it out of the center of the bearing, and the exact same amount of shearing force is now made up in a small gap..... which means there is less oil to shear and it must absorb more force where it is thinner (less oil having the same shear force means the oil must shear faster where the gap is less). That increase in shear forces pushes back on the crankshaft and viola! we have a hydrodynamic bearing. As the engine tries its best to push the crankshaft down (mostly down in a vertical engine), the shearing force increases and resists the crankshaft moving downward until the forces balance and the crankshaft is merrily spinning away, with TONS of force on it, literally, without ever touching the bottom of the bearing housing. If taken to extremes, as the oil film gets thinner, the forces increase until the chains of oil are forced out of the way (unlikely) or the oil simply gets so hot it vaporizes (likely) at which point a main bearing failure is almost inevitable.
The best analogy of a hydrodynamic bearing I have heard is that it works exactly like water skiing- the faster you go, the more force is generated and the less the skis sink in the water. The rotating part of the bearing is literally oil- skiing on top of the bearing shells.
Remember those old commercials for STP where the Sumo wrestler could not pick up the screwdriver once it was coated with STP thereby proving how slipper it was? Yeah, it does not and never did work like that and that 'test' was meaningless as far as showing the qualities of a motor oil.
Brian (cooler here now! where is my wine?)
-
No, as I said, virtually all motor oil contains ZDDP already but is limited to 800 PPM. Oils of a generation ago usually contained 1,200 PPM to 1,800 PPM and any of those amounts were also safe for a wet clutch.
The thing to avoid with a wet clutch is Moly (molybdenum disulfide) which is typically not used in any motor oil but is sold as an oil additive.
Brian
OK, I'll bite. Isn't there a potential problem with and additive like ZDDP with a wet clutch?
-
Blue Ray? I thought this was an oil thread, not a DVD thread... dang. :o
I ran Mobil1 15w50 in my ST1300... she liked it, and it was hot in Houston. My C14 likes Mobil1 10w40.
So for you all running Mobil 1, is that the automotive type?
I ran the Mobil 1 10-40 "High Mileage" in my cbr1000 for about 50k miles with no problems. Supposedly the high mileage formulation has more anti-wear additives (ZDDP?) for older engines with non-roller cams. My understanding is that roller cams of modern auto engines didn't need as much anti-wear additives and the Nazi EPA was in a hurry to remove them. So the oil manufacturer's came up with the high mileage formulations for older engines which I figured would be OK for cams in bike engines.
-
I can't stand it anymore!!!
I got sucked in again. I'm gonna try the Mobile Delvac in the new ZX14. I already changed it yesterday, but haven't ridden it yet. I have very cheap access to it at work. ;) ;)
Too bad the Wix filters are so high. ::)
You forgot to stick the wink in the appropriate place. Added it for you.
-
So for you all running Mobil 1, is that the automotive type?
I ran the Mobil 1 10-40 "High Mileage" in my cbr1000 for about 50k miles with no problems. Supposedly the high mileage formulation has more anti-wear additives (ZDDP?) for older engines with non-roller cams. My understanding is that roller cams of modern auto engines didn't need as much anti-wear additives and the Nazi EPA was in a hurry to remove them. So the oil manufacturer's came up with the high mileage formulations for older engines which I figured would be OK for cams in bike engines.
I can't speak for the others but this is what I use.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4198RFDEfrL.jpg)
I just picked up a case from my local Farm and Fleet for $8.49 per bottle.
-
I can't speak for the others but this is what I use.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/4198RFDEfrL.jpg)
I just picked up a case from my local Farm and Fleet for $8.49 per bottle.
Thanks Conrad, so you're using the motorcycle stuff, $8.49 a quart is really good. Hard to find it that low.
-
Give me a lube JOB
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35836 (http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35836)
-
Now that is an oil thread!
Brian
Give me a lube JOB
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35836 (http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35836)
-
Give me a lube JOB
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35836 (http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=35836)
Interesting. Here is another with similar information that includes Shell Rotella T 5W40 Synthetic. It doesn't get a very good PSI rating.
http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/331880/346422.html?1363132150 (http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/331880/346422.html?1363132150)
What's interesting to me is that there aren't any 40 weight oils on the list until #46, Royal Purple 15W40 Synthetic Diesel.
-
Just keeping you updated, and keeping the oil thread alive.
I rode the bike today for the first time with the Mobil Delvac, and the bike was pure magic. Shifted like butta.
Not that it was having any problems. Maybe it was my imagination, but did seem like it shifted better...
-
What is REALLY interesting is that the "test procedure" on the thread is not discussed in the least.
If you have ever read any SAE or API o ASTM test specs, they are VERY detailed, and VERY specific.
No details == complete BS
In the spirit of posting links, here are some more...
One on HD oils:
http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/HDEO%20SUMMARYrev2.html?utm_source=august+17%2C+2013&utm_campaign=July+30%2C+2013&utm_medium=archive (http://www.pqiamerica.com/March2013PCMO/HDEO%20SUMMARYrev2.html?utm_source=august+17%2C+2013&utm_campaign=July+30%2C+2013&utm_medium=archive)
One that references some interesting disagreements between auto manufacturers about the possibility of a new viscosity rating:
http://www.infineum.com/Documents/Crankcase%20Technical%20Papers/SAE%20J300%20viscosity%20grades%20below%2020%20grade-SAE%20Powertrains%20Fuels%20and%20Lubricants-2010.pdf (http://www.infineum.com/Documents/Crankcase%20Technical%20Papers/SAE%20J300%20viscosity%20grades%20below%2020%20grade-SAE%20Powertrains%20Fuels%20and%20Lubricants-2010.pdf)
This one is a lot less technical...but still has some graphs. WE <3 <3 <3 GRAPHS!!
http://www.ideas4ag-ed.com/uploads/3/7/0/4/3704787/stan_toepfer_understanding_motor_oil_viscosity.pdf (http://www.ideas4ag-ed.com/uploads/3/7/0/4/3704787/stan_toepfer_understanding_motor_oil_viscosity.pdf)
Even lighter reading, but still interesting (including some of the reasoning for using 0W-16 as the name for the newest SAE viscosity grade, instead of a multiple of 5. The short version: so owners of 2018 Hondas don't pick up Rotella T6 15W-40 by mistake. Really! That "16" will hopefully keep owners of older vehicles from picking up 0W-16 too, which *might* be very very bad for their engines.):
http://www.amsoil.com/news/2014_january_the_trend_toward_lower-viscosity_motor_oils.pdf (http://www.amsoil.com/news/2014_january_the_trend_toward_lower-viscosity_motor_oils.pdf)
http://articles.sae.org/11945/ (http://articles.sae.org/11945/)
http://www.ssgm.com/news/ultra-thin-oils/1003021170/?&er=NA (http://www.ssgm.com/news/ultra-thin-oils/1003021170/?&er=NA)
saxman
-
Your post reminds me of a semester reading list for a chemistry class....Guess I will take them one at a time.
BTW, do you play sax? A drummer, myself.
-
Agreed, and when it comes to motor oil there is virtually no real- world data available because almost no testing has been done. Ever, by anyone or any entity with one exception- Consumer Reports.
The only oil test that I am aware of was the Consumer Reports test of various motor oils in taxis in NYC quite some years ago. The test was certainly limited as all tests are (some say it was flawed but I do not agree with that) and it failed entirely to show the goodness or badness of ANY of the oils tested. What little it did show was that in 60,000 miles per vehicle of testing, all oils used performed identically based on the internal parts of the engines from actual measurement.
I have some background in tribology and my own personal opinion is that reciprocating engines simply do not put enough demand on oil to allow superior oils to show their superior properties. Modern synthetic oils perform admirably in turbine engines but provide, in my opinion based on some study, no benefits at the speeds and per unit area forces that piston engines can generate. Another way to put that is to say that the very worst oil available is really quite excellent and will perform extremely well in anything virtually any private citizen can afford to put a license plate on.
But back to the testing: even actual tests are easily misinterpreted or miss- represented. A standard four- ball tribology test seems to be a great way to test various oils and greases..... until bleach is poured onto the balls and the test results skyrocket. Does that mean that we should all be using Clorox in our crankcases? Nope, it is just the result of an extreme pressure (EP) package, chlorine, being taken out of context (no actual oil).
So I use the oil that allows the bike to shift better- that way the engine gets lubricated and I get a little benefit myself 'cause I am the one doing the shifting.
Brian
What is REALLY interesting is that the "test procedure" on the thread is not discussed in the least.
If you have ever read any SAE or API o ASTM test specs, they are VERY detailed, and VERY specific.
No details == complete BS
<snip>
saxman
-
I do agree that the worst oil we have available still is wonderful compared to the days of my teen years. Single weight oils used in engines that needed a ring job in 50K miles. Used to do commercial O&F changes, and a good portion of the time, recycled oil was used. We have come a long way, baby. tp
-
Another way to put that is to say that the very worst oil available is really quite excellent and will perform extremely well in anything virtually any private citizen can afford to put a license plate/s on.
Brian
FIFY
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/custom/image/grey%5E_%5Everdana%5E_%5E0%5E_%5E1%5E_%5EI detect an oil thread%5E_%5E.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/custom) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink033.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink048.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/custom/image/grey%5E_%5Everdana%5E_%5E0%5E_%5E1%5E_%5EI detect an oil thread%5E_%5E.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/custom) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink033.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink048.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Au contraire, it is a smoother shifting thread, with just a little bit of oil thrown in to make it interesting....
-
The only oil test that I am aware of was the Consumer Reports test of various motor oils in taxis in NYC quite some years ago. The test was certainly limited as all tests are (some say it was flawed but I do not agree with that) and it failed entirely to show the goodness or badness of ANY of the oils tested. What little it did show was that in 60,000 miles per vehicle of testing, all oils used performed identically based on the internal parts of the engines from actual measurement.
That is what I tend to believe too, that with most modern oils, it doesn't matter for [real-world street] performance. The one thing I still attribute to synthetics is that they probably tend to last a lot longer without breaking down, and I do change oil about half as often. Of course, one has to take the oil filter into consideration and how good that is at removing contaminates (and not clogging)....
-
Au contraire, it is a smoother shifting thread, with just a little bit of oil thrown in to make it interesting....
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-whacky110.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-whacky110.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Now that's funny. Strange no one has mentioned that different brands of TIRES can alter the shifting, of the C14, too...
-
Now that's funny. Strange no one has mentioned that different brands of TIRES can alter the shifting, of the C14, too...
