Chain waxing + graphite question



Werehatrack wrote:
> It seems odd to me that you appear to have acknowledged that the
> information is valid which supports the "hot wax doesn't work well"
> side, but yet you're trying to press forward with the search for what
> makes it work. Isn't this an inherent contradiction?
>
> BTW, FWIW, I tried hot wax as a chain lube a couple of years back, and
> came to the fairly aburpt conclusion that conventional lubes do a much
> better job.
>


"conventional lubes do a much better job" in what way(s)?

IME, two things can lead to a bad experience with hot waxing a chain:

1) Merely "dipping" the chain into the hot wax rather than letting it
bathe in the wax for ~15 minutes. In that case, the hot wax merely
coats the much colder chain, never reaching the rollers. The chain
squeaks in short order and wears quickly.

2) Using "low oil content candle wax" rather than canning paraffin.
Again, the chain squeaks in fairly short order. I made this mistake
myself once when I couldn't find canning paraffin.
 
On 2 Mar 2006 09:29:59 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Werehatrack wrote:
>> It seems odd to me that you appear to have acknowledged that the
>> information is valid which supports the "hot wax doesn't work well"
>> side, but yet you're trying to press forward with the search for what
>> makes it work. Isn't this an inherent contradiction?
>>
>> BTW, FWIW, I tried hot wax as a chain lube a couple of years back, and
>> came to the fairly aburpt conclusion that conventional lubes do a much
>> better job.
>>

>
>"conventional lubes do a much better job" in what way(s)?


Lubricating.

>IME, two things can lead to a bad experience with hot waxing a chain:
>
>1) Merely "dipping" the chain into the hot wax rather than letting it
>bathe in the wax for ~15 minutes. In that case, the hot wax merely
>coats the much colder chain, never reaching the rollers. The chain
>squeaks in short order and wears quickly.


I immersed the chain for more like half an hour altogether, flipped
around once to make sure it got everywhere. Pulled it out, let it
drain, and then just before it got so cool that the wax became really
hard, I slapped it on and spun the cranks for a few revs.

>2) Using "low oil content candle wax" rather than canning paraffin.
>Again, the chain squeaks in fairly short order. I made this mistake
>myself once when I couldn't find canning paraffin.


The first trial was with straight Gulfwax. (Yup, still have a stash
of that somewhere, even though the Gulf name's long since history.)
The second was with paraffin with a lubricating oil added after the
melt. No difference. After anywhere from three to ten days, the
chain squeaked. It takes at least a couple of weeks (and usually
longer) of riding in the off-and-on wet for that to happen with the
regular lube I use, but one day of rain with wax was all that was
needed before it was squeaky.

This is a damp climate by some standards. That may have something to
do with it.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> 41 wrote:
> > HarryB wrote:
> > > On 1 Mar 2006 14:48:39 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> >
> > > As I have clearly stated, my first priority is a clean chain, and the
> > > lubes I have tried all resulted in a dirtier drive train than when
> > > waxed.

> >
> > I agree with all parts of this statement except for the part that
> > states that paraffin is a lubricant. I'm sure, at the intervals you
> > replenish it, your chain is clean and silent and long lasting. However,
> > you might try the experiment I suggested earlier, rubbing two links
> > together in the following states: dry, paraffined, and lubricated. You
> > may find that the order of slipperiness is 3, 1, 2.

>
> One of the features of this discussion has been some people's
> restrictive definition of "lubricant."
>
> To be a lubricant, a substance does not need to provide the minimum
> possible coefficient of friction. It does not even have to be liquid.
> It certainly does not need to be a hydrocarbon-based liquid.
>
> A practical definition of "lubricant" might be: some substance placed
> between two surfaces in contact, that reduces friction and wear.


You and I do not know enough to discuss the science of
lubricants. You are making this up as you go along.
Paraffin wax, in spite of its many sterling qualities, is
not a lubricant.

> As
> I've said earlier, this includes many possibilities that people here
> are rejecting.
>
> Sure, one lubricant may leave a bit more friction than another
> lubricant. That doesn't disqualify it from the definition.
>
> Sure, some lubricants may be liquid, thus easily re-flow when
> displaced. That doesn't disqualify lubricants that are solids. And
> yes, there are recognized solid lubricants.


