Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Bicycle Mechanics
Reload this Page >

Chain wax experiment

Notices
Bicycle Mechanics Broken bottom bracket? Tacoed wheel? If you're having problems with your bicycle, or just need help fixing a flat, drop in here for the latest on bicycle mechanics & bicycle maintenance.

Chain wax experiment

Old 06-07-18, 04:15 PM
  #51  
Occam's Rotor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
For me, the main advantage of wax is the absence of grit and sand adhering to the drivetrain surfaces. As a consequence, the drivetrain is quieter and feels much smoother. This is particularly important, as about 1/3 of my riding is off-road, under very dusty and gritty conditions that previously necessitated frequent deep cleaning of the drivetrain, and frequent replacement of chains, cassettes and even chainrings.
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 06-07-18, 04:22 PM
  #52  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,051
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3704 Post(s)
Liked 1,030 Times in 687 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
Again we'll agree to disagree on the noise. I'm not the only one who can't stand it, and this is the internet. The point of posting the friction chart wasn't to argue about differences in the watt savings. It was to dispute your point that once the solvent evaporates, that the leftover wax is the same. It clearly isn't. Its also correlated with wax percentage. Since you're a chemist and I'm a chemical engineer, then would you know that water and oil don't mix without a detergent present since they are immiscible. You would also know that oils with a strong film strength and viscosity stick to the metal under the relatively low shear stress applied at the outer interface of the plates and rollers. Since the lubricant is hydrophobic there is no reason for the water to magically ingress to the inner roller via capillary action. Solid waxes do not provide this protection so water still gets into the roller and between the plates.
Does all the wax remain solid under drivetrain forces, or is it constantly melting and solidifying at summer temps?
Kontact is offline  
Old 06-07-18, 04:30 PM
  #53  
Occam's Rotor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
The wax almost certainly liquifies slightly under drivetrain forces, which is probably why it works.

(Disclaimer: I too am a chemist, but this isn't my area of expertise.)
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 06-07-18, 04:37 PM
  #54  
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 8,553

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn, Lakitu

Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4905 Post(s)
Liked 1,731 Times in 958 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
Does all the wax remain solid under drivetrain forces, or is it constantly melting and solidifying at summer temps?
Paraffin begins to melt at 99F, so I guess it would. I've measured ground temps in excess of 160 in the SoCal summer, so it's certainly possible.

That said, my application interval is the same year-round, so it would not seem that temperature makes any difference empirically.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 06-07-18, 05:01 PM
  #55  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,764
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1975 Post(s)
Liked 232 Times in 173 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
Does all the wax remain solid under drivetrain forces, or is it constantly melting and solidifying at summer temps?
I've never seen the residual wax on the outside of the chain melt regardles of outside temps, but as hypothesized above, likely at least some is melting and resolidfying at the pin/plate interface as it bends around the chainring and cogs. Still not likely to cause any significant migration of contaminants I would guess.
redlude97 is offline  
Old 06-07-18, 05:24 PM
  #56  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,051
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3704 Post(s)
Liked 1,030 Times in 687 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
I've never seen the residual wax on the outside of the chain melt regardles of outside temps, but as hypothesized above, likely at least some is melting and resolidfying at the pin/plate interface as it bends around the chainring and cogs. Still not likely to cause any significant migration of contaminants I would guess.
I'm just pointing out that wax probably acts a lot like grease does releasing oil in the areas of highest friction - down inside the pins - and that likely means that it gets redistributed and pushes out contaminants to an extent that something constantly solid would not.

One of the reasons wax is such a low friction lubricant is because it is very low viscosity when melted - probably much lower viscosity than 5W-30 would be at 100C. It only needs to "flash melt" to liquid when needed. Melting points and viscosity aren't related.


I am not a chemist.

Last edited by Kontact; 06-07-18 at 05:34 PM.
Kontact is offline  
Old 06-07-18, 08:04 PM
  #57  
Occam's Rotor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
Melting points and viscosity aren't related.

I am not a chemist.
O/T:

I hope you won't mind me correcting this. The two are both determined, in large part, by the same sort of inter-molecular interactions, so the melting point, boiling point, and viscosity all trend in the same way.