:rotflmao:
-
So for you all running Mobil 1, is that the automotive type?
I ran the Mobil 1 10-40 "High Mileage" in my cbr1000 for about 50k miles with no problems. Supposedly the high mileage formulation has more anti-wear additives (ZDDP?) for older engines with non-roller cams. My understanding is that roller cams of modern auto engines didn't need as much anti-wear additives and the Nazi EPA was in a hurry to remove them. So the oil manufacturer's came up with the high mileage formulations for older engines which I figured would be OK for cams in bike engines.
Regular auto silver cap 10w40.
I have very rarely run MC specific oil... if it's given to me, or it's the same price(or cheap) as auto, then I'll run it... otherwise I've always run auto oil.
-
A
The only oil test that I am aware of was the Consumer Reports test of various motor oils in taxis in NYC quite some years ago. The test was certainly limited as all tests are (some say it was flawed but I do not agree with that) and it failed entirely to show the goodness or badness of ANY of the oils tested. What little it did show was that in 60,000 miles per vehicle of testing, all oils used performed identically based on the internal parts of the engines from actual measurement.
I
That test was incredibly flawed! It tested oil under the easiest of conditions. How?
1) Car choice. Kind of funny that although CU loves those little high revving four banger fwd cars, they chose the vehicle that their readers are least likely to own- a rwd Caprice with a v8!
Here is why- I own a similar car, '96 Impala SS. With stock 3:08 rear, to hit peak power, you'll have to floor it and keep in first up 40+ mph, otherwise it is just loafing along at a epa friendly rpm. The regular Caprice V8 is even worse, I think they have a 2:93 rear end. How often will these cars be flogged out in NY? Pretty hard to hit 40+mph in first with a lot of traffic!
2) The cars were run around the clock so they were always warm. No cold starts! Thus another advantage of synthetics negated by the CU "test".
-
Kinda like the saccharin/cancer scare, I remember. What amount did people consume; maybe a couple of drinks a day? The lab rats were given what would be equivalent to pounds per day consumption by humans, and guess what, the rats got cancer. An overdose of anything can cause ill effects, even water. Someone wanted saccharin to be bad, maybe the sugar industry, so tests were done in a way that insured the results would confirm the danger of a new non sugar based sweetener.
It happens all the time, someone needs test results to confirm a certain hypothesis, and testing is done to assure needed results. To make certain oils look good, a low rpm engine and no cold starts were done. The test procedures had to validait the desired results. Ain't life grand???
-
Ah yes, I understand- the tests were flawed because they did not show the advantages of synthetic oil. Great. Care to point me toward the test(s) that show this 'advantage of synthetics'?
I always find it amusing when those who do not like a test's results claim the test itself is invalid. That would even be OK provided there were any other test results showing anything else but in this case, there ARE no other tests. So given a very limited amount of data, those who do not like it call it flawed and reject it. Really, it is kinda' funny. ;D
Brian
<snipped>
Thus another advantage of synthetics negated by the CU "test".
-
Great- so not the only single neutral, 'real world' test of motor oil is not only not valid, is incorrect, but is part of a conspiracy? Outstanding!
Gentleman, please cite the data that shows that this data is incorrect.
I have no dog in this fight and do not care what anyone thinks. That said, I am interested in tribology and have some time invested into the study of same. To my knowledge, there is no data anywhere showing that any motor oil type is functionally better than any other oil type. If anyone has any data collected from any source recognized by the scientific community (i.e., not Amsoil doing a test showing <shock> that Amsoil is great), I would be delighted to see it.
Brian
<snip>
It happens all the time, someone needs test results to confirm a certain hypothesis, and testing is done to assure needed results. To make certain oils look good, a low rpm engine and no cold starts were done. The test procedures had to validait the desired results. Ain't life grand???
-
Regular auto silver cap 10w40.
I have very rarely run MC specific oil... if it's given to me, or it's the same price(or cheap) as auto, then I'll run it... otherwise I've always run auto oil.
I use the black cap 10w40...lots of tests show the black cap is at least as good as the silver cap. Red cap is pretty good too. I have not tried any other colors. Well...maybe I did use green cap once a long time ago, but I forget.
-
How did this become another typical OIL thread? Thought it was an easy shifting thread. As for oils being good or bad, in the 49years of motor vehicle ownership, I have had one real/bad result. 1968 Yamaha DT1, used Texaco 30wt in the crankcase, as indicated, and after one MX practice day, the oil came out looking like a chocolate milkshake, foamy with no consistent viscosity. Went to a different brand, and never had those results again.
That was 44 years ago, and in that time I have never bought Texaco oils again. I'm sure they make fine products, but that one experience set a negative in my mind for Texaco, and I'm from Texas.
-
How did this become another typical OIL thread?
(http://www.freesmileys.org/custom/image/pink%5E_%5Earial%5E_%5E0%5E_%5E2%5E_%5ETold ya!%5E_%5E.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/custom)(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink033.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
I am interested in tribology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribology
Ah, interesting
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/custom/image/pink%5E_%5Earial%5E_%5E0%5E_%5E2%5E_%5ETold ya!%5E_%5E.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/custom)(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink033.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Inevitable, isn't it? ALL roads lead to oil or tires. Rode this afternoon and never thought of either; just how great it was at 82 degrees, when it has been in the mid 90's. Great bike on a great day. Hope every one had as good of a time as I....tp
At least we don't have to worry over the "doohicky", like all KLR650 owners do. Man, now that gets really old, oh, oil and tires are always in the forefront too...
-
Yes, fascinating. Especially the out of the ordinary places that need contact movement such as any replacement joint put in the human body and anything in space (outside of an artificial atmosphere, not the stuff inside, say, the space station). While a natural joint (easy boys!) will often last a lifetime, a man- made joint has a relatively short lifespan due to the horrible environment the joint is inside (our bodies). Alloyed titanium, all sorts of ceramic coatings, even DLC (diamond like coatings- approaching the hardness and toughness of pure diamond) will fail in as little as five years. And moving objects, especially rotary joints, will often seize as soon as they are used in a full vacuum at low temperatures.... like in space.
But while some of these foolish people spend a lifetime of learning and application improving tribology, there is always the guy with Uncle Ed who used XXX brand oil for YYY years and never had trouble, thereby proving the goodness of XXX brand of course. Of course it is always a lot easier to guess at the answer than find the truth through scientific study.... unfortunately.
Brian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribology
Ah, interesting
-
Ah yes, I understand- the tests were flawed because they did not show the advantages of synthetic oil. Great. Care to point me toward the test(s) that show this 'advantage of synthetics'?
I always find it amusing when those who do not like a test's results claim the test itself is invalid. That would even be OK provided there were any other test results showing anything else but in this case, there ARE no other tests. So given a very limited amount of data, those who do not like it call it flawed and reject it. Really, it is kinda' funny. ;D
Brian
Not funny at all. Driving conditions should be mimic real life driving conditions- the CU test didn't do that. Synthetics outperform conventional oil in cold temps and high rpms, something that test eliminated. It is like taking the finest synthetic oil and the crappiest dino oil, running them in the lawnmower and concluding that dino is just as good.
Oil performance can be evaluated using oil analysis.
-
Looks like we do have an oil thread here, so I have a couple of wonderings. I've read that synthetics have superior properties for at least two reasons.
1) Being man made, the molecules can all be made the same size and shape, unlike dino products, whose molecules can be radically different in shape and size. The uniformity of synthetic molecules reduces the shearing of them, as opposed to the dino's, which molecules can be sheared and broken down more quickly.
2) Man made lubricants can be designed to resit heat breakdown and emission contamination, allowing for a longer lasting product. Been told that dino lubricants are more negatively affected by heat and emission contamination.
Someone who knows, please help me to understand if what I have been lead to believe is accurate. I do know that BMW auto engineers believe it, as they recommend only synthetics and oil changes at 15K miles in all of their cars, now.
-
OK, so you are saying mineral oil is just as good in lawn mowers, larger, slower turning engines and warmer weather? Got it. Jotting it down now so this valuable information won't be lost. One quick question if I may- what is your source(s) for this information?
Brian
Not funny at all. Driving conditions should be mimic real life driving conditions- the CU test didn't do that. Synthetics outperform conventional oil in cold temps and high rpms, something that test eliminated. It is like taking the finest synthetic oil and the crappiest dino oil, running them in the lawnmower and concluding that dino is just as good.
Oil performance can be evaluated using oil analysis.
-
Well before I comment on this I have to ask you something: do you really want to know or is this just another facet of the last argument? Further, are you willing to put any of your own effort into this or do you just want someone to spoon feed you an answer or answers until you find one you like and will accept? Should we take a poll to find the most popular..... whoa! I mean the 'best' oil?
I like rational discussions. Unfortunately, public forums are a week bit lax in that area. I like to learn things and better understand what is going on, how things work and so forth but I find it takes time and effort on my part to gain any useful knowledge.
Brian
Looks like we do have an oil thread here, so I have a couple of wonderings. I've read that synthetics have superior properties for at least two reasons.
1) Being man made, the molecules can all be made the same size and shape, unlike dino products, whose molecules can be radically different in shape and size. The uniformity of synthetic molecules reduces the shearing of them, as opposed to the dino's, which molecules can be sheared and broken down more quickly.
2) Man made lubricants can be designed to resit heat breakdown and emission contamination, allowing for a longer lasting product. Been told that dino lubricants are more negatively affected by heat and emission contamination.
Someone who knows, please help me to understand if what I have been lead to believe is accurate. I do know that BMW auto engineers believe it, as they recommend only synthetics and oil changes at 15K miles in all of their cars, now.
-
BDF, being new to this forum, I don't know the other members, so I will go ahead and ask. Do you actually understand the lawn mower example, but love to stir the pot and troll occasionally, or do you not actually understand the testing flaws mentioned by the OP? Just trying to keep the scoreboard straight. No offence, just don't know the players, yet, and often anonymous replies can create hard feelings when not intentional...
As to asking me if I really want to know the answer to my questions, if you knew how terribly bad a typist I am, and how long it took me to compose my questions to the page, you would know I am serious. I have read many oil reports, analyses, and other info on the web, but knowing no one who is actually involved in tribology, I must rely on what I read and and advice from those more learned than I on the subject. Now if you care to discuss what has been my area of expertise for over 30 years, I might have you asking me questions, should you desire to know. It's all good......tp
FWIW, The last time I was spoon feed anything, I was a pre-toddler in a highchair.
