Chain waxing + graphite question



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

> Well it's a hypothesis. What's really needed to settle the matter is the
> comparative wear rates of waxed vs. bare chains in a clean environment.
> But, if chains wear predominately from contamination, then the claimed
> effectiveness of wax must come from its ability to seal the clearances.
> My interpretation of the Spicer data showed friction reduction, but then
> White Lightning isn't paraffin, either.


Another regimen to compare is to clean a chain thoroughly
and oil it every time the waxed chain is cleaned and
waxed. Every 300 miles? 500 miles? 1000 miles?

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

> Peter Cole wrote:
> > 41 wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Cole wrote:

> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> Wax is different than grease in that it exhibits "stiction". It presents
> >>> a high friction surface until the pressure melts it, at which point it
> >>> shifts to low friction. This phenomenon is obvious in cross country ski
> >>> waxes.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you sure that is the mechanism, is it pressure or is it friction,
> >> or is it the water that is melting.

> >
> >
> > Apologies, to be clear, it's the snow that's melting, not the wax.

>
> A further point, ice is rather unique in that melt point goes down with
> pressure (in the temp/pressure region of interest). Paraffin doesn't, so
> the mechanism of paraffin melting would be from friction, not pressure
> related phase change like ice.


Melting point of water is depressed by 1 K / 100 bar. Skis
do not exert enough pressure to melt the snow.

--
Michael Press
 
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> Peter Cole <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Well it's a hypothesis. What's really needed to settle the matter is the
> > comparative wear rates of waxed vs. bare chains in a clean environment.
> > But, if chains wear predominately from contamination, then the claimed
> > effectiveness of wax must come from its ability to seal the clearances.
> > My interpretation of the Spicer data showed friction reduction, but then
> > White Lightning isn't paraffin, either.

>
> Another regimen to compare is to clean a chain thoroughly
> and oil it every time the waxed chain is cleaned and
> waxed. Every 300 miles? 500 miles? 1000 miles?
>
>


And remember to get all the grime and grit off the cogs and chain
rings, too. Oh, and clean up the chainstay and wash your hands. Knock
yourself out!
 
Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2006 01:42:33 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Patrick Lamb wrote:
> >> On 6 Mar 2006 08:59:38 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

> >
> >> ><www.thefreedictionary.com/thermal+equilibrium>
> >> >No un 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.

>
> No, I don't like the way you're arguing based on a dictionary
> definition without understanding the subje ct. You don't understand
> thermodynamics or thermal equilibrium, which leads to your missing the
> point w.r.t. dynamic equilibrium. I get the feeling I'm arguing with
> a pig, but on the off-chance that you are seriously trying to learn
> something, I'll give it one more try.


Oh, I see. It's all so clear to me now. There's no better pedagogical
device than a sneer. Only, I have learned something other than what you
intended, and about a different subject.

> The
> average temperature of the chain is what's reported (33 C, IIRC).


No, you do not recall correctly. Nothing like this is reported. You
continue to talk out of your hat.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> George King writes:


> >>> Par affin (canning wax), although clean, works poorly because it is
> >>> not mobile and cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it has
> >>> been displaced. This becomes apparent with any water that gets on
> >>> the chain. It [the chain] immediately sq ueaks.

>
> # a non liquid lubricant cannot re-flow into the contact area once
> # displaced by bearing load. That it is as good as gone is apparent
> # when a more active liquid such as water attaches itself to the
> # polished metal surfaces allowing t he last residue of wax to leave.
> # That wax is as good as gone already.


> I think the two statemen ts above say the same thing in different
> words. I see no ambiguity there.



To clarify, I didn't mean that the above two statements conflicted. I
meant that this statement

> # a non liquid lubricant cannot re-flow into the contact area once
> # displaced by bearing load.


appears to have some conflict with this one:

> >> Displacing wax from an interface is not done mere ly by pressing the
> >> surfaces together.


