"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in
news:Xrydnd4fSfms_lHenZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@sedona.net:

> "T L via CarKB.com" <u10197@uwe> wrote in message
> news:5a78a8d97c785@uwe...
>> Another question, as its been forever since my last chemistry class.
>> How would one lengthen the hydrocarbon chain of a shortened oil
>> molecule? add carbon?
>>
> Superglue?
>
>
>


Reeeeally tiny bolts and nuts?

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns974DE1CAD30A5tegger@207.14.113.17...
> "Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
> news:01Zyf.479$rH5.458@newsread2.news.atl.earthlin k.net:
> > "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
> > news:Xns974DD93C02D97tegger@207.14.113.17...
> >> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
> >> news:CL-dnd2ubp51o1HenZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
> >> > TeGGeR® wrote:
> >> >> "Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in
> >> >> news:xQLyf.41$rH5.32@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink. net:
> > <snip>
> >>
> >> Did you know that for every 100 tons of recycled paper fibers you get
> >> 40 tons of unusable sludge? It gets landfilled or incinerated. No
> >> good for anything else.
> >
> > i have a re-useable coffe cup (i.e. hard ceramic like thing) that
> > claims to be made from recycled paper ?
>
> Got a brand name or any other kind of ID on it?
>
> I'd suspect they're using the paper fiber as a filler and using acrylic
> resin as the binder. Much like a "cultured marble" sink.
>
Recycled Paper Products (c)
is the only ID type wording i can find on bottom

 

"TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns974DE3660F09Ctegger@207.14.113.17...
> "karl" <ottokarl@cognisurf.com> wrote in
> news:1137466905.980022.223790@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com:
>
> >> Date: Mon, Jan 16 2006 7:34 pm
> >> From: "TeGGeR®"
> >>
> >> "karl" <ottok...@cognisurf.com> wrote in
> >> news:1137448088.220071.136010@
> >> g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > It surely is most interesting - to make synthetic
> >> > from recycling used oil.
> >>
> >> The fact that no one appears to be doing it should
> >> suggest something to you.
> >
> > There is a misconception, more clearly expressed in the
> > message dated Jan 16, 7:18 pm: no matter how much is
> > spent on cleaning "used" oil it is not possible to make
> > synthetic out of it. This "interesting idea" is useless
> > because it doesn't work.
>
> Guess it would if you took each molecule apart into its constituent atoms,
> and then reassembled them into the molecules you wanted, no?
>
> But even if you could, what would be the point?
>

well isn't that the process of making a synthetic in the simplest laymen
terms

breaking apart oil polymer/molecules (cracking) and then re-assemble
according to some desired/engineered characteristic.

and the point of such a venture... to produce a stable oil with many of the
characteristics engineered into the oil so that the synth does not suffer
problems as the dino coctails do

things such as viscocity stability w/o viscocity improver additives, then
high thermal stability and strength where synth oil does not break down
(shear) as quickly as dino oil which adds to extended oil life and then
there is the adhesion properties and bla bla bla

that is if you believe the pretty brochures produced by synthetic oil
companies.

 

"Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in message
news:XP_yf.885$vU2.344@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
>
> "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns974DE3660F09Ctegger@207.14.113.17...
>> "karl" <ottokarl@cognisurf.com> wrote in
>> news:1137466905.980022.223790@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com:
>>
>> >> Date: Mon, Jan 16 2006 7:34 pm
>> >> From: "TeGGeR®"
>> >>
>> >> "karl" <ottok...@cognisurf.com> wrote in
>> >> news:1137448088.220071.136010@
>> >> g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>> >>
>> >> > It surely is most interesting - to make synthetic
>> >> > from recycling used oil.
>> >>
>> >> The fact that no one appears to be doing it should
>> >> suggest something to you.
>> >
>> > There is a misconception, more clearly expressed in the
>> > message dated Jan 16, 7:18 pm: no matter how much is
>> > spent on cleaning "used" oil it is not possible to make
>> > synthetic out of it. This "interesting idea" is useless
>> > because it doesn't work.
>>
>> Guess it would if you took each molecule apart into its constituent
>> atoms,
>> and then reassembled them into the molecules you wanted, no?
>>
>> But even if you could, what would be the point?
>>
>
> well isn't that the process of making a synthetic in the simplest laymen
> terms
>
> breaking apart oil polymer/molecules (cracking) and then re-assemble
> according to some desired/engineered characteristic.
>
PAO synthetic oil base stock is made from a hydrocarbon gas so no cracking
is necessary. Short chains are reassembled to make the desired long chains
which meet the engineer's reqirements. No annoying wax, asphalt or other goo
that is difficult to remove from the refined petroleum lubricant base stock.
Additives are mixed with this base stock to meet SAE reqirements. I'm
guessing the largest manufacturing expense is package design and
advertising. Amoco Ultimate synthetic used to sell at K-Mart for like a buck
a quart when purchased by the case. Most consumers were not aware of this
product because neither company chose to advertise and the label was flat
black. Amoco is gone now and K-Mart is close behind. Advertising drives the
market, not technology.