-
I understand the lawn mower reference, I do not consider it an example.
Oh I do stir the pot occasionally but only when there is nothing else to be gained. This thread is not in that situation.... yet. We have some citing scientifically gathered data, some dismissing that data with no cause or reason other than they are claiming it is not a good test (but without a shred of evidence or data to back it up) and the usual emotional or anecdotal responses.
I would like to be a renaissance man although to be honest, I doubt I will live long enough to achieve that now. But I do have a reasonably good grasp of the rules (physics, chemistry, the natural sciences) to please me and allow me to gain further ground, and I am still able to learn so who knows?
So that is the question I have for you: do you want to know, do you want to guess, or do you want to simply pick up the easiest / fastest thing that addresses the questions regardless of accuracy?
Here is one of my favorites: We all know a Wankel is a wholly superior engine design. Other than the fact that it is a terrible engine design. There are two reasons for this; I will give you some hints: the fist problem involves geometry. The second problem involves tribology. Neither problem can be overcome by current engine technology. Take a few minutes if you are interested and find out why these magnificent, almost magical engines can never make it into the mainstream of prime movers, either in vehicles where the engine is carried in the vehicle nor in stationary power applications.
Brian
BDF, being new to this forum, I don't know the other members, so I will go ahead and ask. Do you actually understand the lawn mower example, but love to stir the pot and troll occasionally, or do you not actually understand the testing flaws mentioned by the OP? Just trying to keep the scoreboard straight. No offence, just don't know the players, yet, and often anonymous replies can create hard feelings when not intentional...
As to asking me if I really want to know the answer to my questions, if you knew how terribly bad a typist I am, and how long it took me to compose my questions to the page, you would know I am serious. I have read many oil reports, analyses, and other info on the web, but knowing no one who is actually involved in tribology, I must rely on what I read and and advice from those more learned than I on the subject. Now if you care to discuss what has been my area of expertise for over 30 years, I might have you asking me questions, should you desire to know. It's all good......tp
FWIW, The last time I was spoon feed anything, I was a pre-toddler in a highchair.
-
Good old Rotella looks like the best bang for the buck :chugbeer:
-
Brian, thanks for the honesty. As far as the rotary question goes, I may have an unfair advantage. I was a service adviser for several years for a Mazda dealership and had to learn about RX's rotor tip deterioration and sealed case problems, etc. The ability to derive 300HP from what is equivalent to a 1200cc engine is amazing, but they have too many inherent flaws to be a commonly used engine. They consume almost as much oil as my old two strokes. The fact that a rotary actually functions as well as it does, has fascinated and confounded me as much as this crazy computer that I am currently using. "Blinding speed and amazing accuracy" , I was told, when I asked a multi computer science degreed friend once to explain how computers actually work. Then he just laugh and we had a beer...
I've used Rotella T in several of my son's and my motorcycles with no problems. Kawi singles and twins love the stuff...
-
Well, someone has to say this so I will...'This thread delivers! :finger_fing11: '
-
Wankel engine thread! I'm no mechanical engineer but I'll take a stab at Brian's tribology question. A conventional piston engine uses piston rings to create the seal. A piston ring applies an even outward pressure all the way around the ring thus making a good seal as well as consistent predictable wear characteristics. A Wankel has to have liner seals on the sides as well as the tips of the rotor. Much more difficult to get an even, matched surface. Also, I've always wondered how to get a good seal at the corners of the tips.
But also have read that the main advantage of synthetic oils is larger, more even molecules less susceptible to shearing. Is there anyone that disputes this?
-
Wankel engine thread! I'm no mechanical engineer but I'll take a stab at Brian's tribology question. A conventional piston engine uses piston rings to create the seal. A piston ring applies an even outward pressure all the way around the ring thus making a good seal as well as consistent predictable wear characteristics. A Wankel has to have liner seals on the sides as well as the tips of the rotor. Much more difficult to get an even, matched surface. Also, I've always wondered how to get a good seal at the corners of the tips.
But also have read that the main advantage of synthetic oils is larger, more even molecules less susceptible to shearing. Is there anyone that disputes this?
Sure, as long as it keeps this thread moving. 8)
-
This looks to be currently, the most active thread going on the C14 side. Not bad for an "easier shifting thread, with a little oil and Wankel" thrown in. Rhino, I had heard smaller molecules, but they could be larger. My 14 seems to like the Mobil 1, currently being used in it.
-
As to the actual testing of synthetic oil vs dino, here's this. When Mobil was first marketing Mobil 1, they had a "Just ask Mobil 1" promotion. I asked for the answer, and received in the mail a large manila envelope with lots of data. Much of the data was from GM in relation to testing for the Corvette. Concerns were that they could not fit an oil cooler on the new Vette, and wondered if Mobil 1 would cover the lubrication needs under any perceived stress. Four new motors were set up on computer controlled dynos. Two motors had in them Mobil's best dino oil, two had Mobil 1. Of each oil type, one dyno simulated stop and go driving, one simulated constant high speed driving. Oil was changed every 5k mi. They planned to run 200k mi. At about 180k, the constant high speed dino motor blew a rod. All the bearings were showing extreme wear. At 200k, the other three were torn down. The dino motor that survived was about to blow, everything that could wear was at the extreme worn out side of wear. The two motors on Mobil 1 were in most ways showing little to no wear. Cylinder cone, rings, bearings, every moving part was measured. Most parts were within new specs. Hence, GM performance cars (The Vette, SS454, that turbo V-6 cartoon looking pickup HR-1) of that era came with oil fill caps that stated "Warranty requires Mobil 1 10W-40". That was the early 1980's as I recall.
-
Hey, I am doing what I can.... After all, nobody else is helping. On the other site there are small groups actively trying to stir the po..... I mean interject precise and useful information. :-) Just hold on though, someone just mentioned the magic words "Mobil 1" and "synthetic" in the same sentence- that is always good for a couple of pages of posts.
Brian
Sure, as long as it keeps this thread moving. 8)
-
Now the really great part of Mobil 1 being better because it is synthetic is that it is not even synthetic, outside a court ruling that they could in fact use that word.
Synthetic means it is man- made. Mobil 1 is a petroleum product. Honest. The very fact that a petroleum oil is better than.... well, a petroleum oil is a bit off- putting right there.
So I guess the question is: is Mobil 1 really better or does it just seem better?
Talk among yourselves and maybe we can figure this out together.
And yep, I think this is an oil thread now.
By the way, I was involved in a minor accident yesterday (no one injured but the bike is significantly damaged) and I found that Delo fleet oil did not hold up as well as I think Rotella fleet oil would have. I can say with absolute certainty that in 6 years of using Rotella, I never was never involved in a collision and the one time I tried Delo.... BANG! That is proof enough for me and I will NOT be using Delo in the future! Maybe I will go over to Devlac and a Honda Viffer....
Brian
As to the actual testing of synthetic oil vs dino, here's this.
<snip>
Hence, GM performance cars (The Vette, SS454, that turbo V-6 cartoon looking pickup HR-1) of that era came with oil fill caps that stated "Warranty requires Mobil 1 10W-40". That was the early 1980's as I recall.
-
Brian, sorry to hear of you accident. Glad you are ok.
You said I should do my own research, so here is what Valvoline has to say about motor oils, synth vs conventional. They do agree that synths originate from crude, too.
http://www.valvoline.com/faqs/motor-oil/full-synthetic-motor-oil/ (http://www.valvoline.com/faqs/motor-oil/full-synthetic-motor-oil/)
-
Thanks!
It is a little more complicated than that. And "synthetics" made from petroleum are only synthetic in the US, and only because our judicial system said so. Remember, in one of the mid-western states, Pi is defined by law as 22/3.
From this source: http://www.synthetic-oil-technology.info/ (http://www.synthetic-oil-technology.info/)
<begin quote>
Grades of oil.
Motor oils are derived from base stocks. That is, a generic oil base is modified with additives to produce a lubricant with the desired properties. A base stock oil with no additives would not perform very well at all. Base stocks are classified by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and fall into one of five categories.
Group I and II - these are mineral oils derived from crude oil
Group III - this is a highly refined mineral oil made through a process called hydrocracking. In North America this group is considered a synthetic oil, for marketing purposes.
Group IV - these are true synthetic oils, known as Polyalphaolefin (PAO).
Group V - these are synthetic stocks other than PAO's and include esters and other compounds.
<end quote>
Please note that Mobil 1 is a group III oil, synthetic in the US and a mineral oil in the rest of the world (absolutely serious here).
Brian
Brian, sorry to hear of you accident. Glad you are ok.
You said I should do my own research, so here is what Valvoline has to say about motor oils, synth vs conventional. They do agree that synths originate from crude, too.
http://www.valvoline.com/faqs/motor-oil/full-synthetic-motor-oil/ (http://www.valvoline.com/faqs/motor-oil/full-synthetic-motor-oil/)
-
Interesting info. This has really turned into an OIL THREAD, and both info and opinions have been expressed. So far, it has remained civil, something seldomly seen over on ADV Rider site. Guess Connie owners are a more civilized lot, who enjoy lively banter and very fast touring motorcycles...
Brian, is the bike damage cosmetic or structural? Hopefully only cosmetic...
-
Glad you're ok, Brian. Sorry to hear about the bike, though.
-
This is a great forum, and quite a few of us have been here a long time. It is rare that a thread gets locked at all and often even then they get unlocked after a 'cooling off' period and believe it or not, peace and harmony are regained :-)
All things should be open to reasonable discussion at all times IMO. Sure we all have opinions and biases but I think we do an OK or better job of overcoming them and rising above that.... mostly.
And there is nothing wrong with an oil thread IMO. The problem stems from wants, desires, beliefs and opinions far outweighing the amount of facts in the thread. What is called a 'high noise- to- content' ratio. But fortunately, there are facts about most things, oil included.
The bike: all cosmetic but unfortunately, it is an '08 and a lot of tupperware was damaged so the costs go up fast. I think it is quite likely it will be totaled. To be honest, I am not really looking forward to the expense of moving to either a new bike or a later model. Not really looking forward to some of the new changes on the Gen. II bikes either and especially not looking forward to farkeling another C-14 to the level this one is at and when all is said and done, I will have the <more or less> identical bike under my butt. There are other bikes of course, and the 1200 VFR caught my attention way back but too much money for too little bike IMO. I would like to kid myself but I am too old and (ahem) 'robust' for any long distance riding on a ZX 14 now. Anyway, adjuster on his / her way today or tomorrow so let the games begin.... :-) Thanks for the good thoughts!