Perhaps the question is of most versus the last residue, but it would
help if you could clarify. Further, whether the last residue, i.e. "as
good as gone", is sufficient for reasonable lubrication.
"
 
41 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > "Brittle" in this case is also one of those splitters. Wax smears
> > when it is rubbed upon and deforms plastically at room temperatures.

>
> I agree for e.g. beeswax but for paraffin I believe it would have to be
> a warm room. Surely out riding at e.g. 10-15 °C it is a lot more
> brittle than plastic.


I took a clear/translucent paraffin candle, and pressed an edge hard
with my thumb. The material yielded by producing white flakes of
various sizes, from snow-like to larger flakes, even some distance
(~1/8"+) away from the contact point.

I took a pin and dragged the tip across the surface, vertically and at
an angle, quickly and quasi-statically, with high pressure and with
minimal pressure. In all cases I produced white snow-like debris at the
edges of the track, and either ahead or behind the pin.
Quasi-statically, I could even build up a thin rooster tail of wax
snow.

I penetrated the pin vertically through the candle, quasi-statically
and quickly. In both cases I produced some snow at the entrance hole,
and large (extending ~1/2"+ away from the pin) white transverse sheets
(and perhaps clouds) inside the candle, as one might observe in an ice
cube that had cracked internally.

I held the pin transversely, and pushed the side against the candle,
either at an edge or against the side. Large white flakes were raised
and built up, extending far (~1/8"+) ahead of the contact zone.

I penetrated the pin through to an opposite side, and the pin emerged
with small scattered amounts of white wax snow or particles on it, but
no detectable smear. After every one of these tests with the pin, I
examined it for a wax smear, by etching a fingernail against it, and
rubbing with my fingers, trying to find a difference between the part
that had pressed against the wax and the part that had not. I never
found a detectable smear, only a few isolated wax flakes or snow.

I repeated all the same tests after first putting the pin under running
hot water (~130F, well below the melting point of paraffin), and
quickly putting the pin against the wax before it cooled excessively.
In all cases the snow or flakes were not produced until the pin had
cooled. For example, tranversely, the pin at first raised a translucent
slice, and then after cooling, raised white flakes as before. With less
initial pressure, it made a translucent indentation, and then rode upon
the surface after cooling. Upon the penetration tests with the warm
pin, the white sheets were not formed inside, until the pin was cooled
enough while inserted further.

I put my thumb under the hot water until the point of pain, and quickly
pressed it against the side of the candle. I was able to form a
translucent thumbprint on the surface and feel the wax yield. I took my
other (normal temperature) thumb, and pressed it as hard as I could
against another side of the candle, with my other thumb on top, also
exerting maximum pressure. I was unable to form an imprint on the
surface.

I repeated some of the tests with the pin with water droplets at the
contact site. Though the droplets made observation more difficult, it
appeared as if the snow and flakes did not form.

At the end of the tests, I had some wax snow or fine particles on my
fingers, which easily rinsed off under running water, which then
thoroughly wetted the surface of my skin.


>From these results, I conclude that paraffin wax is brittle at room

temperature (about 20 °C) or below, and malleable at higher
temperatures still below melting (40-60 °C). Whatever happens at the
interface, bulk temperature effects the state of the extruded wax
debris. At room temperature or below, snow debris seems to be ejected
away from the metal surface and the contact point. In hot climates, the
situation might be different.
 
George King writes:

>>>>> Paraffin (canning wax), although clean, works poorly because it
>>>>> is not mobile and cannot replenish the bearing surfaces once it
>>>>> has been displaced. This becomes apparent with any water that
>>>>> gets on the chain. It [the chain] immediately squeaks.


# a non liquid lubricant cannot re-flow into the contact area once
# displaced by bearing load. That it is as good as gone is apparent
# when a more active liquid such as water attaches itself to the
# polished metal surfaces allowing the last residue of wax to leave.
# That wax is as good as gone already.

