On 11/19/2018 11:54 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 23:34:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/19/2018 6:50 PM, John B. slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 08:52:17 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 4:57:31 PM UTC-8, John B. slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 16:18:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Sunday, November 18, 2018 at 4:02:50 PM UTC-8, John B. slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 10:35:49 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Saturday, November 17, 2018 at 3:40:25 PM UTC-8, John B. slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 12:25:25 -0800, sms
wrote:

On 11/15/2018 1:25 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I missed the part that referred back to your original suggestion of
using Dow Molykote D-321 R Dry Film lubricant. However, I prefer to
debate the current point of contention: Will a solvent carrier
transport grease into a chain link (without boiling in oil or pressure
injection)?

Yes. That's how commercial chain lubricants are formulated. The solvent
carrier carries the lubricant onto the pins and rollers.

"PJ1 Black Label is designed for standard non-”O”ring chains. PJ1 Black
Label has a foaming action that penetrates pins and rollers as well as
lubricating the rollers, sprocket and side plates. After penetrating the
inside of the chain, PJ1 Black Label chain lube becomes a sticky
lubricant that bounces back or has a “memory” effect that withstands the
continual mechanical stress of the chain."

For a very thick solid lubricant like wax, it has to be thinned by
heating to penetrate. It now appears that people that use wax also add
oil to the mixture because wax alone doesn't last very long. Perhaps in
the future they'll decide that the oil alone is sufficient. But probably
not. Tradition. It's like people that still change their car's oil every
3000 miles. It's just not possible to make them understand that it does
not provide any advantage. It's called "recreational oil changing" just
as waxing a chain is called "recreational chain waxing."

I remember you mentioning this "foaming action" several times before,
but I am wondering exactly how this "foaming action" forces oil
through the narrow passageway between the side plates. After all we
are talking about a passageway that is very narrow with ambient
pressure on one side and The Lord only knows what pressure on the
other. What contains the tiny little bubbles in the foam that allows
them to apply sufficient pressure to force themselves down into the
dark and dismal depths of the chain?

After all when a glass of beer is served with a head of foam the foam
doesn't seem to exert sufficient pressure to force itself down into
the beer, quite the opposite in fact, the foam seems to rise to the
top.

I might also comment that, in the gas and oil industry, producers
spend considerable time and effort to de-gas, i.e. remove the foam,
from oil before forcing it down a pipeline.

As an aside, can you provide any reference from a reliable source that
describes using a wax as a chain lube as being "recreational chain
waxing"?

After all Frank provided a reference from a source that seems to be
the "last word" in measuring friction losses in the bicycle world that
stated that the lowest losses were from using a wax lubricated chain,
that described in detain how the test was made.
cheers,

John B.

John, the popping of the bubbles that compose the foam puts a pressure inside the foam where it contacts the rollers. I'm not one to have a great deal of faith in this but it does appear to be plenty of lube everywhere including your chainstay and everyone within a yard of the operation.

I'm not sure that this explanation is valid in that a bubble contains
pressure inside the bubble but can only apply pressure outside the
bubble if it is contained in some manner. Think of a balloon. Blow it
up and then it simply floats around bumping into things and doesn't
penetrate a bit. Or, as in my original post, bubbles in a glass of
beer... or for those in an upper financial bracket, bubbles in a glass
of champagne.



The best I've used is Rock and Roll. This contains a Teflon lubricant
in a solvent. You roll the chain and liberally spray the stuff on the
chain/rear cassette for several revolutions of the chain. The solvent
washes off the dirt and old lubricant. You then use a cloth to wipe as
much of the chain dry as possible and then allow the chain to dry
overnight. The Teflon penetrates between the rollers and the solvent
evaporates overnight. So you have a clean chain that actually does
have lubrication that you can actually feel and it is dry so the chain
doesn't pick up dirt or leave muck on the chain rings and cogs. Of
course this stuff is as expensive as gold and you have to use it
fairly often to clean everything.

Amazon has R&R Gold for $6.66 for 4 oz.
cheers,

John B.

John, you don't seem to have the engineering concept. A lubricant bubble doesn't "bounce" off of anything. If the chain is dry each bubble progressive pops and wets and area. The next bubble floats along this lubricated surface until it in turn reaches an unlubricated surface etc. The bubbles are similar to your balloon idea save they have a very weak surface tension which is disturbed by anything other than the lubricant itself.

Fine, I can agree with that but the idea that bubbles, for some
reason, aid in forcing the lubricant into cracks and crevices is, at
least in the descriptions offered to date, seems to be a factor of
advertising not reality.



Only about one part in eight of Rock and Roll is Teflon (the actual lubricant). A four ounce bottle is good for at the most, two application of a clean chain or one of a dirty one. I'd say that makes it expensive, wouldn't you?

Gee, I don't know. In a previous post I offered the suggestion that
cyclists probably shouldn't talk about prices and quoted TREK's prices
to their top road and mountain bikes - $12,000 and $9,000 if I
remember. And certainly TREK wouldn't be making them if they couldn't
sell them.

$6.66 on a $12,000 bicycle sounds like chicken feed.

cheers,

John B.

John, how much have you paid for chain lube over the last year? I bought the 16 ounce bottle of Rock and Roll two years ago.

Over the last year? Nothing!

You see, I've been using hot wax for about 4 years now and while, yes,
I bought some blocks of wax 4 years ago, or about that, I haven't
spent a penny since.

I paid twice as much as I should for chain wax.

See, I bought a box of canning paraffin wax many, many years ago -
probably decades ago, really. I used about half of it to mix up the
concoction I used at the time. (I forget whether that one had a bit of
motor oil or a bit of gear lube, but it doesn't matter.)

When I saw my supply was finally getting low, I bought another pound of
canning wax. Gulfwax brand, $4.29 says the price tag still on the box.
But I procrastinated making the new batch, then I forgot I bought that
box. I bought another one. $4.29 down the drain!

Finally, rummaging around elsewhere, I found the half pound from the
purchase years ago. The cardboard box it came in is rotted, but the wax
looks fine. So really, that's $8.58 down the drain in - what? - just ten
years or so!


Ah but you are forgetting the LPG or CNG that you burn in your
blowtorch to heat the chain :-)

You're right! Damn, this may be costing me as much as a dollar per year!
:-(



--
- Frank Krygowski