Originally Posted by
Kontact
Are you on crack? Squirt is what all normal people call a "wax", in that it is a solid at room temperature. But Squirt dispenses in liquid form because the wax is suspended in a carrier that dries leaving a solid film behind.
You are tedious. I never said Squirt isn’t wax. Of course it is wax. But the wax part isn’t what “dries”, however. The carrier is the part that dries as it does in other solvent based wax. You seem to understand the difference between “solid” and dry.
And before you try to play your stupid "I'm a chemist" card
We’ll get back to this is a sec.
, here's what Squirt says. So you can argue with them:
"Squirt is biodegradable and contains selected waxes performing different functions in a creamy emulsion. It runs at very low resistance (VeloNews, Hunting for Speed, pdf, Feb 2014): “Fastest drip lube we have ever tested” When applied to the chain it dries, leaving a microfilm of wax that is dry and water repelling."
And here I thought you had made so much progress. “…It dries” is referring to the carrier. And “…is dry…” is in contrast to an oil that is wet to the touch. It is still a “hard” wax.
On a side note, I doubt the “water repelling” bit. The carrier evaporates but the emulsifier is still there and any additional water is going to reactivate the emulsifier.
But before you were claiming that bond was a word that only referred to chemical bonds. You aren't even consistent in your lunacy.
It is amazing that something that comes off with the "slightest pressure" provides lubrication for hundreds of miles.
Adhesives form chemical bonds. Wax isn’t anything like a chemical bond. You obviously don’t know the difference. My point was to illustrate that the wax
on the outside of the chain flakes off because it isn’t bonded to the chain. The wax on the inside flakes off as well but it has no where to go. The wax still isn’t bonded to the chain.
And before you try to play your stupid "I'm a chemist" card
This is the second time in this thread you have called me stupid. I
am a chemist. I studied long and hard to understand the principles of chemistry and then went on to do almost 40 years of chemical research. I am a damned good chemist and know a lot about the subject. I try to share my knowledge with people who don’t understand chemistry and/or know nothing about the subject. If you want to discuss something about chemicals, you ask a chemist. Do you know what “emulsion’ means? Do you have any idea of how you would emulsify a water insoluble material like wax? I can’t tell you the details of how to do it but I can tell you the broad strokes of how they do it. It’s not simple.
Now, how about you tell me what
your profession is so that I can call it “stupid”? I know it isn’t bike mechanics because you said you had to leave that job because it didn’t pay.
Do you think anyone on this forum doesn't see your insults, broken spokes and long, tiresome pseudoscience posts as anything but the rantings of an attention seeker who has little practical information about fixing bikes?
Well about the only person I insult is the one who insults me. Calling me stupid is an insult. As to the pseudoscience, hows that measuring of wax melting due to friction that doesn’t exist in the chain going?
As to “attention seeking”, I don’t care if you read what I post or not…I thought I was on your ignore list…lots of people would disagree with you on how practical my information is.