Brian
Interesting info. This has really turned into an OIL THREAD, and both info and opinions have been expressed. So far, it has remained civil, something seldomly seen over on ADV Rider site. Guess Connie owners are a more civilized lot, who enjoy lively banter and very fast touring motorcycles...
Brian, is the bike damage cosmetic or structural? Hopefully only cosmetic...
-
Thanks Jim. Everybody rode away from the scene so not bad at all on a scale of all things.
I thought of you at the 'scene of the crime' too- it was the guy I was riding with who hit me at an intersection. Where have I heard a story like that before? :-)
Let's see: bike broke, possible insurance tussle beginning. In- laws coming to stay with us. New wood stove on the way with all the associated shipping difficulties. New house alarm system not working properly (my version of properly, they think it is spiffy and spanky).... billing tussle going to begin there (shhhhhh: it is going to be a surprise to them). But as my oldest son likes to say, great to have first- world problems, ain't it? So I am not complaining 'cause I don't have any real problems actually. But I am in the proverbial funk today to be sure.... :-(
Brian
Glad you're ok, Brian. Sorry to hear about the bike, though.
-
Brian, if the bike is structurally sound yet totaled, buy it back for a song from your insurance company, and strip that mama down. It's next life will be lived as a street fighter. Reuse the farkles and/or ebay them. Insurance doesn't normally pay for them if totaled. I got a great deal on my 08, and don't see the extra expense for the features of a 10+, either. Hope things work out in your favor. tomp
http://www.customfighters.com/forums/ (http://www.customfighters.com/forums/) Great examples on this site...
FWIW, lost my job last month, after 46 years of employment. Locating a position that pays what I was earning has proved next to impossible. No one wants to hire a man with a world of knowledge, experience, etc, who's 64. Looks like wallyworld or Home Depot may be my next port o call...
-
Brain, sorry to hear about the bike, but I am glad you are okay. I understand where you are coming from regarding gen II bikes, I prefer my '09. I have halfway considered getting a different bike so if I do very soon you might want mine. ;D
Sorry to hear about the job tomp. I may be in the same position soon. I have been an entertainer for the past 29 years and it may be coming to an end. I am tired of the travel too, but finding a job that even comes close to paying what I get now seems impossible, and unfortunately I can't afford a pay cut right now. Sigh...
-
Sorry to hear about the job tomp. I may be in the same position soon. I have been an entertainer for the past 29 years and it may be coming to an end. I am tired of the travel too, but finding a job that even comes close to paying what I get now seems impossible, and unfortunately I can't afford a pay cut right now. Sigh...
Like I said before, Ain't life Grand....Hope you find what you need. I have one opportunity, but it is a 240-250 hr a month one. Feel kinda old for that many stressful hours, doing a job I really don't want to do, but bills are due, right?
-
Hey Brian-- sorry to hear about your bike but glad you are ok. I have a 2008 and I too would be frustrated if I had to start over with all the (way too many) farkles to have to re-do. Maybe that is a good idea to buy the bike back. On the other hand a 1200 VFR (X) looks tempting. I keep looking at the new KTM1190 Adventure but I have too many bikes as it is .
Would you have any pics of the poor girl? Again sorry to hear about the bike.
-
It wasn't Mobil who caused the problem, it was Castrol who was hydrocracking the group III base stocks and calling it "synthetic".
The true Group IV and Group V synthetic oils typically have substantially lower pour points and higher flash points.
-
If you can find a '10, some of them don't have TC or ABS. Mine doesn't.
Just thought I would comment in the "wreck thread."
-
Just thought I would comment in the "wreck thread."
An easy shifting thread with a little oil, wreck, joblessness, and what ever else that gets tossed in here. That's what makes threads so cool...They shift and change, but still seem to entertain the senses....
-
Brian is right about Mobil1 not being made from PAO base stock therefore not really synthetic in our book. Most manufacturers are now doing this to be able to stay competitive price wise. I am told that Mobil1 Extended is PAO Based though.
Germany has strict rules about non PAO base stock and cannot be called Synthetic.
I am a fan of Motul. My bikes really shift smooth and I ride other bikes with their best choices of oil and have not found any that come close. My second choice was Amsoil but only the bottles that said 100% Synthetic. Now they just say 'Synthetic'.
-
KTM recommends Motul. Possibly Ducati too? On that, I am uncertain. Very popular in Europe...
-
Unofficial Thread Ombudsman Stuff:
1) Tomp, if you filled the crankcase of a DT1 with any liquid, it was hydrolocked and did not turn over at all, much less run. How did you fill it anyway? Did you mean you filled the transmission case? If oil came out of the transmission case looking milky, stop putting your beer in there with the oil. Please revise and resubmit.
(Does nobody else on this forum read these posts? Or know what a DT1 is??)
2) Brian, Pi is (poorly) approximated as 22/7, not 22/3. You can call for a Mulligan if you can cite the state and year of the proposed statute.
Better still would be 335/113, of course. OR EXACTLY THREE.
There is real precedent for THREE.
Indiana State Legislature, 1897 (but it died in the Senate...and implied several values, including FOUR)
Alabama, 4/1/1998 (but it was a spoof; originally attributed to author "April Holiday")
Tennessee, 1961 (only a reference in Stranger In A Strange Land, R. A. Heinlein)
saxman
P.S. My ZG14s shift just fine. Rotella T6.
-
Yes, transmission. It was late a night and, that's the word these feeble fingers typed. I realized my mistake, but figured who even knows what a DT1 is, any way. Had two and raced them both. They were good, but couldn't hold a candle to the Huskys, AJS' CZ's and Maico's I had to compete against.
As far as Pi goes, I always heard that "Pi aren't squared, Pi are round; cornbread are square." Always worked for me...
BTW, you never answered whether you play sax or not... A percussionist/drummer myself. Did play contrabass clarinet one semester in college, as it was needed for a piece we were performing. The carrying case looked like I was transporting a boa on Viagra...
-
Yep, you are exactly right- I misspoke (with my fingers but still....). I meant 22/3.
And now it appears that I made two mistakes in that post: apparently the State is Indiana and in fact, the bill proposing Pi be approximated by 22/7 was never actually passed so it is NOT the law there. I either miss- remembered it or it has become an urban legend.
I apologize and hope no one has to correct any formulas that they may have based on my incorrect and in ever- so- bad- taste posting about this.
:rotflmao:
Unofficial Thread Ombudsman Stuff:
<snip>
2) Brian, Pi is (poorly) approximated as 22/7, not 22/3. You can call for a Mulligan if you can cite the state and year of the proposed statute.
<snip>
-
Yeah, this forum is sorta' like real life: we start off talking about something specific like, oh I don't know, fertilizing the lawn for example and the conversation inevitably ends up on the topic of breast enhancement. Funny how that happens.
But notice the distinct lack of science, data, facts (real facts, not "Uncle Harvey used hemmeroidoil in his tractors for years and never had a single swarm of locusts") or much of anything else. Lots of emotion, lots of chest pounding but little substance. And that is why oil threads rule!
Brian
An easy shifting thread with a little oil, wreck, joblessness, and what ever else that gets tossed in here. That's what makes threads so cool...They shift and change, but still seem to entertain the senses....
-
Brian, perhaps before one is able to officially join a forum a small qualifying test should be taken. To insure only the qualified are able to join, I recommend this simple at home test.
http://www.us.mensa.org/join/testing/ (http://www.us.mensa.org/join/testing/)
Could I pass it? I seriously doubt it, but would have fun playing with the crayons for a while.....
-
I love Pi, especially blueberry.
-
That test is over-rated and meaningless (says the guy who failed it). :-) But I have known a couple of members and one in particular who was scary- smart and very, very knowledgeable. Lucky for us too 'cause those people built a world with cell phones, fuel injection and most important of all, KiPass. (now the thread is officially ruined 'cause I said the K-word)
And I think you missed the point of my post- I was not picking on anyone, merely pointing out the fact that some of the most contentious issues among us humans have the least facts of all. I am as guilty as anyone else and of course have my own biases and prejudices.
And I have no doubt that there ARE forums restricted to Mensa members, high- end fraternities, secret societies and so forth. But probably not so much for motorcycle forums..... ;D
Brian
Brian, perhaps before one is able to officially join a forum a small qualifying test should be taken. To insure only the qualified are able to join, I recommend this simple at home test.
http://www.us.mensa.org/join/testing/ (http://www.us.mensa.org/join/testing/)
Could I pass it? I seriously doubt it, but would have fun playing with the crayons for a while.....
-
Smartness is not a criteria to post here. Having a sense of humor is, however, at least on the C14 boards. I get seriously upset with serious people. And yes, I've started drinking.
-
Brian, perhaps before one is able to officially join a forum a small qualifying test should be taken. To insure only the qualified are able to join, I recommend this simple at home test.
http://www.us.mensa.org/join/testing/ (http://www.us.mensa.org/join/testing/)
Could I pass it? I seriously doubt it, but would have fun playing with the crayons for a while.....
So we got to take a test on women's hygiene now?
-
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :banana
-
There ya' go Jim, fixed up for ya'.
Brian
Smartness is not a criteria to post here. Having a sense of humor is, however, at least on the C14 boards. I get seriously upset with serious people. And yes, I've started drinking in 1964 and never looked back.
-
I love Pi, especially blueberry.
Key lime, please! :)
-
Brian, it was just bit of humor, levity, and sarcasm...
gPink, that was the best one liner I have read all day. Thanks for the laugh...
My favorite is lemon meringue...
-
Brian, since you may need to replace your 14, here is a very interesting article,a riding friend sent to me today. If you grew up during this articles time frame, it makes more sense, but is a great read, none the less....Hopefully, anyone here will enjoy this one.. I love the bikeexif site. Some of the best customs currently built are here....tp
http://www.bikeexif.com/authenticity (http://www.bikeexif.com/authenticity)
-
MENSA was dull...I expected fun, smart people. It was mostly dull, self absorbed knowitalls.
Yeah, so I fit right in...but...
Hey, what kind of rear drive oil ya like???
-
MENSA was dull...I expected fun, smart people. It was mostly dull, self absorbed knowitalls.
Yeah, so I fit right in...but...
Hey, what kind of rear drive oil ya like???
Castrol 75-90 synthetic is what I use. Dammit, do you play sax or not?????
-
Most highly intelligent people are dull. My experience is not that they are so self absorbed as they are detail orientated instead of results or function orientated.