 

"Enrico Fermi" <none@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Tx5zf.4826$1J1.4072@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in message
> news:XP_yf.885$vU2.344@newsread3.news.atl.earthlin k.net...
> >
> > "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
> > news:Xns974DE3660F09Ctegger@207.14.113.17...
> >> "karl" <ottokarl@cognisurf.com> wrote in
> >> news:1137466905.980022.223790@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com:
> >>
> >> >> Date: Mon, Jan 16 2006 7:34 pm
> >> >> From: "TeGGeR®"
> >> >>
> >> >> "karl" <ottok...@cognisurf.com> wrote in
> >> >> news:1137448088.220071.136010@
> >> >> g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >> >>
> >> >> > It surely is most interesting - to make synthetic
> >> >> > from recycling used oil.
> >> >>
> >> >> The fact that no one appears to be doing it should
> >> >> suggest something to you.
> >> >
> >> > There is a misconception, more clearly expressed in the
> >> > message dated Jan 16, 7:18 pm: no matter how much is
> >> > spent on cleaning "used" oil it is not possible to make
> >> > synthetic out of it. This "interesting idea" is useless
> >> > because it doesn't work.
> >>
> >> Guess it would if you took each molecule apart into its constituent
> >> atoms,
> >> and then reassembled them into the molecules you wanted, no?
> >>
> >> But even if you could, what would be the point?
> >>
> >
> > well isn't that the process of making a synthetic in the simplest
laymen
> > terms
> >
> > breaking apart oil polymer/molecules (cracking) and then re-assemble
> > according to some desired/engineered characteristic.
> >
> PAO synthetic oil base stock is made from a hydrocarbon gas so no cracking
> is necessary. Short chains are reassembled to make the desired long chains
> which meet the engineer's reqirements. No annoying wax, asphalt or other
goo
> that is difficult to remove from the refined petroleum lubricant base
stock.
> Additives are mixed with this base stock to meet SAE reqirements. I'm
> guessing the largest manufacturing expense is package design and
> advertising. Amoco Ultimate synthetic used to sell at K-Mart for like a
buck
> a quart when purchased by the case. Most consumers were not aware of this
> product because neither company chose to advertise and the label was flat
> black. Amoco is gone now and K-Mart is close behind. Advertising drives
the
> market, not technology.
>

great! i knew an expert would show up and give some good info

i am weary of web searches more garbage and non-info than useful stuff

so there is no synthetic process that uses or alters some base stock oils ?
is it possible to use base oils (cracking into the short chains you mention)
?

can short chains be more easily derived from used oil as per re-refining
used motor oils ?

do you happen to know if there is some standards on synthetic labeling ? as
someone claimed that walmart synthetic is mfg from re-cycled oil by
SafetyCleen .

of course if you have links to this info then i could go do the work

thanks for info
robb

 

<<As for synthentic oil, dirt still gets in and churns around just like
with ordinary oil so I believe it should be changed just as frequently
so why pay more for it?>>

Because it makes a difference in extremely cold climates?

I became a believer in synthetic about 18 years ago. A group of us
were on a winter camping trip. It was 25 degrees below zero (minus 75
with wind chill). We had six vehicles at the site. In the morning,
one by one we tried to start them. The first 5 vehicles failed to
start (they could barely crank). The guy who owned the 6th vehicle
was sitting on a picnic bench watching with a smile on his face. When
it came his turn, he put the key in, turned it, the engine cranked very
rapidly and started. Everybody wanted to know what the heck he did to
his car. The answer was Mobil 1.

