Chain waxing + graphite question



Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>41 wrote:

>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>Have you
>>>ever rubbed paraffin, better, under some pressure, whether between
>>>fingers or between links? It is not slippery.

>>
>>Have you never walked on a freshly waxed floor? Have you never waxed
>>wooden drawers? The phenomenon you are describing is viscosity.

>
>
> First what do you mean by waxed floor?
> Coated with paraffin wax?
> Coated with a mixture of paraffin wax and mineral oil?
> A commercial liquid wax? What is in it?


Paste floor wax -- the old-fashioned kind. What's in it? Wax and
solvents usually.


> A wood or linoleum floor coated with a film of paraffin
> wax is not slippery.


Sure it is.


> You cannot talk about a `freshly waxed floor' without
> specifying the entire situation.


Simple old floor wax, that's all. It is used to shine, but more
importantly to protect the surface from wear and scuffs. It forms a
durable film.


> Surfers, at the time I saw them, coated the tops of their
> boards with paraffin wax to give them traction for the
> soles of their feet.


Wax sticks well to plastic, and because it's hydrophobic will displace
the water film between the board and skin. Sticky wax is still sticky
under water. Rub a candle under water.


> An unfinished wood surface is porous. Steel is not.


So what? Wax sticks to both surfaces.

> A wooden drawers and runners is a low pressure situation.
> A bicycle chain is extremely high pressure. The paraffin
> wax quickly migrates away from the mating surface, never
> to return.


Wax has high film strength, that's what makes it prevent floor scuffs.

From:
<http://materials.globalspec.com/LearnMore/Materials_Chemicals_Adhesives/Industrial_Oils_Fluids/Solid_Dry_Film_Lubricants>

" Solid and dry film lubricants vary widely in terms of chemical
composition. Some products contain boron nitride (BN) or “white
graphite”, a chemically inert compound that provides high thermal
conductivity and low thermal expansion. Hexagonal or flake graphite,
molybdenum, and metal sulphide are solid lubricants that maintain a low
coefficient of friction up to 400° C (752° F) and are available in
powder, sprayable coating, and solid machinable forms. Products that are
based on halogenated hydrocarbons include chlorofluorcarbon (CFC),
halogenated fluorocarbon (HFC), halogenated chlorofluorocarbon (HCFC),
and perfluorocarbon (PFC). **Wax, paraffin and stearate compounds are
suitable for some lubrication, anti-corrosive and anti-static
applications**. Fluoropolymer-based compounds include
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)."

You never used waxed dental floss?
 
41 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > or rather, my mix of paraffin with
> > about 5% oil blended in.

>
> You have flunked another literacy test:
>
> As I said, paraffin with oil in it seems to me to be some sort of
> ersatz grease and my comments are not meant to have any bearing on it.


Perhaps, instead of studying rudeness, you should study lubrication.

To test your implication that the minute amount of oil in my wax/oil
mix was responsible for the drop in friction, I just repeated the test,
using a different (unlubricated) area on the stainless steel, and a
different (unlubricated) socket, and pure paraffin wax. This time I
measured the angle, using a level, a sliding T-bevel and a protractor.


Dry chrome on stainless steel commenced sliding, when slightly
vibrated, at 12 degrees. That corresponds to a coefficient of friction
of 0.21, which is pretty typical of what you'll find in handbooks for
dry metal-to-metal contact.

I applied pure paraffin wax to both surfaces, as before, and buffed off
the excess. With the metal still clamped at 12 degrees to horizontal,
the socket immediately accelerated down the slope. I had to reduce the
slope to six degrees to get the same results as before: motion
commencing under vibration. Six degrees is a coefficient of friction
of 0.105.

Pure paraffin wax applied to the dry metal surfaces reduced friction by
about 50%. Wax reduces friction just as my wax/oil mix did, and just
as wax does on floors, furniture, car bodies, etc.

So again: the accepted definition of a lubricant is a substance that
reduces friction or wear. Wax does both. The "wax is not a lubricant"
chant is based on myth, not test.

- Frank Krygowski
 
On 6 Mar 2006 14:41:01 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> or rather, my mix of paraffin with
>> about 5% oil blended in.

>
>You have flunked another literacy test:
>
>As I said, paraffin with oil in it seems to me to be some sort of
>ersatz grease and my comments are not meant to have any bearing on it.


