Waxing Chains?

On 26/11/16 22:33, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 15:35:05 +1100, James
wrote:

On 26/11/16 11:52, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 07:54:03 +1100, James
wrote:


"The TD5 Disco actually has 2 oil filters, a standard one as do all cars
and also a centrifugal one as well."

http://www.discovery2.co.uk/oil_change.html

I don't doubt it a bit. Nor did I ever imply that there were no such
thing.

I simply stated that is, in some 70 years of working on, using, simply
being around, internal combustion engines I had never seen one.
The implication was that, at least in the U.S., centrifugal oil
filters weren't exactly common.

For example, I was once in an electrical generating plant that had two
electrical powered, stand alone, centrifugal fuel filters filtering
all fuel that entered the plant. The 5 prime movers had simple
cartridge oil filters.



Whatever. I was only giving an example of one I had come across in
recent years. (Not on my vehicle.)

Out of curiosity was that model Land Rover very common? I had read
that the engine was not a German design and that Land Rover had some
sort of special agreement to allow them to use the design.


Beats me.

--
JS

considered Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:01:26 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 8:18:33 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
considered Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:58:46 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:33:14 AM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
https://www.google.com/#q=oil+centrifuge&tbm=shop

Err - those expensive devices are for cleaning WASTE oil and not that being used in a vehicle.

Err, read down the list a bit and you'll find a number that aren't,
but are for cars, vans and motorcycles.

These are expensive devices that clog very rapidly and have to be cleaned more often than filters are replaced. The very large one's that are used in trucks take this into account and are large enough not to cause excessive problems.

I drove 250 miles over the last three days with my Ford Torus almost entirely on the freeway AT THE SPEED LIMIT and made 35 mpg. Having a plastic oil sump on top of the engine where you can see when it needs replacing and flushing is as good as anything.

Really?
You didn't notice that Dnepr motorcycles had them fitted as standard
(as did some Honda models - the only example I've personally owned)?
The one on my CB200 only needed cleaning once in 15,000 miles, at a
time when typical motorcycle oil change intervals were somewhere
around 2,500 or 3,000 miles - and it was SMALLER than any actual
filter I've encountered on any other motorcycle!
As for expensive, they pay for themselves in reduced oil change needs.
If they were so expensive and bulky why are they standard on so many
vehicles? 5" diameter by 7" tall isn't exactly huge, in the context
of an engine bay (and that's for one good for 2-7.5L diesels - the one
on my Honda CB200 was under 40mm in both dimensions).
Even a whole retro-fit type kit can be had for under $400, good for
diesel engines from 2L upwards (but if you fit it to something over
7.5L, you may find you have to clean it out rather more frequently
than is really desirable, so a larger kit may be better). Maybe that
was your mistake when you claimed that they need cleaning more often
than filters are replaced? Fit the right size next time!
Kits are made for retrofit by several competing companies, so it's not
a small market.
And, BTW, a centrifugal system never "clogs" - it just stops removing
particles from the oil and passes it straight through. Screen type
filters clog, and additional means (pressure bypass valves) have to be
taken to avoid that clogged filter from blocking oil flow to the
engine components.
As the effectiveness of a centrifuge is reduced as the diameter is,
and sediment builds up on the outside, the reduced effective diameter
just gradually reduces the effectiveness of the centrifuge until it
doesn't remove anything from the oil which still flows straight
through it.
If you are mechanically minded, and can fabricate some parts (brackets
and hose fittings) yourself, adding one can pay for itself in under
20,000 miles just in reduced change intervals, never mind reduced
engine wear and increased resale value, and you reduce all that
horrible waste oil which needs to be carefully disposed of. Just
throw away the soot (and other miscellaneous crap), instead of the oil
that it would otherwise be suspended in.

John B Slocomb considered Sat, 26 Nov 2016
18:33:03 +0700 the perfect time to write:

On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 15:35:05 +1100, James
wrote:

On 26/11/16 11:52, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 07:54:03 +1100, James
wrote:

On 25/11/16 23:03, John B Slocomb wrote:


But I've worked around diesel engines ranging from little 1 cylinder
generators to 3,500 Hp prime movers, for a lot of years, and had/have
never seen a centrifugal oil filtering device.

"The TD5 Disco actually has 2 oil filters, a standard one as do all cars
and also a centrifugal one as well."

http://www.discovery2.co.uk/oil_change.html

I don't doubt it a bit. Nor did I ever imply that there were no such
thing.

I simply stated that is, in some 70 years of working on, using, simply
being around, internal combustion engines I had never seen one.
The implication was that, at least in the U.S., centrifugal oil
filters weren't exactly common.

For example, I was once in an electrical generating plant that had two
electrical powered, stand alone, centrifugal fuel filters filtering
all fuel that entered the plant. The 5 prime movers had simple
cartridge oil filters.



Whatever. I was only giving an example of one I had come across in
recent years. (Not on my vehicle.)

Out of curiosity was that model Land Rover very common? I had read
that the engine was not a German design and that Land Rover had some
sort of special agreement to allow them to use the design.

It's only about the most popular engine Land Rover have ever had -
it's been fitted to their Discovery and Defender models.
It was the last Land Rover designed and built engine, and was largely
responsible for their boom in sales!

On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 7:44:46 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
considered Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:01:26 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 8:18:33 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
considered Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:58:46 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:33:14 AM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
https://www.google.com/#q=oil+centrifuge&tbm=shop

Err - those expensive devices are for cleaning WASTE oil and not that being used in a vehicle.

Err, read down the list a bit and you'll find a number that aren't,
but are for cars, vans and motorcycles.

These are expensive devices that clog very rapidly and have to be cleaned more often than filters are replaced. The very large one's that are used in trucks take this into account and are large enough not to cause excessive problems.

I drove 250 miles over the last three days with my Ford Torus almost entirely on the freeway AT THE SPEED LIMIT and made 35 mpg. Having a plastic oil sump on top of the engine where you can see when it needs replacing and flushing is as good as anything.

Really?
You didn't notice that Dnepr motorcycles had them fitted as standard
(as did some Honda models - the only example I've personally owned)?
The one on my CB200 only needed cleaning once in 15,000 miles, at a
time when typical motorcycle oil change intervals were somewhere
around 2,500 or 3,000 miles - and it was SMALLER than any actual
filter I've encountered on any other motorcycle!
As for expensive, they pay for themselves in reduced oil change needs.
If they were so expensive and bulky why are they standard on so many
vehicles? 5" diameter by 7" tall isn't exactly huge, in the context
of an engine bay (and that's for one good for 2-7.5L diesels - the one
on my Honda CB200 was under 40mm in both dimensions).
Even a whole retro-fit type kit can be had for under $400, good for
diesel engines from 2L upwards (but if you fit it to something over
7.5L, you may find you have to clean it out rather more frequently
than is really desirable, so a larger kit may be better). Maybe that
was your mistake when you claimed that they need cleaning more often
than filters are replaced? Fit the right size next time!
Kits are made for retrofit by several competing companies, so it's not
a small market.
And, BTW, a centrifugal system never "clogs" - it just stops removing
particles from the oil and passes it straight through. Screen type
filters clog, and additional means (pressure bypass valves) have to be
taken to avoid that clogged filter from blocking oil flow to the
engine components.
As the effectiveness of a centrifuge is reduced as the diameter is,
and sediment builds up on the outside, the reduced effective diameter
just gradually reduces the effectiveness of the centrifuge until it
doesn't remove anything from the oil which still flows straight
through it.
If you are mechanically minded, and can fabricate some parts (brackets
and hose fittings) yourself, adding one can pay for itself in under
20,000 miles just in reduced change intervals, never mind reduced
engine wear and increased resale value, and you reduce all that
horrible waste oil which needs to be carefully disposed of. Just
throw away the soot (and other miscellaneous crap), instead of the oil
that it would otherwise be suspended in.

Perhaps you could show me where I said that any of this was unusual? It is far better than the older method of the oil sump and pump being located beneath the engine.

As for motorcycles - I know a bit about them. I raced semi-pro for Kawasaki.. I was a professional mechanic for the American Motorcycle Association. And I was the Safety Director for the American Federation of Motorcyclists.

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 12:27:19 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 7:44:46 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
considered Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:01:26 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 8:18:33 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
considered Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:58:46 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:33:14 AM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
https://www.google.com/#q=oil+centrifuge&tbm=shop

Err - those expensive devices are for cleaning WASTE oil and not that being used in a vehicle.

Err, read down the list a bit and you'll find a number that aren't,
but are for cars, vans and motorcycles.

These are expensive devices that clog very rapidly and have to be cleaned more often than filters are replaced. The very large one's that are used in trucks take this into account and are large enough not to cause excessive problems.

I drove 250 miles over the last three days with my Ford Torus almost entirely on the freeway AT THE SPEED LIMIT and made 35 mpg. Having a plastic oil sump on top of the engine where you can see when it needs replacing and flushing is as good as anything.

Really?
You didn't notice that Dnepr motorcycles had them fitted as standard
(as did some Honda models - the only example I've personally owned)?
The one on my CB200 only needed cleaning once in 15,000 miles, at a
time when typical motorcycle oil change intervals were somewhere
around 2,500 or 3,000 miles - and it was SMALLER than any actual
filter I've encountered on any other motorcycle!
As for expensive, they pay for themselves in reduced oil change needs.
If they were so expensive and bulky why are they standard on so many
vehicles? 5" diameter by 7" tall isn't exactly huge, in the context
of an engine bay (and that's for one good for 2-7.5L diesels - the one
on my Honda CB200 was under 40mm in both dimensions).
Even a whole retro-fit type kit can be had for under $400, good for
diesel engines from 2L upwards (but if you fit it to something over
7.5L, you may find you have to clean it out rather more frequently
than is really desirable, so a larger kit may be better). Maybe that
was your mistake when you claimed that they need cleaning more often
than filters are replaced? Fit the right size next time!
Kits are made for retrofit by several competing companies, so it's not
a small market.
And, BTW, a centrifugal system never "clogs" - it just stops removing
particles from the oil and passes it straight through. Screen type
filters clog, and additional means (pressure bypass valves) have to be
taken to avoid that clogged filter from blocking oil flow to the
engine components.
As the effectiveness of a centrifuge is reduced as the diameter is,
and sediment builds up on the outside, the reduced effective diameter
just gradually reduces the effectiveness of the centrifuge until it
doesn't remove anything from the oil which still flows straight
through it.
If you are mechanically minded, and can fabricate some parts (brackets
and hose fittings) yourself, adding one can pay for itself in under
20,000 miles just in reduced change intervals, never mind reduced
engine wear and increased resale value, and you reduce all that
horrible waste oil which needs to be carefully disposed of. Just
throw away the soot (and other miscellaneous crap), instead of the oil
that it would otherwise be suspended in.

Perhaps you could show me where I said that any of this was unusual? It is far better than the older method of the oil sump and pump being located beneath the engine.

As for motorcycles - I know a bit about them. I raced semi-pro for Kawasaki. I was a professional mechanic for the American Motorcycle Association. And I was the Safety Director for the American Federation of Motorcyclists.

Why not for the AMA, and what's the difference?

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 1:07:55 PM UTC-8, Doug Landau wrote:
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 12:27:19 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 7:44:46 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
considered Sat, 26 Nov 2016 11:01:26 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 8:18:33 PM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
considered Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:58:46 -0800 (PST)
the perfect time to write:

On Thursday, November 24, 2016 at 5:33:14 AM UTC-8, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
https://www.google.com/#q=oil+centrifuge&tbm=shop

Err - those expensive devices are for cleaning WASTE oil and not that being used in a vehicle.

Err, read down the list a bit and you'll find a number that aren't,
but are for cars, vans and motorcycles.

These are expensive devices that clog very rapidly and have to be cleaned more often than filters are replaced. The very large one's that are used in trucks take this into account and are large enough not to cause excessive problems.

I drove 250 miles over the last three days with my Ford Torus almost entirely on the freeway AT THE SPEED LIMIT and made 35 mpg. Having a plastic oil sump on top of the engine where you can see when it needs replacing and flushing is as good as anything.

Really?
You didn't notice that Dnepr motorcycles had them fitted as standard
(as did some Honda models - the only example I've personally owned)?
The one on my CB200 only needed cleaning once in 15,000 miles, at a
time when typical motorcycle oil change intervals were somewhere
around 2,500 or 3,000 miles - and it was SMALLER than any actual
filter I've encountered on any other motorcycle!
As for expensive, they pay for themselves in reduced oil change needs..
If they were so expensive and bulky why are they standard on so many
vehicles? 5" diameter by 7" tall isn't exactly huge, in the context
of an engine bay (and that's for one good for 2-7.5L diesels - the one
on my Honda CB200 was under 40mm in both dimensions).
Even a whole retro-fit type kit can be had for under $400, good for
diesel engines from 2L upwards (but if you fit it to something over
7.5L, you may find you have to clean it out rather more frequently
than is really desirable, so a larger kit may be better). Maybe that
was your mistake when you claimed that they need cleaning more often
than filters are replaced? Fit the right size next time!
Kits are made for retrofit by several competing companies, so it's not
a small market.
And, BTW, a centrifugal system never "clogs" - it just stops removing
particles from the oil and passes it straight through. Screen type
filters clog, and additional means (pressure bypass valves) have to be
taken to avoid that clogged filter from blocking oil flow to the
engine components.
As the effectiveness of a centrifuge is reduced as the diameter is,
and sediment builds up on the outside, the reduced effective diameter
just gradually reduces the effectiveness of the centrifuge until it
doesn't remove anything from the oil which still flows straight
through it.
If you are mechanically minded, and can fabricate some parts (brackets
and hose fittings) yourself, adding one can pay for itself in under
20,000 miles just in reduced change intervals, never mind reduced
engine wear and increased resale value, and you reduce all that
horrible waste oil which needs to be carefully disposed of. Just
throw away the soot (and other miscellaneous crap), instead of the oil
that it would otherwise be suspended in.

Perhaps you could show me where I said that any of this was unusual? It is far better than the older method of the oil sump and pump being located beneath the engine.

As for motorcycles - I know a bit about them. I raced semi-pro for Kawasaki. I was a professional mechanic for the American Motorcycle Association.. And I was the Safety Director for the American Federation of Motorcyclists.

Why not for the AMA, and what's the difference?

Doug - since you are unaware of what I'm talking about and it was 30 years ago let's forego this grilling that accomplishes nothing.

"James" wrote in message
news
On 22/11/16 04:46, Doug Landau wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 5:49:13 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 21/11/16 11:51, John B Slocomb wrote:

Does anyone have any statistics regarding the length of time paraffin
wax lasts as a chain lubricant? Either in miles/kilometers ridden,
days/months between lube jobs, or other statistics?

When I used to use wax I used to re-wax probably every two weeks or so
but wonder whether a more relaxed schedule might be sufficient?


I think it is pointless for different people to compare chain re-lubing
as a time based maintenance operation. While one person rides 500km
weekly, another might take a month to complete the same distance. The
wax doesn't fall off without the bike being used, so hours of use or
distance travelled is a far more appropriate yardstick.

Rain and other environmental conditions (e.g. dust) will affect chain
maintenance.

I live in a relatively dry and clean riding environment, though I
sometimes ride on dirt roads.

I haven't taken time to record when I perform maintenance on my chain
recently, but I know I spend less time and effort than I used to when I
used all wet lubricants.

My wax is a mixture of candle wax, gear oil and a blob of moly grease,
for good measure. It starts to soften at 30-40 degrees C.

At the moment I guess I ride 2-3000km between re-waxing. After a 1000km
or so the chain might start to sound a little dry. I find a very
sparing squirt of WD40 and wipe off the excess keeps the chain running
silently for another 1000km. My guess is that the WD40 softens the
remaining wax and turns it into grease and oil for a while.

I rode 100km yesterday after a little squirt of WD40. The chain ran
silent and smooth, but it's been a few months between re-waxing and
chain swapping, so I'll do that very soon.

Is this not going to accelerate wear by carrying grit down into the
chain?



Maybe, maybe not. Depends how clean or dirty the rollers of the chain are
I guess. Mine stay very clean.

There's at least a couple of motorcycle chain oilers that work on the
principle that slow but steady oil loss from the chain carries away dirt and
grit.

Wax tends to retain grit, but if it gets dried out, it can crumble and fall
off - hopefully taking some grit with it.

IME: Wax isn't an easy route to longer maintenance periods.