The following winter I had two vehicles, one of which had Mobil 1 and
the other not. Both vehicles happened to be parked outside one night
when the temperature got down to minus 22. The next morning I went to
start the non-Mobil1-vehicle and it did start, but it made the most
spine-chilling screaming and metallic scraping noise. I figured that
was good for about 100,000 miles of engine wear right there. I shut it
off and started the Mobil1 vehicle. It cranked rapidly and started
right up with no unusual behavior.

I know these stories are anecdotal but that has been my experience.
Now I use Mobil1 in all my vehicles in the winter. I also use Mobil1
in my air-cooled lawn tractor, which has only a splash lube system,
because I tend to abuse it (cutting tall brush to clear trails). My
understanding is that synthetic has better extreme high temperature
behavior (maintains viscosity better and doesn't chemically break
down).

EJ

 

Rob B wrote:
> do you happen to know if there is some standards on synthetic labeling ? as
> someone claimed that walmart synthetic is mfg from re-cycled oil by
> SafetyCleen .

which i think is BS, like wendy's making hamburgers from worms. the
safetykleen website makes no mention of it being an oil producer.

 

SoCalMike wrote:
> pars wrote:
> > $8/quart), I've since switched to Mobel-1 0w40 (instead of 5w30),
>
> is that the stuff that had a red cap, now its yellow? is it labelled
> "energy conserving", aka: has the starburst symbol?

Can't remember. I just did an oil change and decide to switch to 0w30
instead of 0w40 because of the winter. In spring, I'll switch back to
the 0w40. The 0w30 has a black cap, but I don't recall any red caps for
the 0w40.

I'll have to take a closer look at the bottle on my next oil change for
the starburst symbol. From the bottle, the 0w40 was recommended for
european cars and the 0w30 for high efficiency.

Pars

 

SoCalMike wrote:
> pars wrote:
> > $8/quart), I've since switched to Mobel-1 0w40 (instead of 5w30),
>
> is that the stuff that had a red cap, now its yellow? is it labelled
> "energy conserving", aka: has the starburst symbol?

Can't remember. I just did an oil change and decide to switch to 0w30
instead of 0w40 because of the winter. In spring, I'll switch back to
the 0w40. The 0w30 has a black cap, but I don't recall any red caps for
the 0w40.

I'll have to take a closer look at the bottle on my next oil change for
the starburst symbol. From the bottle, the 0w40 was recommended for
european cars and the 0w30 for high efficiency.

Pars

 

SoCalMike <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:N6KdnU-f1t-cTVDeRVn-rQ@comcast.com:

> Rob B wrote:
>> do you happen to know if there is some standards on synthetic
>> labeling ? as someone claimed that walmart synthetic is mfg from
>> re-cycled oil by SafetyCleen .
>
> which i think is BS, like wendy's making hamburgers from worms. the
> safetykleen website makes no mention of it being an oil producer.
>


But they do have REFINERIES. The site mentions that fact.
<http://www.safetykleen.com/skcda/views/pages/channel/home.do;jsessionid=DO8dT7YEsulFUGuZEqiKFctYdRX5EoT qKz6uhm0S2Y5fPB7VjDWe!1462935964?channel=e748b71d>

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

TeGGeR® wrote:
> SoCalMike <Mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:N6KdnU-f1t-cTVDeRVn-rQ@comcast.com:
>
>> Rob B wrote:
>>> do you happen to know if there is some standards on synthetic
>>> labeling ? as someone claimed that walmart synthetic is mfg from
>>> re-cycled oil by SafetyCleen .
>> which i think is BS, like wendy's making hamburgers from worms. the
>> safetykleen website makes no mention of it being an oil producer.
>>
>
>
> But they do have REFINERIES. The site mentions that fact.
> <http://www.safetykleen.com/skcda/views/pages/channel/home.do;jsessionid=DO8dT7YEsulFUGuZEqiKFctYdRX5EoT qKz6uhm0S2Y5fPB7VjDWe!1462935964?channel=e748b71d>
>


interesting. yet, they dont list the finished product under "products".