Speaking of flunking literacy tests...

Grease is (at least partially) saponified oil. Hard to see how adding
one hydrocarbon (oil) to another (paraffin) creates the lye needed for
saponification. Unless you believe in spontaneous generation of
sodium?

Pat

Email address works as is.
 
On 6 Mar 2006 08:59:38 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Pat Lamb wrote:
>> Bu t it's not a static equilibrium, it's a dynamic equilibrium. The
>> chain is losing heat at the same rate as it's being generated. No heat
>> is being generated spontaneously in the center of the side plates, but
>> I'd guess that's where a lot of the heat is being dissipated.

>
>Doesn't matter. At thermal equilibrium, the temperature is the same
>everywhere. If it were not, then by definition we are not dealing with
>thermal equilibrium.
>
><www.thefreedictionary.com/thermal+equilibrium>
>Noun 1. thermal equilibrium - a state in which all parts of a system
>are at the same temperature


I guess I suffered from a non-free technical education. If I'd had a
free education from a free dictionary, I'd understand just how right
you are.

Email address works as is.
 
Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2006 14:41:01 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> or rather, my mix of paraffin with
> >> about 5% oil blended in.

> >
> >You have flunked another literacy test:
> >
> >As I said, paraffin with oil in it seems to me to be some sort of
> >ersatz grease and my comments are not meant to have any bearing on it.

>
> Speaking of flunking literacy tests...
>
> Grease is (at least partially) saponified oil. Hard to see how adding
> one hydrocarbon (oil) to another (paraffin) creates the lye needed for
> saponification.



Let us not confuse King George/41 with facts!




> Unless you believe in spontaneous generation of
> sodium?



Will you settle for the spontaneous generation of rudeness?


Is there something in the water in France that leads to arrogance in
defense of ignorance?
 
"Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Patrick Lamb wrote:
> > On 6 Mar 2006 14:41:01 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Grease is (at least partially) saponified oil. Hard to see how adding
> > one hydrocarbon (oil) to another (paraffin) creates the lye needed for
> > saponification.

>
>
> Let us not confuse King George/41 with facts!
>


Surely you've realised by now the facts are that your chains squeak and wear
fast, and that your pot of hot wax spontaneously combusts if a drip falls on
the heater element..?
 
Simon Cooper wrote:
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Patrick Lamb wrote:
> > > On 6 Mar 2006 14:41:01 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Grease is (at least partially) saponified oil. Hard to see how adding
> > > one hydrocarbon (oil) to another (paraffin) creates the lye needed for
> > > saponification.

> >
> >
> > Let us not confuse King George/41 with facts!
> >

>
> Surely you've realised by now the facts are that your chains squeak and wear
> fast, and that your pot of hot wax spontaneously combusts if a drip falls on
> the heater element..?



.....yes....and I am so ashamed....can I even continue to cycle in
public?
 
"41" <[email protected]> writes:

> Have you ever rubbed paraffin, better, under some pressure, whether
> between fingers or between links? It is not slippery. That people have
> yet to consider this elementary fact still amazes me.


On the other hand, anyone who has ever rubbed the threads of a screw
on a block of parafin before driving it into a pilot hole in hard oak
or maple, or who has ever waxed the sash in an old-fashined wooden
double-hung window might draw a differant conclusion.
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> >>41 wrote:


> >>>Have you
> >>>ever rubbed paraffin, better, under som e pressure, whether between
> >>>fingers or between links? It is not slippery.


> Paste floor wax -- the old-fashioned kind. What's in it? Wax and
> solvents usually.


Old fashioned paste floor wax, like good automobile wax, relies on
carnuba (carnauba) wax, the hardest and highest melting point natural
wax. It is both chemically and physically very different from paraffin:
chemically from a different family, and something like 10x as hard as
paraffin. Not sure how it would work on a chain- the load must still be
too high even for it (?)- but that is not what has been talked about in
this thread.

> Wax sticks well to plastic, and because it's hydrophobic will displace
> the water film between the board and skin.


Try reigning in the speculation a bit. If what you say were true, then
to dry the soles of my feet, I need only step on a paraffined board. Of
course that does not happen.


> Wax has high film strength, that's what makes it prevent floor scuffs.


Carnuba is indeed very strong (strong enough for a bicycle chain? I
doubt it but don't know). However, paraffin is not. Paraffin is also
very brittle.