Now, one group I have found to be highly intelligent AND great fun are professional comics. Some believe humor is based on intelligence.
Otherwise, it is best to leave the intelligent in their little world where they can interact with humanity as little as possible and chase the finest of ideas all the way to where they no longer make any sense. You know, quantum mechanics :-)
Brian
MENSA was dull...I expected fun, smart people. It was mostly dull, self absorbed knowitalls.
Yeah, so I fit right in...but...
Hey, what kind of rear drive oil ya like???
-
I salute all of the REGULAR, folks here, who live for the life they have been given. Ride when they can, live and love with all the gusto available, and enjoy being on two wheels when ever possible. Life isn't really much fun. Losing jobs, losing family, deadly illnesses, wrecking vehicles, not our fault, day to day chit, that drives us all crazy, are just a few possibilities that we confront.
Even on the crappiest days, jumping on a bike and riding with no destination in mind, seems to make me feel just a little better.
FWIW, Looking into the sight glass, the oil Mobil 1 oil still appears fresh, but shifting hasn't been as smooth recently. Any suggestions as to which oil to use to correct this malady??? tp
-
I fear this is nothing but a well disguised come- on to goad someone into slipping up and again re- fueling the 'oil thread'.
Just for chuckles, try Pennzoil 10W-40- the plain ole' mineral car oil. Betcha' the shifting is like buttah.
After that, try any of the mineral 'fleet' oils: Devo, Devlac, Rotella: all are 15W-40 weight oils. Cut them with some Pennzoil 10W-40 and they will act better when the bike is not quite up to temp. To extend the life of the shifting quality of this fine mix, throw some ZDDP based cam break- in lube in there- just enough to raise the ZDDP content to about 1,500 to 1,800 PPM and no higher. Then stand back and enjoy your fine shifting handiwork.
Brian
FWIW, Looking into the sight glass, the oil Mobil 1 oil still appears fresh, but shifting hasn't been as smooth recently. Any suggestions as to which oil to use to correct this malady??? tp
-
Dang, Brian, you caught me... Just having a little fun. Truthfully tough, shifting hasn't been as smooth lately. I hate to dump $40-50 worth of good oil to see if there may possibly be any change. Guess I just need to get into 6th ASAP, and enjoy the massive torque of the 14... tp
FWIW, the 14 is my favorite of all the bikes in the garage, PERIOD...tomp
-
Of course I play sax...professionally, for some decades. SATB. I replied to your PM a long time ago.
...and I think quantum mechanics is just fine. It is the simplest explanation that fits all of the observed facts. Most folks do not find it very "intuitive".
I taught the stuff. I used to think I *understood* it. Once I began to teach it, it became clear that I did not, in fact, understand it. At all.
But I can write down the Schroedinger Equation and solve the problems...
saxman
-
Of course I play sax...professionally, for some decades. SATB. I replied to your PM a long time ago.
...and I think quantum mechanics is just fine. It is the simplest explanation that fits all of the observed facts. Most folks do not find it very "intuitive".
I taught the stuff. I used to think I *understood* it. Once I began to teach it, it became clear that I did not, in fact, understand it. At all.
But I can write down the Schroedinger Equation and solve the problems...
saxman
Is that the same guy with the cat? ;D
-
No, it isn't. Course he could have a cat or dog or fish or hamster or Llama or any nature of vertebrate or invertebrate at home. Course he could have insects as well.
-
No, it isn't. Course he could have a cat or dog or fish or hamster or Llama or any nature of vertebrate or invertebrate at home. Course he could have insects as well.
Hmmm... actually it is the same Schrodinger.
-
I sit corrected.
-
This falls into the category stuff I learned from "The Big Bang Theory".
-
saxman, maybe another you shared PM's with, or I wouldn't have asked. Often we teach what we don't always understand. Most any parent would agree that raising children is a mystery, but seems we do it anyway...
Had to stop drumming. Arthritis and tinnitus made playing little fun. Miss the playing, but not the 2:30 AM tear downs.
-
Now, one group I have found to be highly intelligent AND great fun are professional comics. Some believe humor is based on intelligence.
Brian
Interesting...
-
Interesting...
Do you resemble his remark? You said you are an entertainer, do you do comedy? tp
-
I work on trucks! :)
(http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp236/Jimmymac25/bikenbox_zps9d0240fc.png) (http://s415.photobucket.com/user/Jimmymac25/media/bikenbox_zps9d0240fc.png.html)
-
Interesting...
Don't let it go to your head....
-
Don't let it go to your head....
:rotflmao:
-
Is he the guy with the cat?
I don't know until I go and check...
saxman
And yes, that is the standard punchline...
-
Is he the guy with the cat?
I don't know until I go and check...
saxman
And yes, that is the standard punchline...
I checked, he is the guy with the famous cat. ;)
-
Oh oh, we are not talking about a pet (no pun intended with the German gentleman's cat) peeve of mine. Quantum mechanics is not intuitive but with good reason: it does not make sense. After much study, continuing study I might add, of the Copenhagen theory, I say without reservation that Q.M. is easily one of the dumbest traps that smart people ever fell into. Heisenberg's uncertainly principle is fine, seems to be correct but it should have been left alone; once applied to anything real or tangible, it makes no sense because it does not apply. Remember, just because we cannot know exactly where something is does NOT mean it is not exactly somewhere. We can easily estimate the next card to appear out of a blind deck but the calculation means absolutely nothing once we actually see the card..... which means it did not mean anything before that either.
I actually recently had my son explain something to me from a class on number theory: if given three blind choices, say, A, B, or C, we choose one at random. Say we choose C. Now A is shown and that is not the right choice. Which leaves us with B and C, and then we are given a chance to stick with the original choice, C, or change our choice. The thinking here (more like mental masturbation IMO) was that since our odds were 33% initially, and the only choice not chosen or shown yet was B, then the statistical thing to do was change our choice to B because it now has a higher chance of being the correct choice. You see the odds increased for B because it was not a previous choice or the known quantity that A is now. What nonsense!!!
Like 'Big Al' said, 'The old one would not play dice with the universe'.
Now this is a quantum oil thread..... which means it has taken on nuclear proportions. I just hope it does not go off topic....
Brian
Of course I play sax...professionally, for some decades. SATB. I replied to your PM a long time ago.
...and I think quantum mechanics is just fine. It is the simplest explanation that fits all of the observed facts. Most folks do not find it very "intuitive".
I taught the stuff. I used to think I *understood* it. Once I began to teach it, it became clear that I did not, in fact, understand it. At all.
But I can write down the Schroedinger Equation and solve the problems...
saxman
-
Do you resemble his remark? You said you are an entertainer, do you do comedy? tp
Comedy ventriloquism. It has been a great career.
-
Don't let it go to your head....
Don't worry, it won't. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-bounce015.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
I checked, he is the guy with the famous cat. ;)
(http://www.2012rok.sk/wp/wp-content/uploads/subory/2013/10/SchrodingerRandom.jpg)
-
(http://www.2012rok.sk/wp/wp-content/uploads/subory/2013/10/SchrodingerRandom.jpg)
Of course this box wouldn't work since the holes allow observation.
-
This particular cat used a full synthetic oil to lube its claws, enabling him to make his escape.
(http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a468/RCRide/Misc%20Images/Schrodinger_Cat.jpg)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4)
OK I get the cat thing now. Kinda one of those "if a tree falls in a forest and there s no one there to see it fall, does it still make a sound?"
-
The cat's revenge ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNalMWLnt0o (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNalMWLnt0o)
-
Outstanding! One of my all- time favorites is Paul Zerdin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htU6qYsLsEE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htU6qYsLsEE)
And to make sure we don't stray offtopic ::) I believe Paul is using pure mineral oil to lube the dummy in that video.
Brian
Comedy ventriloquism. It has been a great career.
-
And I don't mean to put you on the spot or anything but is there any other kind of ventriloquism? Like, oh I don't know, surgical ventriloquism? You know, where the surgeon uses the dummy's hands to remove an appendix, for example? Classical pianist ventriloquism, where the ventriloquist uses the.... well, you get the idea.
Brian
Comedy ventriloquism. It has been a great career.
-
And I just want say that this is by far the best oil thread I have ever participated in or even heard about. This should be the gold standard by which all future oil threads are measured.
Brian
-
Outstanding! One of my all- time favorites is Paul Zerdin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htU6qYsLsEE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htU6qYsLsEE)
And to make sure we don't stray offtopic ::) I believe Paul is using pure mineral oil to lube the dummy in that video.
Brian
I had a hard time understanding him. Bad hearing problem. I'm a Jeff Dunham fan. Love Walter, and will probably be him too soon.
PH14, any videos of you on the web we can view?
On topic, I've found that my 14 shifts the smoothest w/o the clutch and the RPM around 3.5-4K... for normal in town riding. Slipper clutch makes for great down shifts, too, w/o clutching...
-
And I don't mean to put you on the spot or anything but is there any other kind of ventriloquism? Like, oh I don't know, surgical ventriloquism? You know, where the surgeon uses the dummy's hands to remove an appendix, for example? Classical pianist ventriloquism, where the ventriloquist uses the.... well, you get the idea.
Brian
There is of course political ventriloquism but to keep this out of the Arena we won't be requiring examples. 8)
There is also a variation called anal ventriloquism which may be more familiar as 'talkin outchere a$$'.
-
And I don't mean to put you on the spot or anything but is there any other kind of ventriloquism? Like, oh I don't know, surgical ventriloquism? You know, where the surgeon uses the dummy's hands to remove an appendix, for example? Classical pianist ventriloquism, where the ventriloquist uses the.... well, you get the idea.
Brian
Good, you went for our normal joke, tragedy ventriloquism... etc. I will say though, I usually emphasize comedy when doing promo, it tends to sell better than ventriloquism. I always have them put the word "comedy" first on any billing, the masses aren't exactly bright.
-
I had a hard time understanding him. Bad hearing problem. I'm a Jeff Dunham fan. Love Walter, and will probably be him too soon.
PH14, any videos of you on the web we can view?
On topic, I've found that my 14 shifts the smoothest w/o the clutch and the RPM around 3.5-4K... for normal in town riding. Slipper clutch makes for great down shifts, too, w/o clutching...
There some old ones of me out there, but I haven't done any new videos for a while. I have been booked solid the past few years so I didn't work much on new videos. I was on ships most every week. I may be switching gears a bit and getting off the ships. My shows have been geared for ships and are basic clean family shows. I have tried to stay anonymous on most forums, but here you go. Not the best videos but there they are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kXNhuS1g8tQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=kXNhuS1g8tQ)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eykud0dz1UI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=eykud0dz1UI)
-
She is alive!
