Coronamaker wrote:

.........Ben, Jr. it highly polished surfaces are more difficult to generate the friction needed to really burnish the WS2 or MoS2 and are usually best treated by air impinging. Tumble or vibratory burnishing can have acceptable results, but be careful to avoid degrading the polishing job...........

Good stuff! Too late now but what are the parameters of air impinging?

Quote:

High-speed impingement is another way of applying a moly-based coating. Certain specialty
coating businesses are equipped to “sand-blast” moly particles onto a prepared metal surface. The
surface is usually cleaned and etched to a specific surface profile prior to application. This process
essentially forces the moly particles into the nooks and crannies of metal surfaces.

http://www.rosemill.com/html/WhatTheHeckIsMoly.pdf



Nano size particles might have worked better on polished surface but more affected by moisture.

Bent1 wrote:

Maybe a small cotton buffing wheel on a hand drill with MoS2 or WS2
sprinkled on. Dust would be an issue.

I can see that working but way hazardous.

It was quite difficult to adhere WS2 to the piston skirts. I had to rub it in with my thumb nail (I didn't want to use anything harder to prevent scratching) and then, you could really see a difference in color from simple "brushed on" to "pressed on".

Just made up 4 bags.

Gear moly
Grease moly
#1 Engine Moly from my first buy in the 60's (that tin can)
#2 Engine Moly from my last buy. Gallon jug

It's in the mail...

-BenSr

Heya Bent!

Crazy's got my stuff too the other day, so I'm eagerly waiting to hear back about what size the stuff turns out to be.

How much torque is needed to rotate a short block assembly?

Mine is less than 20 ft-lbs (smallest torque reading on my wrench)

Good point and hope there are tables on the Internet, if not, then we might
gather that info here.

Gotta base line it for each OEM engine we discuss here. Even Ford/Dodge/foreign
to give it some reference. 4 banger, V6 etc.

Wonder how much more a 'built' engine will have.

Assume best place is at the back end best, but dampener easiest is my thinking

Break away then several times after that initial to normalize it. Say 3 times???
One full turn each time???

Would be wonderful if there is a measurable difference before and after treatment

-SrBen

PS....the 6 year old thought that postal guy was going to deliver the envelop after
hearing us go over the required doc's....haz mat stuff...nope, sign here, pay in cash, etc
How far is Canada? Will he take it when he leaves? How long will it take him?

Funny


According to DV's how to rebuild your sbc:

You should be able to turn the engine over with no more than 35-40 ft-lbs, adding the rope seal adds another 15-25 ft-lbs!!

I coated everything with WS2 and ARP molyb lube(not very well) and I'm getting max peak torque of 14 ft-lbs.

I can easily rotate the flywheel by hand which I was barely able to do before (heads removed).

Ok so I did a quick test just to get a preliminary max particle size here's what I got:

Zero'd my mic. (thing's measurement is so fine it never reads the same initial 0 from day to day!)

I used 3in1 machine oil.

I put a drop of oil on the anvils and got some resistance at 1 u but it eventually read 0. (again, so much for oil film)
I always verify the zero between tests to make sure there's no foreign matter.

I eye balled a 50/50 mix which looked runny but nice:

3 microns consistently with occasional 4 microns.



Since I found it runny I added more molyb until I got a paste but it was clumpy.

That read 6 microns with occasional 7 micron


Because of the way the anvils come together, if the sample is not liquid enough, the particles at the center have nowhere to go so they stack up against each other.

So I trust the 3 microns max size.
Obviously, the rest of the sample has a range of smaller particles....



I'll try to do a more elaborate test with video when I have the time (yeah right! )



WS2 particle size :

CrazyHoe wrote:

Previously I've tested my ARP assembly lubricant at 10 microns when the tube was new.

Curiously, now that the tube is half empty, the minimum I measure is 16 microns!!


Now for the WS2, I took a scoop of dry powder which very much looks like powdered make-up, an dusted some on the anvils of my mic. and measured 25 microns.

I expected the dry powder to behave like sand when compressed, so I did a 50/50 mix with 10w30 oil.

The texture and color looked like the ARP lube.

The WS2+oil measured repeatedly at 4 microns.

I redid the measurement with only oil this time and measured 0 microns. (so much for oil film...)

There is most probably much smaller particles but the micrometer won't measure anything smaller than the biggest particle present.

You can't wipe the stuff off your hands, you have to wash them.

So there you have it, WS2 .6 micron fsss can have particles as big as 4 microns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goat4y6awdo

http://www.youtube.com/user/ElcanInd#play/all/uploads-all/1/KtAZI4mW_kE

Three!??!

Wow. I should send them your results and say "So where's the 1.5 average come in here guys???"

I'm extremely disappointed.

Why disappointed?

I can only measure the largest particles: 3 microns +- 1.0

If the particles had an even distribution between 0 and 3, then the average IS 1.5um which is what they are selling.

Now, I would think it's more of a "normal" distribution curve (bell shape).

With very little at 0u and 3u and most of the particles at 1.5um.

I think this is exactly what we want: Even the biggest particle in the super fine powder won't get trapped in the best filters.

It was important to make sure there was no rocks in there so you can apply it directly without having to filter it first.