>
> From:
> <http://materials.globalspec.com/LearnMore/Materials_Chemicals_Adhesives/Industrial_Oils_Fluids/Solid_Dry_Film_Lubricants>
>
> " Solid and dry film lubricants vary widely in terms of chemical
> composition. Some products contain boron nitride (BN) or "white
> graphite", a chemically inert compound that provides high thermal
> conductivity and low thermal expansion. Hexagonal or flake graphite,
> molybdenum, and metal sulphide are solid lubricants that maintain a low
> coefficient of friction up to 400° C (752° F) and are available in
> powder, sprayable coating, and solid machinable forms. Products that are
> based on halogenated hydrocarbons include chlorof luorcarbon (CFC),
> halogenated fluorocarbon (HFC), halogenated chlorofluorocarbon (HCFC),
> and perfluorocarbon (PFC). **Wax, paraffin and stearate compounds are
> suitable for some lubrication, anti-corrosive and anti-static
> applications**. Fluoropolymer-based compounds include
> polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)."


Hold on. You are using this quote to support the claim that paraffin
has a high film strength and low coefficient of friction? That's not
what this paragraph says, which only incidentally mentions paraffin and
says it is suitable for SOME lubrication. Since I use ski wax, I
certainly agree with that. However, in this thread we are talking about
BICYCLE CHAINS, and in our context, paraffin is not a lubricant. This
was proved in the IHPVA paper referenced earlier.


> You never used waxed dental floss?


Not the same application: presence of moisture does make paraffin
slippery, as I stated explicitly in an earlier post:

#Waxes are instead highly hydrophobic, and this and perhaps related
#properties account for their use to improve glide against H20 (ski
#waxes et cetera).
v
 
[email protected] wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > or rather, my mix of paraffin with
> > > about 5% oil blended in.

> >
> > You have flunked another literacy test:
> >
> > As I said, paraffin with oil in it seems to me to be some sort of
> > ersatz grease and my comments are not meant to have any bearing on it.

>
> Perhaps, instead of studying rudeness, you should study lubrication.


Get serious. You started by ridiculing my posts cautioning a poster
about a fire safety hazard, you falsified quotes and chronologies and
attributed them to me, and YOU "called ********" on me. Now you are
complaining about me being rude? Go back and read what you wrote and
note exactly when I lost patience with you.


> To test your implication that the minute amount of oil in my wax/oil
> mix was responsible fo r the drop in friction, I just repeated the test,
> using a different (unlubricated) area on the stainless steel, and a
> different (unlubricated) socket, and pure[*see note at end] paraffin wax. This time I
> measured the angle, using a level, a sliding T-bevel and a protractor.
>
>
> Dry chrome on stainless steel commenced sliding, when slightly
> vibrated, at 12 degrees. That corresponds to a coefficient of friction
> of 0.21, which is pretty typical of what you'll find in handbooks for
> dry metal-to-metal contact.


No, it isn't:
<http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Tribology/co_of_frict.htm#coef>
As you can see there are no typical values, the range is huge (average
of first 10 dry sliding metal pairs in table, after which I got bored
retyping them, is 0.47) and depends on the specific metal pair, both
for dry and lubricated conditions. For example, the sliding coefficient
of friction between greased steel, and nickel or phosphor bronze, is
about 0.17-0.18, close to the value you report for dry chrome and
stainless steel. I haven't found your combination in the tables, but
then likewise I haven't found that combination in bicycle chains.


> I applied pure paraffin wax to both surfaces, as before, and buffed off
> the excess. With the metal still clamped at 12 degrees to horizontal,
> the socket immediately accelerated down the slope. I had to reduce the
> slope to six degrees to get the same results as before: motion
> commencing under vibration. Six degrees is a coefficient of friction
> of 0.105.


That's very nice but you didn't do what I asked, multiple times (a
selection- there are more):
---------------
#When you buy your chain new and clean it, but before waxing it, rub
two
#links together, and under pressure. Then do the same after you wax it.

#Do you find the friction significantly reduced? Then (or rather
before)
#compare with oil or the factory lubricant.

@"'Tis better to rub a candle, than to curse the grease" -ancient
@proverb.

%Rub. Prove.