 

"Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in message
news:grZxf.7917$%W1.5737@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>i switched from penzoil to castrol GTX to (mobil 1 + mobil 5000 blend)
>
> now it seems to burn more oil or leak more (maybe not related) but
> wondering
> what oil you high mileage civic DIYrs are using ?
>
> robb
>
>
>

My line of thinking is, if you change the oil, oil filter, and air filter at
the recommended intervals, you should be fine. My previous car, an 88
Maxima SE, had 170K miles, never burned oil, never leaked any and never
required any in between changes. It was changed about every 4K to 5K miles.

My current car, an 04 Accord EX, Honda recommends changing every 10K miles.
I change mine every 5K. I currently have 68K miles on it, still going
strong and hope to keep it that way.

 

"MinnPinn" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
newswlAf.966$jO3.312@trnddc07...
> "Rob B" <RobB@where.on.net> wrote in message
> news:grZxf.7917$%W1.5737@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> >i switched from penzoil to castrol GTX to (mobil 1 + mobil 5000 blend)
> >
> > now it seems to burn more oil or leak more (maybe not related) but
> > wondering
> > what oil you high mileage civic DIYrs are using ?
> >
> > robb
>
> My line of thinking is, if you change the oil, oil filter, and air filter
at
> the recommended intervals, you should be fine. My previous car, an 88
> Maxima SE, had 170K miles, never burned oil, never leaked any and never
> required any in between changes. It was changed about every 4K to 5K
miles.
>
> My current car, an 04 Accord EX, Honda recommends changing every 10K
miles.
> I change mine every 5K. I currently have 68K miles on it, still going
> strong and hope to keep it that way.
>

That seems to be a prevailing consensus, properly changed dino oil and will
keep the car going well into high mileage and i tend to agree

since my car is at 200K though and burning/loosing about 1/2 qt between
changes and the oil comes out looking like liquid charcoal... i wonder if i
need to do something extra special to counter the wear/tear that apparently
has occured

i want to keep it going another 100k hopefully without major engine
overhaul.

thanks for feedback
robb

 

Did you say what the condition of your PCV valve is?

If it's the original PCV valve, I would do the pinch test
(with a cloth wrapped around the tube to the valve, pinch
the tube shut. Listen at least 30 seconds for a click,
indicating the valve is working at least somewhat). This
will serve as a kind of benchmark. Still, even if it passes
this test, I'd replace the valve. Twenty bucks or so. Buy
only an OEM one.

Rob B. wrote:
> since my car is at 200K though and burning/loosing about
1/2 qt between
> changes and the oil comes out looking like liquid
charcoal... i wonder if i
> need to do something extra special to counter the
wear/tear that apparently
> has occured
>
> i want to keep it going another 100k hopefully without
major engine
> overhaul.

 

> Date: Tues, Jan 17 2006 3:19 am
> From: "TeGGeR®"
>
> > Date: Mon, Jan 16 2006 7:01 pm
> > From: "karl"
> >
> >> Date: Mon, Jan 16 2006 7:34 pm
> >> From: "TeGGeR®"
> >>
> >> "karl" <ottok...@cognisurf.com> wrote in
> >> news:1137448088.220071.136010@
> >> g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > It surely is most interesting - to make synthetic
> >> > from recycling used oil.
> >>
> >> The fact that no one appears to be doing it should
> >> suggest something to you.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is a misconception, more clearly expressed in
> > TeGGeR's message dated Tues, Jan 17 2006 12:18 am: no
> > matter how much is spent on cleaning "used" oil it is
> > not possible to make synthetic out of it. This
> > "interesting idea" is useless because it doesn't work.
>
>
>
>
> Guess it would if you took each molecule apart into its constituent atoms,
> and then reassembled them into the molecules you wanted, no?
>
> But even if you could, what would be the point?



This doesn't make sense: It was TeGGeR who argued that
making "synthetic" from waste oil doesn't work BECAUSE
OF THE HIGH COSTS OF CLEANING IT. Cleaning used oil, I
responded, doesn't make synthetic oil. On the other
hand, I believe it is economical to make motor oil by
"rerefining" used oil. And if the used oil were ONLY
synthetic then the "rerefined" oil would be synthetic oil.


..