(http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a468/RCRide/Leya/2014-08-05-18-38-12_photo.jpg)
And to bring this thread back on track. I'm not currently using this, but keep this bottle of synthetic oil as an incentive for the C14 to behave and shift nicely. I promised I would actually give it some synthetic as long as it shifted nicely. So far it is working.
(http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a468/RCRide/Concours%201400/IMG_20140805_190201.jpg)
-
Phil, that's what is known as real audience participation, for sure. Thanks for sharing.
this is what my cat thinks of all this 50/50 mess....
(http://i.imgur.com/IPBwixz.jpg)
-
Phil, that's what is known as real audience participation, for sure. Thanks for sharing. tomp
Thanks. I have been doing that bit for years. I took it out once, and began doing something completely different, and after a show, they requested it. It has now become my signature bit. I can't remove it.
-
Wow, I cannot believe that- your cat looks almost exactly like the stunt cat I use in 'The Cat Joke (TM)'! I mean really, they could be twins!
Hey, see for yourself- this is a photo of me doing 'The Cat Joke (TM)' at the COG national rally last June. Doesn't the cat look almost identical to yours?
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f82/BDF08012008/TheCatJokebyMarty.jpg) (http://s45.photobucket.com/user/BDF08012008/media/TheCatJokebyMarty.jpg.html)
Brian
She is alive!
(http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a468/RCRide/Leya/2014-08-05-18-38-12_photo.jpg)
-
You're right, they look just like twins. By the way, I am going to market a new wine in the box called "Schrödinger's." Under that it will say, "Is it good, or is it bad?"
-
Brian,
That is not the HUP (Heiseberg Uncertainty Principle) at all. HUP says you cannot know two things simultaneously beyond a certain amount of...you know...uncertainty.
The more precisely you know the position, the greater the uncertainty in momentum. And vice versa, of course. Position and momentum are "a conjugate pair". Yes, that is a pretty good straight line for the dummy...have at it, PH man...
There are other pairs. The product of the two uncertainties is always at least a certain amount. Exact value? Rather tiny, so the HUP is not relevant to large things like ZG1400s, or fried eggs, or visible dust specks. The PRODUCT. So if you do know the position "exactly", say with an electron microscope still screen shot, you cannot have any way of knowing the value of the momentum at all.
Not everybody likes the Copenhagen Interpretation. It is maybe the least-far-fetched-seeming explanation, but some things are beyond the realm of the observable, and we are left with a collection of hypotheses like the Copenhagen, thus named since it is where Neils Bohr, its originator, lived.
Dang quantum mechanics!!
Oh, and the card thing is legit too, if you put the parts of the story back in that you left out.
The one you pick has a 1/3 chance of being "the right one". Of course, since all of the cards have equal chance AT THAT POINT.
The presenter then tells you they are going to throw out one that is NOT "the right one." That means that there is a 1/2 chance that each of the two you did not pick is "the right one." 1/2 chance because they NEVER tell you that YOUR CARD is not "the right one." This is the key...
Thus the advice about switching.
See, the choice you made was when there were three that might have been "the right one." BUT the presenter gave you new information, namely that one of the ones you did not pick was not "the right one." That new information changes the odds.
BTW, I know a couple of PhD physicists who DO NOT GET THAT, so you could say it is "subtle."
That is what physicists say when folks don't get it, especially themselves.
Number theory is my specialty, so...
Your remark about "estimating" which card is going to be next in the deck. If it is a "fair" deck, i.e. truly random, aren't all the cards exactly equal chance of appearing next? If you are thinking of poker, or especially 21, we are interested in the odds of any one of a particular set of cards appearing, right? The probability calculations are valuable here. Hence the ability of casinos to win so much money. They play the odds.
Oh, and Big Al was wrong. Which is incredibly ironic, since he sort of started the whole QM thing.
The standard reply to your quote:
“Not only does God play dice but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.”
--- S. Hawking
Einstein famously spent the last (appx.) 30 years of his life trying to come up with a better explanation than QM. He HATED the statistical stuff...wanted strict cause-and-effect rules for everything. He could not find a better explanation. Nobody else has, either.
Using dino OR Mobil 1 OR real synth OR ANYTHING.
Just had to get back to the oil thread topics at the end there...
saxman says: "The cool thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not."
-
saxman says: "The cool thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not."
Depends on your definition of science.
Example:
There have been many theories of how the moon was formed based on centuries of observation and study by scientists. The latest and most excepted theory is now the "impactor" theory. Another was that it was captured by the earth. Which is true? Maybe neither. Is this science? Should I continue to use synthetic oil in my C14?
-
Dang Rhino, you beat me to it... I was wondering what type of oil that the phd's, Bohr, and Einstein used in their C14's.
Saxman, I don't doubt what you just posted is true, kinda true, somewhat true, somewhat false, kinda false, false, or feasible only on alternate Thursdays of single digit days, on the Mayan calender, but I didn't understand WTF you said. Wasn't taught that in music classes. Maybe I should have majored in something else... Was that in E flat or D sharp?
-
Fantastic- now this is a GREAT oil thread.
Heisenberg's principle- yep, I believe that one is correct and fitting. As I remember, you can only know the position and speed of a particle to a sum of 1, so if you are 50% certain of its speed, you only have a 50% certainty of knowing where it is (at the exact same time). No problem- the act of measuring the particle causes a change in that particle's speed and / or position. Fine and well. But the principle has become the basis to build upon until the things that result are simply not useful or representative. I'll come back to that one in a second though.
I did not say that quantum mechanics does not work, just that I do not believe it exists. Yeah, that one needs a little fleshing out: I believe many of the facets are correct but again, the overall concept is basically flawed, especially because it will not scale. Certainly there is a problem with relativity and Q.M.; both may be but one MUST be incorrect. I call Q.M. incorrect and will go with relativity. Eventually the T.O.E. will be found that is correct but for now I consider Q.M. an interesting and occasionally useful.... parlor trick. I agree physics really is a series of laws that must be obeyed or nothing makes any sense (and I reject that choice), it is just that we do not yet understand all of the rules and have some that we think we understand incorrect. Besides all that, I was never all that big a fan of Bohr's thought process as I understand it- I am much more of a Fermi guy. Hey, for what it is worth, I absolutely and totally reject both Big Al's and the Presbyterian's concept of determinism. :-)
The three choices: I got it second hand and as it was explained to me, given a trio of items (the proverbial shell game), you choose one. If that is not the right choice, one of the other choices is removed, thereby leaving two, the one you originally chose and the one remaining that you did not. At this point, a ridiculous number theory comes along and somehow suggests the course of action that will result in the greatest chance of picking the right item is to change your choice. I can not find anything that logically says that that has any validity.
You misunderstood or I did not well explain what I meant by the deck of cards, uncertainty and how this ties in with my rejection of Q.M. Take a standard shoe of six full decks of cards. At first, the odds of drawing any particular card are equal but as cards are drawn and choices are reduced, the chances of drawing either a specific card, or a card within an 'envelope' (say, a face card) change. So far chaos theory and real life agree perfectly. Say we draw 100 cards and have 312 remaining. We use probability to predict the next card that will be drawn but do not actually draw the card. Now this is where things go terribly, terrible wrong: we now move on to predict what card number 102 will be, based on the previous 101 cards that are known. But, we really do not know what card 101 IS, only what it is probable to be. But we continue down this path until we get to the last card, which of course is now known to us by process of elimination and probability. The problem with this is that we really never did know what card 101 (and later) was. The second we actually look at card 101 everything further falls apart. It is not that the science of probability is wrong, simply that it does not apply here.
The example that stands out for me is Zeno's paradox using the arrow and target vs. time example. It is not fundamentally incorrect, in fact is the basis of limits as they apply to calculus, it is just that it does not apply to the arrow and reality. Mental masturbation.
About Big Al being wrong: entirely possible but I am just not willing to accept that without something better than Q.M. as the reason. He was not wrong, he simply did not find the entire set of 'rules'. I have a much easier time believing Hawkin was, and is, incorrect. I especially do not care for his need to engage his theories with the concept of God. I have no personal opinions or beliefs in that regard and am not concerned either way but I do not care for his desire to explain the universe's need or lack thereof of a superior being, I simply think it has no place in science. To make a bad joke, it is not his field :-) But actually we agree 100% on the last of Einstein's work and failure, it is just that I do not take it that he was wrong, merely that he did not find the 'right' before he died. I cannot quote it exactly but Edison once said something to the effect: 'I have not failed, I have merely found 50,000 ways that do not work.' And while I am not a big fan of his either (preferring Tesla's opinion that 'a little theory would have gone a long way in Edison's lab'), I really do like that line.
I was associated with a gentleman named Einstein from New Jersey about a dozen years ago and just had to ask if he was related. The answer was yes, they are cousins (once removed IIRC). I asked how that was working out for him and he replied- poorly. All his life people were disappointed in him because they expected he could levitate rocks (or the intellectual equal); such was the case with me too before we were too far into the project.... and I truly felt sorry for the guy 'cause he was in an impossible position given that name.
We're boring most everybody and we are dangerously close to being offtopic but an immensely enjoyable conversation. By the way, there is a physicist (teaching, Ph.D) around here now and again. Nice guy and pretty clever.... :-) Rides a C-14 and has altered the engine to act bigger than it really is- sort of like a space- time compression if you know what I mean. ;)
Brian
Brian,
That is not the HUP (Heiseberg Uncertainty Principle) at all. HUP says you cannot know two things simultaneously beyond a certain amount of...you know...uncertainty.
The more precisely you know the position, the greater the uncertainty in momentum. And vice versa, of course. Position and momentum are "a conjugate pair". Yes, that is a pretty good straight line for the dummy...have at it, PH man...
There are other pairs. The product of the two uncertainties is always at least a certain amount. Exact value? Rather tiny, so the HUP is not relevant to large things like ZG1400s, or fried eggs, or visible dust specks. The PRODUCT. So if you do know the position "exactly", say with an electron microscope still screen shot, you cannot have any way of knowing the value of the momentum at all.
Not everybody likes the Copenhagen Interpretation. It is maybe the least-far-fetched-seeming explanation, but some things are beyond the realm of the observable, and we are left with a collection of hypotheses like the Copenhagen, thus named since it is where Neils Bohr, its originator, lived.
Dang quantum mechanics!!