&Yes, consider that for a moment (although solid wax is not liquid, and

&so the terms are toughness and hardness, not viscosity). If you
&penetrate the wax layer, you have to plough through it, instead of
&sliding upon it
-------------------------------

Since you have asked me not to be rude, and since I take it that means
you have now decided to cease that yourself, I will not say that you
have flunked another literacy test, but instead ask you to consider the
definition of "rub":
(American Heritage) v.tr.
1.To apply pressure and friction to (a surface).
2.To clean, polish, or manipulate by the application of pressure and
friction.
3.To apply to a surface firmly and with friction

I specified this precisely because of the last citation of mine above:
paraffin is not hard and is also brittle, and so metal under pressure
will not slide over it, but have to plough through it.


> So again: the accepted definition of a lubricant is a substance that
> reduces friction or wear. Wax does both. The "wax is not a lubricant"
> chant is based on myth, not test.


What is or is not a lubricant obviously depends upon context, meaning
the friction pair and the pressure. For example, sand is not generally
considered a lubricant, and I expect you wouldn't have gone after me if
I had said SAND IS NOT A LUBRICANT, but it will reduce friction if
interposed between the adhesive sides of two pieces of Scotch tape, or
for that matter, between a shoe and a dry sidewalk- or a tire and same.
We are talking here about bicycle chains. Coefficients of friction vary
wildly depending on the precise context and so your test does not yet
convince me.

Speaking of context:
*Could you specify what you mean by "pure paraffin wax"? Paraffin comes
in various grades, high purity having less than 0.5% oil content, while
various cheap paraffins ("slack" paraffins and other terms) can have
2-3% oil content or more.
 
Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2006 14:41:01 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >[email protected] wrote:
> >> or rather, my mix of paraffin with
> >> about 5% oil blended in.

> >
> >You have flunked another literacy test:
> >
> >As I said, paraffin with oil in it seems to me to be some sort of
> >ersatz grease and my comments are not meant to have any bearing on it.

>
> Speaking of flunking literacy tests...
>
> Grease is (at least partially) saponified oil. Hard to see how adding
> one hydrocarbon (oil) to another (paraffin) creates the lye needed for
> saponification. Unless you believe in spontaneous generation of
> sodium?


Speaking of flunking literacy tests... have you considered looking up
the definition of "ersatz"?
 
Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On 6 Mar 2006 08:59:38 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:


> ><www.thefreedictionary.com/thermal+equilibrium>
> >Noun 1. thermal equilibrium - a state in which all parts of a system
> >are at the same temperature


OK, so you don't like this source. Is NASA any better?
<http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo0.html>
Although the website is free, NASA sure isn't.

Webster's requires one dot to be connected:
<www.websters-online-dictionary.org/th/thermodynamic+equilibrium.html>

But hey, they stole it from these guys:
<http://tinyurl.com/pygjb>
(If you're wondering, llnl stands for Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.)

Seriously, you want to know how to reconcile these definitions with
what's in your mind, namely "no change". It simply requires considering
the question "thermodynamic equilibrium with and of what", and the
zeroth law of thermodynamics. Actually the Wikipedia has a good enough
discussion that doesn't require too many dots to be connected, but I
won't refer you to it since it's free.

Point for you though: considering precisely "with what", after looking
more closely at the IR photographs, I see they do not mean that the
chain is in thermal equilibrium. They mean only the pins of the chain,
i.e. they only measured that the pins are in thermal equilibrium.
However, this is of no matter to the TE calculations I did, because I
specified "no cooling". JR's revision of your calculations, which
independently refute your hypothesis, do not depend on equilibrium
conditions.


> I guess I suffered from a non-free technical education. If I'd had a
> free education from a free dictionary, I'd understand just how right
> you are.


Hope you didn't pay too much for it. Can you get a refund?-
 
Jim Smith wrote:
> "41" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Have you ever rubbed paraffin, better, under some pressure, whether
> > between fingers or between links? It is not slippery. That people have
> > yet to consider this elementary fact still amazes me.

>
> On the other hand, anyone who has ever rubbed the threads of a screw
> on a block of parafin before driving it into a pilot hole in hard oak
> or maple, or who has ever waxed the sash in an old-fashined wooden
> double-hung window might draw a differant conclusion.