>> I think the two statements above say the same thing in different
>> words. I see no ambiguity there.


> To clarify, I didn't mean that the above two statements conflicted.
> I meant that this statement:


# a non liquid lubricant cannot re-flow into the contact area once
# displaced by bearing load.

> appears to have some conflict with this one:


>>> Displacing wax from an interface is not done merely by pressing
>>> the surfaces together.


> Perhaps the question is of most versus the last residue, but it
> would help if you could clarify. Further, whether the last residue,
> i.e. "as good as gone", is sufficient for reasonable lubrication.


I'm not sure. I have noticed when riding up a local 5% grade,
smoothly paved road, dogs, at a residence with a closed board fence,
begin to bark about 1/4 mile before we reach the house, even though we
are not talking and hear no sounds that would give away our approach.
I surmise that there are ultra sounds, probably from the chain, that
the dogs hear that we cannot. This is with reasonably oil lubricated
chains that make no perceptible sound.

This is why I reserve comment on what is occurring in the marginally
lubricated chain.

Jobst Brandt
 
[email protected] wrote:
> I have noticed when riding up a local 5% grade,
> smoothly paved road, dogs, at a residence with a closed board fence,
> begin to bark about 1/4 mile bef ore we reach the house, even though we
> are not talking and hear no sounds that would give away our approach.
> I surmise that there are ultra sounds, probably from the chain, that
> the dogs hear that we cannot. This is with reasonably oil lubricated
> chains that make no perceptible sound.


This makes it even more complicated because then there could be
acoustic or is it ultrasonic lubrication, when the squeeks help to keep
surfaces sliding.

Or perhaps Gary Larson has already described an explanation in classic
work from the 80s..
 
Lubrication has less to do with chain wear than cleanliness.

In reading the numerous posts now active in r.b.t regarding the
subject of waxing, I believe the following.

The efficacy of hot waxing a chain with parrafin is based upon the
observations that the chains don't squeak and that the chain also has
an extended wear life. The conditions of use are dry conditions and
reapplication <500 miles.

Perhaps the wax stops the squeak the same way it makes a piece of
metal shine. A tiny residual amount levels the surface and changes
surface tension. The wear of a chain is likely more effected by dirt
that is directed to moving, contact parts. Bicycle chain works fine
if clean and the links are not binding.

People report satisfactory results within the parameters outlined.
Others, do fine with WD40, also a non lubricant but a cleaner.

In pursuit of improvement, maybe chain makers can apply the equivalent
of a clear coat to the chain that adheres tenaciously to the metal
surface. Epoxies or urethanes come to mind.
 
Paul Kopit wrote:

> In pursuit of improvement, maybe chain makers can apply the equivalent
> of a clear coat to the chain that adheres tenaciously to the metal
> surface. Epoxies or urethanes come to mind.


I have an idea. Why don't we coat the chains with a really tough,
durable material, which moreover remains so in all operating
temperatures; like say, steel.,
 
41 wrote:
>
> I have an idea. Why don't we coat the chains with a really tough,
> durable material, which moreover remains so in all operating
> temperatures; like say, steel.,


As with the sliding friction test I described - why not try it and
report back on what you learn?

Keep in mind, wax (or wax/oil) is being praised base on its success in
the real world. If plain steel does as well, I'd be happy to learn
that.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> >
> > I have an idea. Why don't we coat the chains with a really tough,
> > durable material, which moreover remains so in all operating
> > temperatures; like say, steel.,

>
> As with the sliding friction test I described - why not try it and
> report back on what you learn?
>
> Keep in mind, wax (or wax/oil) is being praised base on its success in
> the real world. If plain steel does as well, I'd be happy to learn
> that.