The science of lubricants is vast. I am not qualified. You
are not qualified. Leave it alone. Paraffin wax is not a
lubricant.

> Lubricants include (in at least certain circumstances) graphite powder,
> water, air, Teflon, gasoline, etc.


Buy some books on the subject, study them, consult with
those skilled in the craft, then come back and tell us
about it.

--
Michael Press
 
[email protected] wrote:
> "Oil causes less friction" is plausible enough that I won't challenge
> it - although I'd be interested in data showing the degree of
> difference. (Some differences are negligible.)
>

Spicer et al tested for efficiency of a bicycle drivetrain and found no
difference whether the chain was lubed or not:
http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf

He also concluded that friction has no more than a minor effect on
efficiency. I would expect that chain *wear* would be the best way to
measure friction. Since waxed chains last a long time compared to other
lubes...

An oiled chain quickly becomes gritty. Since I started using spray wax
with occasional oil, the chain always feels "waxy". Even though it will
leave a mark if I touch it, it is easy to wipe off.
 
Michael Press wrote:

>
> You and I do not know enough to discuss the science of
> lubricants. You are making this up as you go along.
> Paraffin wax, in spite of its many sterling qualities, is
> not a lubricant.


:) You don't see the inherent contradition in your paragraph?

If _you_ don't know enough to discuss the science of lubricants, _you_
don't know enough to proclaim that paraffin is not a lubricant.

FWIW, I actually do know something about lubricants. No, I'm not a
tribologist - but I'm probably one of the few people in this discussion
who have measured oil viscosities at various temperatures using
Cannon-Fenske tubes, and compared those kinematic viscosities with
viscosities measured by a rotating drum viscosimeter. (Of course, that
required measuring density too.) I've consulted on lubrication of large
forging presses - not extensively, but enough to diagnose and solve a
problem involving rapid wear of large main bearings. It's not an area
I specialize in, but I think I have a decent working knowledge of the
fundamentals of boundary lubrication and hydrodynamic lubrication.


> >
> > To be a lubricant, a substance does not need to provide the minimum
> > possible coefficient of friction. It does not even have to be liquid.
> > It certainly does not need to be a hydrocarbon-based liquid.
> >
> > A practical definition of "lubricant" might be: some substance placed
> > between two surfaces in contact, that reduces friction and wear.


.... and of course, that definition fits very nicely with this one:

"Any substance interposed between two surfaces in relative motion for
the purpose of reducing the friction and/or the wear between them."
- www.texacoxpresslube.com/carcare/glossary/l.html

And I expect those people probably _do_ know enough to discuss the
science of lubricants.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:02:03 -0600, Pat Lamb
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Now if you've ever watched the wax while hot waxing, it takes a long
>time for the bubbles to stop coming to the top. That's got to mean
>there's a lot of volume inside the chain, between the rollers, pins, and
>swaged side plates.


My wax doesn't bubble at 325 F. Should the chain be wet, or even
moist, the bubbles are the water boiling off.

I think that the high temp is necessary to remove surface and any
other moisture in/on the chain.
 
On 2 Mar 2006 09:29:59 -0800, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>2) Using "low oil content candle wax" rather than canning paraffin.
>Again, the chain squeaks in fairly short order. I made this mistake
>myself once when I couldn't find canning paraffin.


Candle wax contains stearic acid so that the candles don't melt at
within normal temp. range. It would make chain wax more brittle.
 
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 01:46:03 GMT, Paul Kopit <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 10:02:03 -0600, Pat Lamb
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Now if you've ever watched the wax while hot waxing, it takes a long
>>time for the bubbles to stop coming to the top. That's got to mean
>>there's a lot of volume inside the chain, between the rollers, pins, and
>>swaged side plates.

>
>My wax doesn't bubble at 325 F. Should the chain be wet, or even
>moist, the bubbles are the water boiling off.


Mine bubbles in a double boiler. Slowly, but the bubbles appear
regularly for some time (>10 minutes). Since the chain starts dry, I
don't think that's steam coming off!

>I think that the high temp is necessary to remove surface and any
>other moisture in/on the chain.


Why do you think there has to be surface moisture or any other
moisture on the chain?

Pat

Email address works as is.
 
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 17:43:30 GMT, Werehatrack >
>I immersed the chain for more like half an hour altogether, flipped
>around once to make sure it got everywhere. Pulled it out, let it
>drain, and then just before it got so cool that the wax became really
>hard, I slapped it on and spun the cranks for a few revs.