I will recycle a reply of mine from elsewhere:

#What is or is not a lubricant obviously depends upon context, meaning
#the friction pair and the pressure. For example, sand is not generally

#considered a lubricant, and I expect you wouldn't have gone after me
if
#I had said SAND IS NOT A LUBRICANT, but it will reduce friction if
#interposed between the adhesive sides of two pieces of Scotch tape, or

#for that matter, between a shoe and a dry sidewalk- or a tire and
same.
#We are talking here about bicycle chains. Coefficients of friction
vary
#wildly depending on the precise context

Clearly the whole reason (apart from use as a sealant or moisture
barrier) for rubbing paraffin on these pairs, instead of simply leaving
them alone, is that their friction is really high. I.e. paraffin is not
slippery, but these pairs are even not slipperier still. However, this
is not the case for bicycle chains, as proved in the IHPVA paper.
 
"41" <[email protected]> writes:

> Jim Smith wrote:
>> "41" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > Have you ever rubbed paraffin, better, under some pressure, whether
>> > between fingers or between links? It is not slippery. That people have
>> > yet to consider this elementary fact still amazes me.

>>
>> On the other hand, anyone who has ever rubbed the threads of a screw
>> on a block of parafin before driving it into a pilot hole in hard oak
>> or maple, or who has ever waxed the sash in an old-fashined wooden
>> double-hung window might draw a differant conclusion.

>
> I will recycle a reply of mine from elsewhere:
>
> #What is or is not a lubricant obviously depends upon context, meaning
> #the friction pair and the pressure. For example, sand is not generally
>
> #considered a lubricant, and I expect you wouldn't have gone after me
> if
> #I had said SAND IS NOT A LUBRICANT, but it will reduce friction if
> #interposed between the adhesive sides of two pieces of Scotch tape, or
>
> #for that matter, between a shoe and a dry sidewalk- or a tire and
> same.
> #We are talking here about bicycle chains. Coefficients of friction
> vary
> #wildly depending on the precise context
>
> Clearly the whole reason (apart from use as a sealant or moisture
> barrier) for rubbing paraffin on these pairs, instead of simply leaving
> them alone, is that their friction is really high. I.e. paraffin is not
> slippery, but these pairs are even not slipperier still. However, this
> is not the case for bicycle chains, as proved in the IHPVA paper.


Sure. My question is why you felt it so important for folks to rub it
between their fingers?
 
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 17:30:29 -0600, Patrick Lamb
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
>I don't think any proponents of waxing the chain on this group have
>advocated pure paraffin.
>

For the record: I use only "highly refined paraffin wax" (description
printed on outside of box) and am pleased with the results. To date, I
rode 488 miles on the one bike and 511 miles on the other since I have
waxed those chains. And I don't plan on waxing tonight.
>
>I'm glad to see you admit that you're
>arguing against a straw man, and have not comment on how well a
>paraffin/oil mixture works.
>
>Pat
>
>Email address works as is.
>

Harry
 
41 wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:


>>The phenomenon you are describing is viscosity.

>
>
> Yes, consider that for a moment (although solid wax is not liquid, and
> so the terms are toughness and hardness, not viscosity). If you
> penetrate the wax layer, you have to plough through it, instead of
> sliding upon it, or rather upon the water or oil layer at its surface.
> Chains are extemely high pressure environments. FK's experiments,
> besides their oil layer, flout this condition. Think about it.C
>


When wax is used in a pressure bearing application the pressure
typically melts the wax at the contact area.
 
41 wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>>>41 wrote:

>
>
>>>>>Have you
>>>>>ever rubbed paraffin, better, under som e pressure, whether between
>>>>>fingers or between links? It is not slippery.

>
>
>>Paste floor wax -- the old-fashioned kind. What's in it? Wax and
>>solvents usually.

>
>
> Old fashioned paste floor wax, like good automobile wax, relies on
> carnuba (carnauba) wax, the hardest and highest melting point natural
> wax. It is both chemically and physically very different from paraffin:
> chemically from a different family, and something like 10x as hard as
> paraffin. Not sure how it would work on a chain- the load must still be
> too high even for it (?)- but that is not what has been talked about in
> this thread.


I was rebutting the claim that waxed floors aren't slippery, not the
specific contents of floor wax. I can find no information for the
specific formulation of any paste floor wax. Do you have some, or are
you just speculating?


>>Wax sticks well to plastic, and because it's hydrophobic will displace
>>the water film between the board and skin.