So would I, but I think you've missed the point. Have you considered
what the wear products of epoxy or urethane would be, not to mention,
how it would be possible to truly coat the chain in such a way as to
prevent instead of encourage rust, and how it would be possible to coat
the pins, sideplates and rollers in such a way as to maintain
tolerances. This is what I was addressing. Besides, I have no desire to
throw away power sufficient for one to two or more generator headlights
every time I ride.[
 
41 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > 41 wrote:
> > >
> > > I have an idea. Why don't we coat the chains with a really tough,
> > > durable material, which moreover remains so in all operating
> > > temperatures; like say, steel.,

> >
> > As with the sliding friction test I described - why not try it and
> > report back on what you learn?
> >
> > Keep in mind, wax (or wax/oil) is being praised base on its success in
> > the real world. If plain steel does as well, I'd be happy to learn
> > that.

>
> So would I, but I think you've missed the point.


Perhaps.

> Have you considered
> what the wear products of epoxy or urethane would be...


Above, you were proposing to "coat" the chain with steel, not epoxy or
urethane. IOW, use it uncoated.

- Frank Krygowski
 
[email protected] wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> > > 41 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have an idea. Why don't we coat the chains with a really tough,
> > > > durable material, which moreover remains so in all operating
> > > > temperature s; like say, steel.,
> > >
> > > As with the sliding friction test I described - why not try it and
> > > report back on what you learn?
> > >
> > > Keep in mind, wax (or wax/oil) is being praised base on its success in
> > > the real world. If plain ste el does as well, I'd be happy to learn
> > > that.

> >
> > So would I, but I think you've missed the point.

>
> Perhaps.
>
> > Have you considered
> > what the wear products of epoxy or urethane would be...

>
> Above, you were proposing to "coat" the c hain with steel, not epoxy or
> urethane. IOW, use it uncoated.


Now I know you've missed the point, entirely. The chain is already made
of steel. Nothing further need be done to obtain a steel surface. Which
is more durable, a urethane coated floor or a solid steel floor. It was
sarcasm. But made not to be so impolite as it appears when spelled out,
as I had to do here. a
 
On 9 Mar 2006 20:59:14 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

>So would I, but I think you've missed the point. Have you considered
>what the wear products of epoxy or urethane would be, not to mention,
>how it would be possible to truly coat the chain in such a way as to
>prevent instead of encourage rust, and how it would be possible to coat
>the pins, sideplates and rollers in such a way as to maintain
>tolerances. This is what I was addressing. Besides, I have no desire to
>throw away power sufficient for one to two or more generator headlights
>every time I ride.[


You are correct in that a developing a synthetic coating for the chain
would be a difficult project. Certainly, a better coating material
than parrafin wax could be developed. I'm thinking of a liquid system
that needs to be reapplied. Again, I'm suggesting a material that
becomes a dry coating.

Let's continue to recognize that we are referring to bicycle chain
that is used dry conditions and that we are defining performance as no
squeak and life cycle equal to or better than conventionally oiled
chain.
 
On 10 Mar 2006 08:25:13 -0800, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Now I know you've missed the point, entirely. The chain is already made
>of steel. Nothing further need be done to obtain a steel surface.


But it seems that a clean, steel surface will squeak under these
operating conditions.
 
41 wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Above, you were proposing to "coat" the c hain with steel, not epoxy or
> > urethane. IOW, use it uncoated.

>
> Now I know you've missed the point, entirely. The chain is already made
> of steel. Nothing further need be done to obtain a steel surface. Which
> is more durable, a urethane coated floor or a solid steel floor. It was
> sarcasm. But made not to be so impolite as it appears when spelled out,
> as I had to do here.


Wow! Talk about having to spell things out!

Look at what I said once more, "41." Read it slowly.

I said "... you were proposing to 'coat' the chain with steel ... IOW,
use it UNCOATED." (Emphasis added.)

It should be clear that I understood your sarcasm. I'm not sure why
you lost track of the conversation. Bad modem? Sleepy?

- Frank Krygowski
 

Similar threads

H
Replies
14
Views
484
O
P
Replies
9
Views
647
J