But why bother? The wax on the outside will flake off in short order
when it cools. OK, maybe I'm littering paraffin flakes.

Pat

Email address works as is.
 
On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 21:54:24 -0600, Patrick Lamb
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Why do you think there has to be surface moisture or any other
>moisture on the chain?


The normal humidity in the air is on the surface of the chain. If not
removed, the wax will have a more difficult time in the initial
coating. Wax is non miscible and lighter than water.
 
Paul Kopit wrote:
> My comments are that hot waxing works with exceptions and limitation.
> Chains and gears last longer. There is testimony. which I support,
> that supports hot waxing works.


The problem is that you don't have a clear definition of "works". Yes,
wax will keep the chain quiet while it lasts, which is not long:
200-600 miles according to proponents here. On the other hand I find
the idea of redoing my chain every 2-15 rides in dry conditions to be
absurd, so I don't consider this to be "working". Likewise, and
certainly with such frequent cleaning, the chain will last. What
paraffin will NOT do is lubricate the chain (see another reply of mine
later), or last, especially in wet conditions.


> I have requested that knowledgeable contributors tell u s why the
> technique works but people insist that the practice doesn't work and I
> feel that we've exhausted the negative reasons. Please join me in
> continuing with some theory to why hot waxing might be acceptable.


On the contrary I think the answers to this have already been exhibited
but you haven't seen them because you have not fully considered what
"it works" actually might mean. Consider even your own statement:

> I've had
> a waxed chain show rust withing 24 hours of being rained on.




> But, what happens to the wax particles, or wax 'dust'
> that is disp laced? Where does it go? What happens to the excess wax
> that's inside the link after the molten wax solidifies?


It either stays in the gaps or, optimistically, falls out. What it
can't very well do is get back in between the contacting metal
surfaces, because it doesn't flow.
 
Pat Lamb wrote:

> Oh, goodie, theories!


> Now, the pressure at the interfaces combined with the bending motion at
> the cog will create heat if the interface isn't lubed. Even if we
> assume solid wax provides no lubrication, I'd argue liquid wax is a
> lubricant. The heat and pressure will melt the paraffin, then, which
> will rapidly lubricate the joint.


The melting point of paraffin is somewhere around 140-190F. Consider
that hot water direct from the tank in the US is at 120-140F, and about
10F lower for faucets a ways away. I guess we must be Supermen: pedal a
little harder, and we will generate enough heat to boil the water on
our chains. I shall use this method next time to dry my chains
thoroughly after riding in wet weather. Heck, during.


> If there is enough heat to melt the wax at these interfaces


There isn't. The paper referenced earlier in this thread shows losses
on the order of 5W for the whole chain. For a 110 link chain, that is
less than 0.05W per link. Good luck melting your wax while riding.


> my current mix --
> it's something like 3/4 pound of paraffin and an ounce or two of 10W-30
> motor o il.


Paraffin with oil in highly varying (200%x?) proportions seems like
some kind of ersatz grease and I haven't dealt with it and have no
comment on how well it works. Certainly if the chain is cleaned and the
treatment reapplied as frequently as posters here describe, nearly
anything (honey?) will "work"- as far as letting the chain last and
keeping it quiet goes.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > But let me ask - since I forget whether
> > > you mentioned it - how dirty or clean is your chain after, say, 500
> > > miles with the SRAM lube? And how often do you feel the need to wipe
> > > b lack gunk off your chain?

> >
> > I have no idea how to describe its state of cleanliness, other than
> > quite good, for a bicycle chain. I wouldn't eat off it. I don't
> > accumulate what I would refer to as black gunk riding in the dry, with
> > the factory lube .


> With a chain waxed by my method, if I haven't wiped it down recently
> (which, BTW, I rarely do) the chain tattoo is about like that of an
> oiled chain recently wiped, but the tatoo is easy to wipe off with a
> dry paper towel.
>
> If I've wiped down the ch ain's outside (and, of course, the
> chainrings), I would get no visible mark at all.
>
> Pure paraffin, in my limited experience, is even cleaner. But it was
> too prone to squeaking when wet for my taste.
>
> Is your experience with SRAM's lube as cl ean as my experience with my
> half-hearted waxing with my wax-oil blend?


I have no idea because I learned to ride without getting my legs in the
chain a very long time ago, and I don't know the mileage on my current
chain, and even if I did, the whole thing seems a futile excercise in
imprecise descriptions to me. Why not simply make your next chain an
SRAM and try it yourself?h
 
[email protected] wrote:
> 41 wrote:


> > I don't worry at all because I don't do it at all. However, when I saw
> > the statements made by HB I thought a word to the wise was in order.
> > Do you disagree? Then read his original post again.

>
> Ah well. I guess I don't think that every hazar d in this world needs
> its own warning sticker... or heavy emphasis.


I believe that anyone who describes their procedure in a way that
suggests they do not understand the safety issues involved deserves the
courtesy of a word to the wise. You have repeatedly pooh-poohed and
ridiculed this basic courtesy and continue to do so. I find no merit in
your position or in your repeated and determined mischaracterizations
of what I have said.

> And I get suspicious
> when someone who is saying "Your method is wrong" begins tacking on
> "Oh, and it's dangerous too."


And I get more than suspicious when someone makes up quotes and
falsifies chronologies and attributes them to me. Stop it.á
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > 41 wrote:


> > > I agree with all parts of this statement except for the part that
> > > states that paraffin is a lubricant. I'm sure, at the intervals you
> > > replenish it, your chain is clean and silent and long lasting. However,
> > > you might try the experiment I suggested earlier, rubbing two links
> > > together in the following states: dry, p araffined, and lubricated. You
> > > may find that the order of slipperiness is 3, 1, 2.

> >
> > One of the features of this discussion has been some people's
> > restrictive definition of "lubricant."


> > A practical definition of "lubricant" might be: some substance placed
> > between two surfaces in contact, that reduces friction and wear.

>
> You and I do not know enough to discuss the science of
> lubricants. You are making this up as you go along.
> Paraffin wax, in spite of its many sterling qualities, is
> not a lubricant.


On the other hand, perhaps it is not beyond the abilities of everyone
in this forum to conclude that a substance placed between two surfaces
that INCREASES friction or DOES NOT REDUCE IT is NOT A LUBRICANT. I
find it interesting that no one has yet reported results from the
experiment I suggested above.

Waxes are instead highly hydrophobic, and this and perhaps related
properties account for their use to improve glide against H20 (ski
waxes et cetera). Waxed floors are indeed very slippery when wet. One
might guess that would make them great on bicycle chains in the rain.
One would then be wrong, because the wax is scraped away from the
interface and cannot flow back. Even posters here who use wax admit it
is ineffective in the rain; this proves that the wax has been displaced
from the interface. Whatever its other properties, a substance that is
not even present certainly provides no lubricant function.à
 
Ron Ruff wrote:

> Spicer et al tested for efficiency of a bicycle drivetrain and found no
> difference whether the chain was lubed or not:
> http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf


This is what they concluded but it is not what they found. What they
found was that WAX PROVIDES NO LUBRICATION FUNCTION, a cleaned chain
having the same efficiency as a waxed (Castrol Wrench Force Dry Lube or
White Lightning Generation 4) one. With some mixture that may be heavy
oil and other substances (Pedro's Syn Lube), efficiency was improved
about 2% @60RPM/100W. Guessing from the other trends, this figure might
be double or more at other wattages and revs. For a(n unintentionally)
humorous description of Pedro's Syn Lube in use, the review of it from
ePinions is appended below.

One should be aware of some flaws in this study. (1) They did not
demonstrate that their cleaning procedures were 100% effective. They
should have dismantled a chain cleaned by their methods (of which there
were two different ones) and checked for the presence of residual
substances. I have found that getting ALL the oil/grease out of an
assembled chain is very difficult if not impossible. I do not use
Simple Green or kerosene and question their effectiveness in this
regard. (2) There is a discrepancy between table 1 and table 2, where
for the 52-15 combination @60RPM/100W, White Lightning, we see values
of 92.3 and 91.1 respectively. (3) Because they thought there was no
difference between a cleaned chain and a waxed one, they did not
compare at other RPMs and wattages, where the difference with an oiled
chain might have been much greater than the 1.7% recorded. (4) They did
not test the factory lube.


> I would e xpect that chain *wear* would be the best way to
> measure friction.


It is not. Chain wear depends on grit far more than on lubrication.
Since paraffin keeps grit out, and furthermore the treatment must be
redone so often, of course paraffined chains last a long time. I think
if I cleaned my chain every 200 miles and rode only in dry conditions,
my chains might last a long time even if I used molasses on them.

Speaking of which:
================================================================
Pedro's Syn Lube

Manufacturer's Description:
------------------------------------------------------
Improved formula for longer lasting performance and decreased chain
wear. A mid-weight lubricant that electrostatically bonds with chain.
Detergent polymers help break down dirt. Excellent water washout for
those wet and muddy days. A clear favorite among cyclocross racers.
Best for wet conditions or for long distance lubrication.

For best results apply Syn Lube to chain (about 1 drop per link), run
chain up and down cogs, then take a rag and wipe chain.

Available in 2, 4, and 12oz., plus 1 gallon shop size.

Type: Synthetic Wet Lube Conditions: Mixed to Wet Application:
All-Purpose Durability: High
-------------------------------------------------------

Review:
-------------------------------------------------------
When the going gets tough, the tough get Syn Lube. Jan 07 '06 (Updated
Jan 15 '06)

Author's Product Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

Pros Great for mud, water, and snowy/wet conditions, keeps your chain
running through it all.

Cons Doesn't work at ALL in the dry, makes your chain collect dirt from
everywhere.

The Bottom Line
Beware, my four star rating is only for Syn-Lube in it's natural
environment. For endurance and other racers this is da' bomb. Casual
and sport riders stay FAR away.

Full Review
Pedro's Syn Lube

Type: Synthetic Wet Lube Conditions: Mixed, Wet, Very Wet Durability:
High

----- It's not for the faint of heart -----

I'll come out and say this right away so you don't find out later, you
don't need Syn Lube unless you're riding your bike in pretty awful
conditions. If you never ride in the rain and mud this stuff isn't
necessary and will actually work much worse than standard Pedro's Extra
Dry Lube lube. I've used Syn Lube for three or so years now, mostly
right before a race when I can tell it's going to be a nasty one.

I can remember one sport race in particular where it was raining
buckets for an hour before start time, I proceeded to take my bike out
of the truck and load up my chain and shifter cables with almost 1/2
bottle of Syn Lube. I raced for three hours that day in the worst
conditions I'd ever raced in. My chain was a black blob as was my
cassette, I couldn't even see individual gears back there. Through it
all my bike shifted civily (although everything sounded horrible) and
kept working through 25 miles of slop and clay. I saw so many other
riders with chains that wouldn't shift, drivetrains that jumped and
skipped on every hill, and lots of racers walking. The moral of this
story is lubes do make a difference in adverse conditions both in
performance and longevity.

Syn Lube also is recommended for long-term rides from a day to multiple
days. Pedro's describes the synthetic material as "a mid-weight
lubricant that electrostatically bonds with the chain" and that it
provides "longer lasting performance and decreased chain wear". Other
benefits include the detergents present in the synthetic oil which
break down dirt and mud and let it work its way out of the chain links.
Syn Lube has excellent water and fluid repellant characteristics thanks
to its bond with the chain links, it also won't become diluted by
fluids splashing onto your chain while riding. Other lubes which are
lighter weight become diluted and ineffective when exposed to lots of
muddy water and dirt. If you're caught riding with standard lube on
your chain you'll actually hear your chain start grinding and become
louder and louder as you ride.

How to use and when not to use Syn Lube:

Applying Syn Lube is very similar to any other Pedro's lube, you do it
one drop at a time. Syn Lube is much thicker than Extra Dry or Road
Rage and reminds me of the consistancy of honey more than the maple
syrup look of the other two. It can be hard to control the drips even
with the dripper nozzle. I usually shoot for a light stream and keep
the chain moving at a steady pace. Once the chain is coated liberally
keep cranking for a bit to let the lube work into each chain link. I
don't even wipe off my chain since I'm planning on getting everything
quite dirty over the next few hours. I will sometimes wipe off my front
chainrings if anything has run down them but that's the extent of my
cleaning efforts.

Do NOT use Syn Lube in anything other than wet, muddy, snowy/slushy,
raining conditions. If you run this stuff in dry weather you will turn
your chain and cassette into something the consistancy of cookie dough.
Syn Lube attracts dust, twigs, and dirt like no other lube I've ever
seen, not even White Lightning which is the 2nd messiest lube ever. As
I said before, this stuff is only for racers or epic rides lasting days
and covering all manner of terrain including water crossings.