Oh, and the card thing is legit too, if you put the parts of the story back in that you left out.
The one you pick has a 1/3 chance of being "the right one". Of course, since all of the cards have equal chance AT THAT POINT.
The presenter then tells you they are going to throw out one that is NOT "the right one." That means that there is a 1/2 chance that each of the two you did not pick is "the right one." 1/2 chance because they NEVER tell you that YOUR CARD is not "the right one." This is the key...
Thus the advice about switching.
See, the choice you made was when there were three that might have been "the right one." BUT the presenter gave you new information, namely that one of the ones you did not pick was not "the right one." That new information changes the odds.
BTW, I know a couple of PhD physicists who DO NOT GET THAT, so you could say it is "subtle."
That is what physicists say when folks don't get it, especially themselves.
Number theory is my specialty, so...
Your remark about "estimating" which card is going to be next in the deck. If it is a "fair" deck, i.e. truly random, aren't all the cards exactly equal chance of appearing next? If you are thinking of poker, or especially 21, we are interested in the odds of any one of a particular set of cards appearing, right? The probability calculations are valuable here. Hence the ability of casinos to win so much money. They play the odds.
Oh, and Big Al was wrong. Which is incredibly ironic, since he sort of started the whole QM thing.
The standard reply to your quote:
“Not only does God play dice but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.”
--- S. Hawking
Einstein famously spent the last (appx.) 30 years of his life trying to come up with a better explanation than QM. He HATED the statistical stuff...wanted strict cause-and-effect rules for everything. He could not find a better explanation. Nobody else has, either.
Using dino OR Mobil 1 OR real synth OR ANYTHING.
Just had to get back to the oil thread topics at the end there...
saxman says: "The cool thing about science is that it's true whether you believe it or not."
-
Definitely know it's a great thread.....on the wrong board when my brane starts to hurt.
-
Actually, I think you are miss- applying the word science here. You are talking about theories which come and go all the time. But if our universe is going to make any sense, there must be 'rules' and we are trying to figure them out.
Science works perfectly and every single time. It is out understanding of it that is flawed. Or so goes my theory. :-)
Brian
Depends on your definition of science.
Example:
There have been many theories of how the moon was formed based on centuries of observation and study by scientists. The latest and most excepted theory is now the "impactor" theory. Another was that it was captured by the earth. Which is true? Maybe neither. Is this science? Should I continue to use synthetic oil in my C14?
-
I cannot speak for those gentleman but I am willing to go way out on a limb and do so anyway: I believe they would have used all reasonably easy accessible data (which is precious little), read the directions and recommendations of the mfg., pick an oil and forget about it. Betcha' But remember, some of the best and brightest never owned or drove, probably most spectacularly Leó Szilárd, who needed Edward Teller to drive him to see Einstein to get Einstein to sign the letter that Szilárd actually wrote warning F.D.R. about the possibility of Germany harnessing nuclear power.... and all because Leó Szilárd AND Albert Einstein could not drive a car. He later developed bladder cancer and designed a new treatment to beat it into submission: he showed his physicians how to use radiotherapy to destroy cells, what we call radiation as a cancer treatment today.
Brian
Dang Rhino, you beat me to it... I was wondering what type of oil that the phd's, Bohr, and Einstein used in their C14's.
<snip>
-
Brian, have you ever been stumped? I hope not or this thread will quickly die on the vine.... Now about the molecule size of class III and IV lubricants....
-
Of course, all the time. There are, and have been, some really gifted people around. Look at some of the people mentioned in the last few posts- these were giants in the thinking world. And they got stumped.... and I am not in their league.
I do not think it is the size of the molecules in oil that give it its lubricating properties, I believe it is the length. Shorten the molecule and the substance gets lighter- first into kerosene and naphtha and then further toward the solvents such as gasoline.
But I have to say, I am still concerned about that cat in the box from a few posts ago- I hope he got out OK.
;D
Brian
Brian, have you ever been stumped? I hope not or this thread will quickly die on the vine.... Now about the molecule size of class III and IV lubricants....
-
Actually, I think you are miss- applying the word science here. You are talking about theories which come and go all the time. But if our universe is going to make any sense, there must be 'rules' and we are trying to figure them out.
Science works perfectly and every single time. It is out understanding of it that is flawed. Or so goes my theory. :-)
Brian
Bingo. My first line was "depends on your definition of science". Much of the world today think that accepted scientific theories are science and fact. And my point is that they are not. Anyone who utters the words: "the science is settled" is by definition not scientific. Therefor IMHO, which oil to use is not settled. ;)
-
The Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle can easily be applied to the valves on the C14. They are like the cat in a box, if you don't look at them and check them...
-
The Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle can easily be applied to the valves on the C14. They are like the cat in a box, if you don't look at them and check them...
Likewise, Murphy's law. If you ignore the valves, they will surely be seriously out of spec, and the engine will crater at highway speed. If you take the hours required to check them, they will all be in spec, and one seal, and two gaskets will fail after putting everything back together. Also two fairing screws will be lost and one panel will fall off the work bench, leaving a large scratch on it. Forgot to mention the two scraped knuckles, cut thumb, and the beer all over the garage floor, that was knocked over before even getting a sip...
According to Murphy, regardless which action you do or don't take, there will be dire consequences just waiting for you...At least that has been my findings over my 6 1/2 decades of life...
-
Likewise, Murphy's law. If you ignore the valves, they will surely be seriously out of spec, and the engine will crater at highway speed. If you take the hours required to check them, they will all be in spec, and one seal, and two gaskets will fail after putting everything back together. Also two fairing screws will be lost and one panel will fall off the work bench, leaving a large scratch on it. Forgot to mention the two scraped knuckles, cut thumb, and the beer all over the garage floor, that was knocked over before even getting a sip...
According to Murphy, regardless which action you do or don't take, there will be dire consequences just waiting for you...At least that has been my findings over my 6 1/2 decades of life...
A moment of silence please for the lost beer and the scratched panel...
-
A moment of silence please for the lost beer and the scratched panel...
And a prayer for the lost beer and the scratched panel, as well as for the aforementioned not checked valves. May they have clearance. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angelic001.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
We'll all miss that beer. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sad010.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) I have to go now. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sad031.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
-
And a prayer for the lost beer and the scratched panel, as well as for the aforementioned not checked valves. May they have clearance. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-angelic001.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
We'll all miss that beer. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sad010.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php) I have to go now. (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-sad031.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Maybe we should start a beer memorial thread :'(
-
Brian, PRODUCT, not SUM in the (your) following paragraph. Everybody thinks things should be sums...products are usually the more powerful technique, as is the case here. the PRODUCT of the UNCERTAINTY in each value is at least (the subtle QM value). So, to reiterate from earlier, if you know the position exactly (uncertainty of ZERO), then what can you multiply by zero to get (QM value)?? Only choice is something infinite.
Hoo boy, apologies to anybody that had a headache already...
Zero times something infinite = something finite and nonzero...sort of.
BUT, with corrections, I think you have the gist of it...
//
BDF said:
Heisenberg's principle- yep, I believe that one is correct and fitting. As I remember, you can only know the position and speed of a particle to a sum of 1, so if you are 50% certain of its speed, you only have a 50% certainty of knowing where it is (at the exact same time). No problem- the act of measuring the particle causes a change in that particle's speed and / or position. Fine and well. But the principle has become the basis to build upon until the things that result are simply not useful or representative. I'll come back to that one in a second though.
//
About the following paragraphs...
Pretty subtle distinction being made here about QM. If you are saying you don't believe it exists, that's fine. But you split the hairs pretty thin, IMO.
QM has the interesting attribute of being the theory responsible for the most successful predictions in the entire history of theories. That is a pretty good track record. Lots of folks DON'T LIKE QM. So what? IT WORKS. Computers, cell phones, etc.
And, for my money you nail the biggest problem of QM. QM deals with the tiny...General Relativity deals with the immense...and what modern theory deals with ordinary sizes and speeds? NONE. For those of you following along at home, QM deals with electrons and atoms, BUT does not predict the behaviour of large objects. AT ALL.
Einstein's GR deals with planets and solar systems and galaxies, but does not predict the behaviour of small objects. AT ALL.
The irony is that these are the most successful, most terrifyingly mathematical theories in history... (and I have taught them both, so I know)...and yet, there is this gigantic GAP, this realm of sizes where neither theory applies. THIS INCLUDES THE SIZE OF ORDINARY OBJECTS!! SO these great theories need to be joined by either another (completely new, as yet undreamt of) theory to bridge the gap (my expectation)...OR ONE OF THEM IS WRONG, which is what Brain was alluding to in the paragraph below.
I don't know that one of QM and GR must be incorrect, even though that is the popular thing for clever folks to say at this point in time...there is no scale at which both are compatible, that is certain. Oh, and (again, for the home audience) "TOE" stands for "Theory of Everything", which is the usual name that postulated bridge theory is given. Every physicist worth a nickel is said to be chasing down the TOE rabbithole. There may be nothing there. I agree that SOMETHING has to give.
//
More BDF:
I did not say that quantum mechanics does not work, just that I do not believe it exists. Yeah, that one needs a little fleshing out: I believe many of the facets are correct but again, the overall concept is basically flawed, especially because it will not scale. Certainly there is a problem with relativity and Q.M.; both may be but one MUST be incorrect. I call Q.M. incorrect and will go with relativity. Eventually the T.O.E. will be found that is correct but for now I consider Q.M. an interesting and occasionally useful.... parlor trick. I agree physics really is a series of laws that must be obeyed or nothing makes any sense (and I reject that choice), it is just that we do not yet understand all of the rules and have some that we think we understand incorrect. Besides all that, I was never all that big a fan of Bohr's thought process as I understand it- I am much more of a Fermi guy. Hey, for what it is worth, I absolutely and totally reject both Big Al's and the Presbyterian's concept of determinism. :-)
//
saxman
P.S. Oh, and I STILL maintain that you can NEVER expect probability to give ANY exact predictions, re: cards. Whether you have three or 312. The TRUTH of the exact order of cards is beyond the parameters of probability. Its predictive power comes in the ability to understand every possible arrangement of cards (say, the remnants of six decks in your shoe after 100 known cards are gone), and give you advice accordingly.
Probability sucks at giving advice about one card, one time. But if you are going to play 100 hands, it works very, very well.
-
SO...I got some new oil today...since this is an oil thread and everything...
-
I really don't grasp what you two are discussing, but I realized that I don't need to. For me, this is why:
Isaiah 55:8-9 My answer for "TOE"...
-
Interesting...the context (from the previous verses) is that the ways of men are wicked. And thus "My (God's) ways are not your (man's) ways (which are wicked and all that)."
Physics is:
1) NOT wicked.
2) NOT in conflict with religion.
3) definitely related to OIL though!!
Just sayin...
saxman
-
I
Physics is:
1) NOT wicked.
Just sayin...
saxman
Have to disagree there, saxman. Because every time you post those long, highly evolved posts, I get a wicked headache trying to understand just what you are discussing. Just wondering here, are the laws of physics set in stone or open to interpretation by my governmental officials, seeking a more fair outcome for all??? ;D
-
Actually, I think you and I (or is that me and you? :-) ) are on the exact same page and some of my words got in the way.
I absolutely agree that Q.M. works. I too am educated in that area, though more modestly than I would like, and have no doubt about it. What I DO NOT believe is that it is a fundamental, complete part of physics. What I think we have gotten a hold of is part, or pieces of "The Rules" and without the missing part (the middle, or perhaps many other several or even many other facets) they do not really work. For whatever it is worth, based entirely on logic rather than mathematics, I believe relatively is correct and simply not quite fleshed out yet. The best example I can give you of my thinking here is how Hawking could not leave black holes alone because they violated the second law of thermodynamics. He picked and chewed at that for a long time until he found the way out.... there are always pairs of matter, one sucked in and one forced away (simple version, 'Black holes ain't so black'). I have always been taken with the theory that seems to have fallen out of favor of the 'fifth' fundamental force that we do not know about being the key to both pages of physics.
But again, we really are in agreement here I think.
Brian
<snip>
About the following paragraphs...
Pretty subtle distinction being made here about QM. If you are saying you don't believe it exists, that's fine. But you split the hairs pretty thin, IMO.
QM has the interesting attribute of being the theory responsible for the most successful predictions in the entire history of theories. That is a pretty good track record. Lots of folks DON'T LIKE QM. So what? IT WORKS. Computers, cell phones, etc.
And, for my money you nail the biggest problem of QM. QM deals with the tiny...General Relativity deals with the immense...and what modern theory deals with ordinary sizes and speeds? NONE. For those of you following along at home, QM deals with electrons and atoms, BUT does not predict the behaviour of large objects. AT ALL.
Einstein's GR deals with planets and solar systems and galaxies, but does not predict the behaviour of small objects. AT ALL.
The irony is that these are the most successful, most terrifyingly mathematical theories in history... (and I have taught them both, so I know)...and yet, there is this gigantic GAP, this realm of sizes where neither theory applies. THIS INCLUDES THE SIZE OF ORDINARY OBJECTS!! SO these great theories need to be joined by either another (completely new, as yet undreamt of) theory to bridge the gap (my expectation)...OR ONE OF THEM IS WRONG, which is what Brain was alluding to in the paragraph below.
I don't know that one of QM and GR must be incorrect, even though that is the popular thing for clever folks to say at this point in time...there is no scale at which both are compatible, that is certain. Oh, and (again, for the home audience) "TOE" stands for "Theory of Everything", which is the usual name that postulated bridge theory is given. Every physicist worth a nickel is said to be chasing down the TOE rabbithole. There may be nothing there. I agree that SOMETHING has to give.
saxman
P.S. Oh, and I STILL maintain that you can NEVER expect probability to give ANY exact predictions, re: cards. Whether you have three or 312. The TRUTH of the exact order of cards is beyond the parameters of probability. Its predictive power comes in the ability to understand every possible arrangement of cards (say, the remnants of six decks in your shoe after 100 known cards are gone), and give you advice accordingly.
Probability sucks at giving advice about one card, one time. But if you are going to play 100 hands, it works very, very well.
-
I greatly disagree with the idea that most people cannot talk about / learn these things. I believe the words and terms get in the way of what are really simple concepts. I also believe the mathematics gets in the way of the concepts; Dan will probably disagree but the worst thing about trying to explain calculus is that most people try to use math. No joke- I can explain the fundamental concept of calculus to anyone older than about 8 using nothing more than a few hand drawings and addition. Just my personal opinion but I think education introduces the tools (mathematics, terms, definitions, nomenclature, etc.) far too quickly and instead of the basic concepts of what is being taught. For example, any engineer with a bachelor's degree from any accredited school in the US have a pretty fair understanding of mathematics but all that I have met are terrible at explaining it (note I did not say teaching it). The reason is that the focus is incorrect in my opinion. Calculus is the mathematics of change. Trigonometry is the mathematics of an angle. Algebra is the mathematics of relationships. I could elaborate on any of those and NOT use a single formula or more than three or four keywords. But the system simple overloads people new to a concept with the mechanics of that concept- want to make calculus difficult? Just start off by using new words (differential, integral), funny symbols and lots of new notation.
Everyone can learn the rules that govern things if they were explained better IMO. But the rules (physics) are covered up so badly, from someone new to them, that the concept is lost entirely. There is no such thing as negative pressure! There is no such thing as a negative temperature! But by using different scales (Fahrenheit, Celsius, Rankine, Kelvin, ad nausem) and the concept that some temperatures can be negative, which puts zero is a really weird place, we make a mess. Now the mess is negotiable for those more knowledgeable but very difficult to through to the beginner.
Even the study of oil is a mess (slick how I got back to that, huh? Slick how I got the term 'slick' into the sentence with the word 'oil' in it, huh?). Viscosity, weights, multi- weight, Group classifications, additives, and a many more words do not help explain what oil does! Even the wacky units we use mislead: the weight of motor oil is measured using a different scale than the weight of differential grease so while the grease [seems] much, much thicker, it is NOT! What a mess! There are only two ways lubricants lubricate: 1) by causing a boundary between two surfaces (the oil film) or 2) by reducing or eliminating the friction between two surfaces in contact with each other. That's it. Which actually brings us ALL the way back to the beginning of this thread: the science of lubrication is called tribology, the study of friction, lubrication and wear. It is complicated with lots of calculus, lots of gradients, lots and lots of variables. But the concepts of tribology are simple; a film of oil is between two hard surfaces (easy boys!) and does not allow them to touch. That is why an aluminum or lead based bearing shell can contain thousands of pounds of crankshaft force at very high rotational speeds and not wear out- the oil will not let the two surfaces touch.
So you guys go easy in thinking that any of this stuff is out of reach: it is not and with a little effort, anyone can understand more tomorrow then he / she did today. Just don't let the educational part get in the way of learning. ;) ;D ;D
Brian
Have to disagree there, saxman. Because every time you post those long, highly evolved posts, I get a wicked headache trying to understand just what you are discussing. Just wondering here, are the laws of physics set in stone or open to interpretation by my governmental officials, seeking a more fair outcome for all??? ;D
-
Brian, I am digging all this information, that is enlightening this almost old man, but my post was basically a plethora of satire and political witticisms.
As far as learning, my career of almost 50 years has lead me in many directions and caused me to learn from a little, to a lot about many things, but QM has never officially come up for me. More of a sales strategy/marketing type, and found that the most important law I have learned is from P.T. Barnum, "There's a fool born every minute." With today's society, I believe the time frame has shortened to probably (see how I used probabilities, not really having any secure facts) two or three fools born every minute. The basis of the movie "Idiocracy" is virtually upon us, 500 years too soon... This is more fun than an oil thread. Just got back from a ride but heat index was around 105 and traffic everywhere, but the 14 is a screamer when the right wrist is properly applied, and shifting was OK...tomp
-
Brian,
Agreed. On your basic statement. I think we are largely in agreement on the important things.
One small correction, though. Trigonometry == the whole triangle, not just an angle. Don't get lazy and assume all triangles are right. Insert joke here I think...
Math Counterpoint: ((My Credentials: This comes from decades of teaching the stuff to many thousands of university students and some high school students too))
I think the problem of education is exactly the opposite of what you said. The problem is that mathematics is treated as "exotic", and most folks never get comfortable thinking mathematically.
YOU GAVE THE EXAMPLE, possibly without realizing it. Those engineers you refer to. THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT AT ALL. They can (the better ones) solve the problems, but fully 90% of them do not know why it works that way.
To save us a little trouble, if you are an engineer and reading this, you have already been counted among the OTHER 10%, so un-bunch your knickers and let's move on.
Believe me, my database of engineering students in classroom discussions, in lab, on homework and exams (I always wrote my own problems and hand graded EVERYTHING) s exhaustive.
Without understanding the mathematics, it is impossible to understand the physics.
You can "talk about it" or whatever, but the truth is in the details, which, as with most classics, are best read in their original language. WHICH IS MATHEMATICS, NOT AN ORDINARY SPOKEN LANGUAGE. I agree that quite a bit of progress can be made ((for beginners)) with simple explanations, BUT...well, read the first sentence of this paragraph again.
Example: HUP: "The product of the two uncertainties (in a matched pair) is at least x."
To think of it in any other way is simply incorrect. (Not picking on Brian here...just an example with some local history)
But in the end I agree that the terminology and the mathematical difficulties are the biggest/hardest part of understanding what are, actually SIMPLE IDEAS. See me agreeing right there?
((By the way, there IS such a thing as negative pressure, although that is fairly exotic territory. One of my grad school profs was the first person to figure out how to measure this in nearly-empty space directly. Very exciting stuff!!)) If your point is that a simple difference does not generate a meaningful negative value, I certainly agree with THAT. Folks DO use their negative signs a little too indiscriminately!
Temperature is not a fundamental thing, so I will agree with you about the meaning of negative temperature. Temperature (according to Einstein) is a measurement of the average random kinetic energy of the molecules, which is always going to be positive. Assuming you have ordinary matter and all that. Unfortunate at best, but I propose that Herr Fahrenheit gets a pass on this, as he was looking for convenience, and nobody knew any better. I do not think he expected anybody to ever use negative F temperatures!!Rankine or Kelvin scales are best!!
"Hidden variable theories" make me suspicious, e.g. Fifth Force, Dark Matter, String Theories, and so on. The history of science is littered with stopgap would-be-theories that have since been discredited. Anything that cannot be observed, and possibly falsified, is not science. Period.
The first two aren't so bad, even though the evidence is currently elusive at best...but (Silly) String Theory has, a priori, no testable properties. Pure BS from a science standpoint.
saxman
-
I've entertained this thread as long as I can and it's run it's course. If you want to debate scientific theories of all sorts or any theory, theorem, or hypothesis, then start a new thread in the Open board and you can debate until the cows come home.