Sorry this is not what you expected but really this is great results for what we want to do with it. Any smaller is overkill and too costly.

I'm pretty sure Ben Sr's samples will have bigger particles. We'll know soon enough...

ohh, alright. I retract my statement then. lol

Thanks for clarifying Crazy!!

I feel much better about my purchase now. heh

Trinten wrote:

ohh, alright. I retract my statement then. lol

Thanks for clarifying Crazy!!

I feel much better about my purchase now. heh

you still have some available bro? I got some of my bills out of the way so I could take some from you.

on a note that I'm not too familiar with. I wonder if molyb addition would benefit other oil such as inside a whipple? I've never actually opened a whipple up so I don't know what kind surfaces we have in there. but I've been wondering if it would cause problems in a setting like that or not.

Hey Alocious,

Yup, I still have plenty left, Crazy bought three ounces of it from me, so I still have just a hair under 13 ounces left right now.

As for the whipple question, I don't think it'd hurt anything, I just don't know how it'll help. I know some guys have their superchargers dismantled and extra polishing done on the compression rotory, maybe you can do the same and burnish it with the moly?

I mixed in 10 CC of MoS2 to a quart of oil, about 1 month before an oil change and everytime I walked into the garage shook it up. Then bleneded before adding it to a 3.0L Ford engine (sorry guys). Everything seems just fine with it, not sure if I should have added a little more or not it was a guess. I use a slight amount of oil, I want to see if this slows it down any, mpgs are up about 1/2 mpg, but that could just be static. The engine is running nicely!

AD

ADFD1 wrote:

I mixed in 10 CC of MoS2 to a quart of oil, about 1 month before an oil change and everytime I walked into the garage shook it up. Then bleneded before adding it to a 3.0L Ford engine (sorry guys). Everything seems just fine with it, not sure if I should have added a little more or not it was a guess. I use a slight amount of oil, I want to see if this slows it down any, mpgs are up about 1/2 mpg, but that could just be static. The engine is running nicely!

AD

out of curiosity, did you notice if/how much settling had occured each time you shook it?

Did you notice any change in the temp gauge?

A 3.0L is just small enough to notice the reduction in friction.

Don't think it will reduce oil consumption. Just reduce friction.

Aloicious wrote:

ADFD1 wrote:

I mixed in 10 CC of MoS2 to a quart of oil, about 1 month before an oil change and everytime I walked into the garage shook it up. Then bleneded before adding it to a 3.0L Ford engine (sorry guys). Everything seems just fine with it, not sure if I should have added a little more or not it was a guess. I use a slight amount of oil, I want to see if this slows it down any, mpgs are up about 1/2 mpg, but that could just be static. The engine is running nicely!

AD

out of curiosity, did you notice if/how much settling had occured each time you shook it?

It stays in suspension pretty good, and does a nice job of coating the insides of the bottle I put it in. My only question is was the 10 cc I mixed in enough? Sure seemed lilke a lot.

AD

Bent1 wrote:

Did you notice any change in the temp gauge?

A 3.0L is just small enough to notice the reduction in friction.

Don't think it will reduce oil consumption. Just reduce friction.

A few observations so far.

This engine always used some oil, I'd check the oil every 2 weeks, and add about 1 qt in a 3000 miles. Topping up with 1/2 qt about 1500 miles into the interval. That amount is now about 3500 miles, topping up with 1/2 qt at about 1800 miles or so. As far as the slight reduction in oil use goes, my thinking is this: If the product "plates" as we think it does it might be filling small imperfections that are allowing oil to be burnt. Again just thoughts, I'm new to adding this stuff.

The temp gauge is a factory electric as well as the OP gauge, and are both slightly lower. But we know those are nothing more than glorified idiot lights, but still I know their exact places and they are lower.

The engine runs well and a friend who drives it commented that it ran better. FWIW.
AD

Even though nothing more than an idiot gauge, it does show 'trends' and
good enough to show that the general temp has come down (trend).

I've noticed about 7*F drops in most all small displacement ICEs I've
treated with MoS2. Nothing on larger displacement and summarize
that it is lost in the noise

Me too...hoping enough plating to solve 'some' issue, but a stretch
and again, still hoping for that

I've also noticed that engine oil PSI is higher and holds longer after
turning it off on MoS2 treated ICEs (Nephew's 2007 Dodge CTD
confirms that and is the newest one in the family and friends treated)

-Ben

Bent1 wrote:

Even though nothing more than an idiot gauge, it does show 'trends' and
good enough to show that the general temp has come down (trend).

I've noticed about 7*F drops in most all small displacement ICEs I've
treated with MoS2. Nothing on larger displacement and summarize
that it is lost in the noise

Me too...hoping enough plating to solve 'some' issue, but a stretch
and again, still hoping for that

I've also noticed that engine oil PSI is higher and holds longer after
turning it off on MoS2 treated ICEs (Nephew's 2007 Dodge CTD
confirms that and is the newest one in the family and friends treated)

-Ben

even if the temp drops are not extreme, and the oil consumption in simmilar, it should all result in less friction which will prolong the life of the engine itself. I am hoping to be able to do some pre-post logging in accordance with the MoS2 addition to give a better idea of ECT temp changes with physical numbers rather than gauge guesses.