I found this link, which has a table that shows the trend for some simple organic molecules:
chemistry -organic molecules-trends in boiling temp, viscosity and flash point
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 06-07-18, 08:13 PM
  #58  
Senior Member
 
wingless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Florida
Posts: 343

Bikes: 2011 Trek 1.2 + 2016 Trek 1.1 H2

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 16 Posts
These images show my freshly-waxed chain, before and after flexing the stiff links for free movement, after being waxed in my modified wax warmer.

The only secondary operation I need to perform is to scrape wax away on the quick-connect link, to permit proper operation / engagement.




wingless is offline  
Old 06-07-18, 08:17 PM
  #59  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,051
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3704 Post(s)
Liked 1,030 Times in 687 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
O/T:

I hope you won't mind me correcting this. The two are both determined, in large part, by the same sort of inter-molecular interactions, so the melting point, boiling point, and viscosity all trend in the same way.

I found this link, which has a table that shows the trend for some simple organic molecules:
chemistry -organic molecules-trends in boiling temp, viscosity and flash point
Olive has a lower melting point than coconut oil, but is more viscous at the same liquid temperatures. It might not be that way when all the substances are a single type of molecule, but most oils have additives that modify viscosity.
Kontact is offline  
Old 06-07-18, 10:09 PM
  #60  
Occam's Rotor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Coconut oil is mainly Lauric acid, a fully saturated fatty acid, whereas the fatty acids in olive oil are mainly mono or polyunsaturated, and longer chain, so I think that might be why they are more viscous. Similarly, butter is solid at room temperature, but quite runny when you melt it, presumably because of the saturated fat. Paraffin is even more extreme in that sense, because it is just a linear chain of about 20 fully hydrogenated carbon atoms, without a polar or charged head group like a fatty acid. (That is also why olive oil gets rancid, coconut oil is more stable, and candle wax can last for centuries without rotting. Most petroleum based oils are more like that than are fatty acids.)
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 01:04 AM
  #61  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,051
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3704 Post(s)
Liked 1,030 Times in 687 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
Coconut oil is mainly Lauric acid, a fully saturated fatty acid, whereas the fatty acids in olive oil are mainly mono or polyunsaturated, and longer chain, so I think that might be why they are more viscous. Similarly, butter is solid at room temperature, but quite runny when you melt it, presumably because of the saturated fat. Paraffin is even more extreme in that sense, because it is just a linear chain of about 20 fully hydrogenated carbon atoms, without a polar or charged head group like a fatty acid. (That is also why olive oil gets rancid, coconut oil is more stable, and candle wax can last for centuries without rotting. Most petroleum based oils are more like that than are fatty acids.)
Does that mean that you agree that viscosity is not directly connected to melting point, or disagree?
Kontact is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 03:42 AM
  #62  
Occam's Rotor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
Does that mean that you agree that viscosity is not directly connected to melting point, or disagree?
No.

Both melting point and viscosity typically correlate to the strength of intermolecular interactions (hydrogen bonding, ionic interactions, hydrophobic effect, van der Waals interactions, dipole-dipole interactions, induced dipole interactions, solubility in aqueous solvents, etc).

It is a trend, not an absolute law of physics. (It is the net result of many different, and sometimes competing physical effects that are governed by relatively simple laws of physics.)

I gave you a link with a table of simple organic compounds that illustrated the trend.

You gave a counter-example (one I was unaware of), and I did my best to explain it without getting too technical.

Perhaps I made a mistake in assuming you were more interested in an explanation rather than playing internet games.

If you actually care: Fats and cooking oils are generally mixtures of rather complex molecules, so there are many factors (presence of double bonds, cis vs. trans double bonds in fatty acid chains, intra- and inter-molecular pi-electron interactions and delocalization, potential for aromatic stabilization and aromatic stacking interactions, polar vs. ionic head groups, miscibility with water, etc) that will influence viscosity and melting points, compared to typically much more simple mixtures, or sometimes single compounds (eg, paraffin).

If you just want to argue pointlessly on the internet: The cooking oil example is really irrelevant to the topic of the thread, unless you think it might be a good idea to lubricate your chain with something like olive oil. At least instead of having to guess when to clean and re-lube from the squeaking, you could just go by how rancid your chain smells.

Last edited by Cyclist0108; 06-08-18 at 03:51 AM.
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 08:03 AM
  #63  
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 26,963

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5946 Post(s)
Liked 3,777 Times in 2,172 Posts
Originally Posted by redlude97
The point of posting the friction chart wasn't to argue about differences in the watt savings. It was to dispute your point that once the solvent evaporates, that the leftover wax is the same. ​​​​​It clearly isn't. Its also correlated with wax percentage.
While I'll agree that the two wax based lubricants aren't the same, there is nothing on that chart that indicates nor correlates to a higher wax percentage. We know nothing about the components of the mixtures other than they contain "wax". They could also contain other substances that could account for the differences in the lubricity. The chart tells us nothing other than one wax lubricant is marginally slicker than the other which would fit with having different components in the mixture.

You'd have to show me a concentration measurement of the two lubricants before I would accept that one leaves more wax than the other one.

Originally Posted by redlude97
Since you're a chemist and I'm a chemical engineer, then would you know that water and oil don't mix without a detergent present since they are immiscible. You would also know that oils with a strong film strength and viscosity stick to the metal under the relatively low shear stress applied at the outer interface of the plates and rollers. Since the lubricant is hydrophobic there is no reason for the water to magically ingress to the inner roller via capillary action. Solid waxes do not provide this protection so water still gets into the roller and between the plates.
The lubricant is hydrophobic. The metal surface isn't. Water defines hydrophobic and hydrophilic behavior.

The water is also a denser liquid so there is a reason and mechanism for the water to ingress to the inner roller.

You have the dynamics of the lubricants wrong. Any lubricant doesn't stay in the areas of pressure when force is applied to the chain. It squeezes out. In the case of oil, it can flow back in while in the case of wax it can't. The wax is simply too viscose to flow. The flowing of the oil acts as a pump to pump water/oil mixtures into the gaps during rain. The water doesn't "magically" move out of those areas when you stop pedaling with either lubricant. However with oil, the water is just masked by the oil sitting on top of the water layer so that the oxidation the occurs doesn't squeak. It's still oxidizing.

The pumping action with oil, by the way, pumps particulate into those gaps as well which leads to erosion of the metal due to the grinding action of the particulate which is usually harder than the steel. I hypothesize that since the oil captures particulate and pumps it into the gaps, the chain life is shortened. I would further hypothesize that there is no free lunch for the wax based (hot or solvent) lubricants because the pin/plate gap is starved for lubrication. The bottom line is that both mechanisms work to wear the chain at about the same rate so it hardly matters what lubricant you use. The only real question between wax and oil is which is cleaner?
__________________
Stuart Black
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 08:14 AM
  #64  
Mad bike riding scientist
 
cyccommute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 26,963

Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones

Mentioned: 146 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5946 Post(s)
Liked 3,777 Times in 2,172 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
The wax almost certainly liquifies slightly under drivetrain forces, which is probably why it works.

(Disclaimer: I too am a chemist, but this isn't my area of expertise.)
I would say that it only melts minimally. There's not a lot of friction involved in the drivetrain. The wax may melt under pressure but I doubt that it's significant nor enough for the wax to move back into places where it has been forced out. It it flowed more, it wouldn't have the problem with water that it does.

This article details a Johns Hopkins study that was done on chains and chain efficiency with regards to friction. They found little friction in the drivetrain.

"The first factor was sprocket size," Spicer says. "The larger the sprocket, the higher the efficiency we recorded." The sprocket is the circular plate whose teeth catch the chain links and move them along. Between the front and rear sprockets, the chain links line up straight. But when the links reach the sprocket, they bend slightly as they curl around the gear. "When the sprocket is larger, the links bend at a smaller angle," Spicer explains. "There's less frictional work, and as a result, less energy is lost."