>
>
> Try reigning in the speculation a bit. If what you say were true, then
> to dry the soles of my feet, I need only step on a paraffined board. Of
> course that does not happen.


Of course it does. Try rubbing a wax of your choice under water, it
won't be slippery. If the water film remained it would be.


>>Wax has high film strength, that's what makes it prevent floor scuffs.

>
>
> Carnuba is indeed very strong (strong enough for a bicycle chain? I
> doubt it but don't know). However, paraffin is not. Paraffin is also
> very brittle.



>>From:
>><http://materials.globalspec.com/LearnMore/Materials_Chemicals_Adhesives/Industrial_Oils_Fluids/Solid_Dry_Film_Lubricants>
>>
>>" Solid and dry film lubricants vary widely in terms of chemical
>>composition. Some products contain boron nitride (BN) or "white
>>graphite", a chemically inert compound that provides high thermal
>>conductivity and low thermal expansion. Hexagonal or flake graphite,
>>molybdenum, and metal sulphide are solid lubricants that maintain a low
>>coefficient of friction up to 400° C (752° F) and are available in
>>powder, sprayable coating, and solid machinable forms. Products that are
>>based on halogenated hydrocarbons include chlorof luorcarbon (CFC),
>>halogenated fluorocarbon (HFC), halogenated chlorofluorocarbon (HCFC),
>>and perfluorocarbon (PFC). **Wax, paraffin and stearate compounds are
>>suitable for some lubrication, anti-corrosive and anti-static
>>applications**. Fluoropolymer-based compounds include
>>polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)."

>
>
> Hold on. You are using this quote to support the claim that paraffin
> has a high film strength and low coefficient of friction? That's not
> what this paragraph says, which only incidentally mentions paraffin and
> says it is suitable for SOME lubrication. Since I use ski wax, I
> certainly agree with that. However, in this thread we are talking about
> BICYCLE CHAINS, and in our context, paraffin is not a lubricant. This
> was proved in the IHPVA paper referenced earlier.


I'm sure there are many papers describing the use of wax lubricants in
industrial applications, here's one I found quickly:

<http://www.hitachi-pm.co.jp/english/seihin/tec-report/2002/pdf/tec2002_e_05.pdf>

Sliding Property of Fe-Cu-C Sintered Materials under High
Contact Stress and at Low Sliding Velocity

"If wax is used as lubricant for impregnation instead of oil, the
durability of the bearing can be increased, because wax has a stronger
film intensity and about
2.7 times as large a coefficient of thermal expansion as that of
lubricating oil."


>>You never used waxed dental floss?

>
>
> Not the same application: presence of moisture does make paraffin
> slippery, as I stated explicitly in an earlier post:
>
> #Waxes are instead highly hydrophobic, and this and perhaps related
> #properties account for their use to improve glide against H20 (ski
> #waxes et cetera).


You think waxed floss wouldn't make a difference on dry teeth? I beg to
differ. You've obviously not done much hand sewing where bee's wax is
used to lubricate the thread. No water there.
 
41 wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>41 wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Cole wrote:


>>To which paper are you referring? The only reference I can remember is
>>to the Spicer paper:
>> <http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf>
>>which claimed that lubrication had no effect on chain efficiency.

>
>
> That was the claim. However, if you look closely at what they found,
> you will see, as I explained in an earlier post, that that is not the
> case. They found no difference between an unlubricated chain and a
> waxed (i.e., unlubricated) chain, but lubrication (oil) reduced the
> energy losses by 17-24% as I stated above.


I think you're reaching. To look at the more interesting points (higher
loads):

At 200W, 60rpm, 52x15, they measured 96.5% for no lube
At 175W, 60rpm, 52x15, they measured 97.5% for White Lightning (wax)

From the curves, the 175W extrapolated to 200W would be > 98%, so,
using your terminology, more than 40% improvement with wax.
 
Peter Cole wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> >
> >>41 wrote:
> >>
> >>>Peter Cole wrote:

>
> >>To which paper are you referring? The only reference I can remember is
> >>to the Spicer paper:
> >> <http://www.ihpva.org/HParchive/PDF/hp50-2000.pdf>
> >>which claimed that lubrication had no effect on chain efficiency.

> >
> >
> > That was the claim. However, if you look closely at what they found,
> > you will see, as I explained in an earlier post, that that is not the
> > case. They found no difference between an unlubricated chain and a
> > waxed (i.e., unlubricated) chain, but lubrication (oil) reduced the
> > energy losses by 17-24% as I stated above.