----- Bottom Line -----

Pedro's made Syn Lube for a reason, and in its little niche it works
perfectly. I always have a bottle on hand going to every cycling event
just in case the weather changes. I made the mistake of leaving it on
my chain once during a dry and dusty ride which left me cleaning my
drivetrain for over an hour. Not even Pedro's Bio Cleaner worked, I had
to go with Park Tool Chain Brite and scrub like crazy.

Riders that need the best foul weather lubricant should definitely try
Syn Lube, it's been the best I've found for those riding days when most
sane people are watching TV inside. For other conditions select of one
Pedro's other excellent lubes.
============================================
 
[email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > A practical definition of "lubricant"

[...]
> "Any substance interposed between two surfaces in relative motion for
> the purpose of reducing the friction and/or the wear between them."
> - www.texacoxpresslube.com/carcare/glossary/l.html
>
> And I expect those people probably _do_ know enough to discuss the
> science of lubricants.


The author of this glossary does not. This author does not know enough
to discuss any scientific or even intellectual matter. He is unable to
distinguish between intention and result. I
 
41 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > With a chain waxed by my method, if I haven't wiped it down recently
> > (which, BTW, I rarely do) the chain tattoo is about like that of an
> > oiled chain recently wiped, but the tatoo is easy to wipe off with a
> > dry paper towel.
> >
> > If I've wiped down the ch ain's outside (and, of course, the
> > chainrings), I would get no visible mark at all.
> >
> > Pure paraffin, in my limited experience, is even cleaner. But it was
> > too prone to squeaking when wet for my taste.
> >
> > Is your experience with SRAM's lube as cl ean as my experience with my
> > half-hearted waxing with my wax-oil blend?

>
> I have no idea...


??? Then I'm surprised you're bothering with this entire discussion!
You have no knowledge at all of one of the most pertinent factors!

> because I learned to ride without getting my legs in the
> chain a very long time ago,


I call ********. _If_ your chain is black and greasy, and if you
_never_ get that grease on your leg, you must ride very little. Or,
perhaps, have a bike with a chainguard.

> Why not simply make your next chain an SRAM and try it yourself?


?? Are you getting a commission on those things?

IMO, claiming (without evidence) that a certain brand of chain is
somehow the absolute best, is no more logical than claiming (without
evidence) that Phil Wood oil, or Pro Link, or 10W-30 or whatever is
best. You're just trumpeting your own Scharfian opinions.

And yes, to stave off your objection: The same would be true for
people claiming waxing is best, if that were what we were doing. But
we're not.

I'll note: a) I've provided evidence for the benefits of wax, in the
form of data from a comparative test; b) I, and others, _are_ willing
to describe our results, whereas you are not; and c) I'm not trying to
talk you out of using your favorite lube, whereas you are energetically
trying to tell us that ours does not work.

- Frank Krygowski
 
41 wrote:
>
>
> On the other hand, perhaps it is not beyond the abilities of everyone
> in this forum to conclude that a substance placed between two surfaces
> that INCREASES friction or DOES NOT REDUCE IT is NOT A LUBRICANT. I
> find it interesting that no one has yet reported results from the
> experiment I suggested above.


Including yourself?

Give us measurements. Give us numbers. Or don't chide others for not
doing what you refuse to do.

- Frank Krygowski
 
41 wrote:

> Be helpful to know what you claim to be replying to, rather than
> assuming it. I never claimed that wax is going to spontaneously
> combust. I claimed that its flash point is 395 and that the heat source
> for melting it is very rarely going to be less than that, in
> implication much higher. The example under discussion was the element
> of a stove, and the paraffin was spilled onto it. I know perfectly well
> what the flash point is and that it is different from the ignition
> point. The point was that the final heat source is typically well over
> that.


The best hot-wax melter is one of those roasters. They only cost about
$30. It's a bad idea to use a double-boiler, or anything on a gas or
electric stove.

If you're doing the drip method, which is very unwise because it works
even more poorly than dipping, use an electric heat gun, not a torch.
 

Similar threads

H
Replies
14
Views
484
O
P
Replies
9
Views
648
J