The second factor that affected efficiency was tension in the chain. The higher the chain tension, Spicer says, the higher the efficiency score. "This is actually not in the direction you'd expect, based simply on friction," he says. "It's not clear to us at this time why this occurs."
They also came to a very surprising conclusion about the effect of lubrication.
__________________
Stuart Black
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Days of Wineless Roads. Bed and Breakfasting along the KATY
Twisting Down the Alley. Misadventures in tornado alley.
cyccommute is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 08:33 AM
  #65  
Senior Member
 
wingless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Florida
Posts: 343

Bikes: 2011 Trek 1.2 + 2016 Trek 1.1 H2

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked 20 Times in 16 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute
I would say that it only melts minimally. There's not a lot of friction involved in the drivetrain. The wax may melt under pressure but I doubt that it's significant nor enough for the wax to move back into places where it has been forced out. It it flowed more, it wouldn't have the problem with water that it does.

This article details a Johns Hopkins study that was done on chains and chain efficiency with regards to friction. They found little friction in the drivetrain.
Thanks for the link.

The Infrared Video in the link shows that the chain pin and bushing are the hottest part of the chain. It also shows that the teeth of the jockey wheels and of the cassette cog get the hottest.
wingless is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 09:19 AM
  #66  
Occam's Rotor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Originally Posted by cyccommute
The only real question between wax and oil is which is cleaner?
I agree, but local melting or softening, facilitated by

Originally Posted by wingless
The Infrared Video in the link shows that the chain pin and bushing are the hottest part of the chain. It also shows that the teeth of the jockey wheels and of the cassette cog get the hottest.
is likely to be part of the reason the wax works at all, rather than just getting extruded under pressure.

As I mentioned above, my reason for using it is that the drive train stays much cleaner under (my) gritty and sandy conditions.

I do have to confess that I never thought of trying olive oil or coconut oil (nor chainsaw bar oil).

Last edited by Cyclist0108; 06-08-18 at 09:45 AM. Reason: clarification
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 10:03 AM
  #67  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,532
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 229 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times in 7 Posts
I do a mix of about 80/20 of clear parafin wax and liquid paraffin oil (lamp oil) in a old crock pot. i get about 400 miles per relube. What i have learned to do is get 2 chains..........one for on the bike and one waiting to go on the bike. The dirty one comes off, the clean one goes on and i am off and again. I then clean the dirty one and throw it back in the crockpot ......and then on the bench for when the dirty one comes off. It works great. Just keep rotating.
scale is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 11:50 AM
  #68  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,051
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3704 Post(s)
Liked 1,030 Times in 687 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
No.

Both melting point and viscosity typically correlate to the strength of intermolecular interactions (hydrogen bonding, ionic interactions, hydrophobic effect, van der Waals interactions, dipole-dipole interactions, induced dipole interactions, solubility in aqueous solvents, etc).

It is a trend, not an absolute law of physics. (It is the net result of many different, and sometimes competing physical effects that are governed by relatively simple laws of physics.)

I gave you a link with a table of simple organic compounds that illustrated the trend.

You gave a counter-example (one I was unaware of), and I did my best to explain it without getting too technical.

Perhaps I made a mistake in assuming you were more interested in an explanation rather than playing internet games.

If you actually care: Fats and cooking oils are generally mixtures of rather complex molecules, so there are many factors (presence of double bonds, cis vs. trans double bonds in fatty acid chains, intra- and inter-molecular pi-electron interactions and delocalization, potential for aromatic stabilization and aromatic stacking interactions, polar vs. ionic head groups, miscibility with water, etc) that will influence viscosity and melting points, compared to typically much more simple mixtures, or sometimes single compounds (eg, paraffin).

If you just want to argue pointlessly on the internet: The cooking oil example is really irrelevant to the topic of the thread, unless you think it might be a good idea to lubricate your chain with something like olive oil. At least instead of having to guess when to clean and re-lube from the squeaking, you could just go by how rancid your chain smells.

I used cooking oils because they are common and rather obvious to those that have cooked with them. But I had already used the example of high temperature engine oils that are formulated to have much higher viscosities than paraffin at the same temperature.

So I am genuinely puzzled where your relatively academic statement about the trend between viscosity and melting point fits into a discussion about man-made chain lubricants. Which high viscosity lubricants am I unfairly bringing into the discussion, and why do you think mentioning something like Tenacious Oil on a bicycle forum is poor manners on my part?


Can you please connect the usefulness of your earlier statement to the real world examples that would matter to a cyclist that has access to formulated oils rather than purified chemical compounds?
Kontact is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 12:58 PM
  #69  
Occam's Rotor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
Melting points and viscosity aren't related.
This is demonstrably false. I pointed out how they were in fact related (due primarily to the same type of inter-molecular interactions being responsible for both), and gave you some examples. The fact that you can find a few counter-examples involving complex mixtures does not prove your original assertion.

Had you said "melting points and viscosity aren't always related," you would have made an accurate statement.

You can make most things less viscous by adding water or a small non-polar molecule, depending on what it is that you are using. That isn't the same as melting it. Paraffin is a purified compound, and is the topic of this thread. I can solubilize paraffin in n-hexane. Squirt is primarily solubilized paraffin.

Last edited by Cyclist0108; 06-08-18 at 01:03 PM.
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 01:08 PM
  #70  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,051
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3704 Post(s)
Liked 1,030 Times in 687 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
This is demonstrably false. I pointed out how they were in fact related (due primarily to the same type of inter-molecular interactions being responsible for both), and gave you some examples. The fact that you can find a few counter-examples does not prove your original assertion.

Had you said "melting points and viscosity aren't always related," you would have made an accurate statement.

You can make most things less viscous by adding water or a small non-polar molecule, depending on what it is that you are using. That isn't the same as melting it. I can solubilize paraffin in n-hexane. Squirt is primarily solubilized paraffin.
So, I made a statement about chain lubricants, that you removed from its context, abstracted, and then got angry at me for being argumentative?

Let me ask you an in-context question: Is the relatively high melting point of paraffin wax predictive of its viscosity relative to other chain lubricants? That was the point I was making before you decided that I was writing a statement destined for an article in Nature about chemical engineering.


I really can't tell if you are unable to tell the difference between contextual and general statements, or if you just like to argue.
Kontact is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 03:21 PM
  #71  
Occam's Rotor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
Originally Posted by Kontact
if you just like to argue.
I think you have that covered.

How do you propose comparing the melting point of a pure compound (eg paraffin) to that of a complex mixture or solution?
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 03:27 PM
  #72  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,051
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3704 Post(s)
Liked 1,030 Times in 687 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott
I think you have that covered.
It is simply unbelievable to me how you can wander into a thread, say "if you don't mind me correcting this", take a quote out of context, be surprised when reality doesn't match the broad rule you felt required going off topic with, and then get pissed about the whole thing.

Get some perspective. If you want to play Mr. Science, be prepared to relate it back to the context of the discussion, or at least be f'ing polite about it. I wasn't rude to you for for asking my question - why are you being rude to me?
Kontact is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 03:30 PM
  #73  
Occam's Rotor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
You seem to be the one getting pissed off. You said something that was wrong. I tried to correct it as politely as possible, but clearly you have a big weed up your arse about something. This is like arguing with a creationist or anti-vaxxer.

The funny thing is we are in complete agreement about chain waxing. But that just isn't good enough for you. You clearly have this bizarre need to be right about everything (which very clearly pre-dates this discussion and this thread). Perhaps a bike ride and a bit of fresh air could help.

Meanwhile, welcome to my ignore list.
Cyclist0108 is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 03:31 PM
  #74  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Kontact's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,051
Mentioned: 41 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3704 Post(s)
Liked 1,030 Times in 687 Posts
Originally Posted by wgscott

How do you propose comparing the melting point of a pure compound (eg paraffin) to that of a complex mixture or solution?
By finding the melting points of both, and then comparing them to the viscosities of both at useful temperatures.

Why would the ingredients of 10w-40 vs pure parafin make either measure impractical or impossible?
Kontact is offline  
Old 06-08-18, 03:33 PM
  #75  
Occam's Rotor
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times in 1,164 Posts
What is the melting point of fructose vs. fructose solubilized in water?
Cyclist0108 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.