>
> I think you're reaching. To look at the more interesting points (higher
> loads):
>
> At 200W, 60rpm, 52x15, they measured 96.5% for no lube
> At 175W, 60rpm, 52x15, they measured 97.5% for White Lightning (wax)
>
> From the curves, the 175W extrapolated to 200W would be > 98%, so,
> using your terminology, more than 40% improvement with wax.


I'll also point out that "41" absolutely rejected my first test showing
decreased friction in metal-to-metal contact. He claimed this was
because it was not the exact, precise composition he preferred to
discuss. IOW, it was not pure paraffin. Yet he's willing to use, for
his purpose, data from White Lightning, which is also not pure
paraffin!

Yes, White LIghtning is not the exact same composition others are
discussing. While I haven't used White Lightning, I've used another
wax-in-solvent commercial product, and I don't think I'm alone in
finding those much less effective than heated paraffin-oil mixes.

Overall, "41" seems to come up with separate and changing objections to
every piece of data that's provided. That doesn't change the fact that
the data is against him. I suspect his objections are now based
primarily on the fact that he can't admit he's wrong.

Overall, paraffin (and/or paraffin & oil mix) has been shown to reduce
metal to metal friction, it's been shown to reduce chain wear, and it's
been used successfully on bike chains by many posters. For people who
value cleanliness enough to invest a few extra minutes, it works well.


But if a person chooses not to use it, that's fine.

- Frank Krygowski
 
41 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Dry chrome on stainless steel commenced sliding, when slightly
> > vibrated, at 12 degrees. That corresponds to a coefficient of friction
> > of 0.21, which is pretty typical of what you'll find in handbooks for
> > dry metal-to-metal contact.

>
> No, it isn't:
> <http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Tribology/co_of_frict.htm#coef>
> As you can see there are no typical values, the range is huge (average
> of first 10 dry sliding metal pairs in table, after which I got bored
> retyping them, is 0.47) and depends on the specific metal pair, both
> for dry and lubricated conditions. For example, the sliding coefficient
> of friction between greased steel, and nickel or phosphor bronze, is
> about 0.17-0.18, close to the value you report for dry chrome and
> stainless steel. I haven't found your combination in the tables, but
> then likewise I haven't found that combination in bicycle chains.


Coefficient of friction is notoriously variable. It is effected not
only by the composition of the two materials, but by the
micro-roughness of the surfaces. Yes, the value I measured was a bit
low, but I don't know exactly what the condition (nor alloy) of the
stainless steel was.

I didn't think it important, because what I was testing was this: Does
paraffin _reduce_ the friction? It clearly did. And by reducing
friction, it meets the definition of "lubricant."

> > I applied pure paraffin wax to both surfaces, as before, and buffed off
> > the excess. With the metal still clamped at 12 degrees to horizontal,
> > the socket immediately accelerated down the slope. I had to reduce the
> > slope to six degrees to get the same results as before: motion
> > commencing under vibration. Six degrees is a coefficient of friction
> > of 0.105.

>
> That's very nice but you didn't do what I asked...


I performed a simple test that went to the heart of the question "Is
paraffin a lubricant." The answer was yes. If YOU wish to do a more
complicated test to prove hot-melt paraffin (with or without oil) is
not a lubricant when applied to bike chains, do so. Don't demand that
I do it for you!

I'm satisfied that paraffin with a small percentage oil works well,
based on my years of experience with it on my bike chains. If you're
going to prove that what I'm observing is wrong, you'll need to do a
lot more than give an ever-changing set of demands and objections.

>
> Speaking of context:
> *Could you specify what you mean by "pure paraffin wax"? Paraffin comes
> in various grades, high purity having less than 0.5% oil content, while
> various cheap paraffins ("slack" paraffins and other terms) can have
> 2-3% oil content or more.


It's not that complicated, "41"! I'm talking about the paraffin that
comes in blocks from the grocery store, used for home canning. I don't
care about its exact composition - it's what I use, with a little oil
blended into it. It works. (And, apparently, it's safe for contact
with food.)

Hmm. Since I'm useless in the kitchen, I wonder how people do melt
paraffin to seal jams & jellies? Should we be warning them of the
dangers? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski