How to wax your chain?

[Blair P. Houghton]

Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article
><[email protected]>,
> Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Wax under pressure is grease.
>
>False.

In what way?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=89420&dict=CALD
wax:
"1. a solid fatty substance that softens and melts when warm"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=34306&dict=CALD
grease:
"animal or vegetable fat that is soft after melting, or
more generally, any thick oily substance"

Oh. I see: The words "under pressure" aren't necessary.

Wax is always grease.

Thanks for pointing that out.

>> And, eventually, all lubes will squeeze out of the bearing
>> and not return.
>
>False.

Name one, other than a bonded coating (e.g. teflon),
or a bearing with a lubricant-recirculating system.

The word "eventually" is open-ended, remember.

--Blair

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

<[email protected]> wrote:
>> The acquisition and labor and packaging and cleanup for the
>> "home-brew" version can't be that cheap...
>
>Canning wax and mineral spirits; check the cost. You can have a
>lifetime supply of 'white lightning' for under $10.

Does it look and smell like WL?

What is the most likely non-going-out-of-my-way source
of mineral spirits?

Would it do to just break up the wax and drop it in
the MS can and wait? How small should the wax chunks
be and how long should the wait be?

Does it store okay in that can?

What are the ideal proportions [w/v]?

Does mixing it with 80W-90 gear oil make a water-resistant
version? Cuz I have a quart of that to get rid of too...

How many gallons in a "lifetime supply"?

Does it attack the rubber o-rings in motorcycle chains?

How much does the dispensing bottle cost, if you've
never bought WL before?

--Blair
"I might just do that, while waiting
to run out of current inventory..."

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:24:47 GMT, Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:

>What is the most likely non-going-out-of-my-way source
>of mineral spirits?

Hardware store, as "mineral spirits" or "paint thinner."


--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[[email protected]]

Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> The acquisition and labor and packaging and cleanup for the
> >> "home-brew" version can't be that cheap...
> >
> >Canning wax and mineral spirits; check the cost. You can have a
> >lifetime supply of 'white lightning' for under $10.
>
> Does it look and smell like WL?

Look, yes. Smell.....I really don't recall; is the smell important? Are
you lubing a chain or shopping for cologne?
>
> What is the most likely non-going-out-of-my-way source
> of mineral spirits?
>

Odorless mineral spirits are in any hardware store, paint store,
Lowe's, Home Depot or Wal-Mart. Last time I looked, there were alot
more of those than of LBSs.


> Would it do to just break up the wax and drop it in
> the MS can and wait? How small should the wax chunks
> be and how long should the wait be?
>

Put any ratio of wax to solvent you see fit. Just remove any
undissolved wax or add more solvent.


> Does it store okay in that can?
>

Which can is that?

> What are the ideal proportions [w/v]?

See above.

>
> Does mixing it with 80W-90 gear oil make a water-resistant
> version? Cuz I have a quart of that to get rid of too...
>

You're on your own with that.


> How many gallons in a "lifetime supply"?
>

How much do you ride? I'd say a gallon will last a l-o-n-g time for
most riders.


> Does it attack the rubber o-rings in motorcycle chains?

I have no idea.
>
> How much does the dispensing bottle cost, if you've
> never bought WL before?

Check that in a Hobby Lobby, Michael's or the craft dept in Wal-Mart. I
can promise you this: you can make a couple of gallons of homebrew WL,
including a dispensing bottle, for well under $15. Or you can continue
to let the folks at WL to rip you off. You decide.

"I might just do that, while waiting
> to run out of current inventory..."

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article
> ><[email protected]>,
> > Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Wax under pressure is grease.
> >
> >False.
>
> In what way?

You made the claim. Quote a definitive source on
lubrication to support it.

>
> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=89420&dict=CALD
> wax:
> "1. a solid fatty substance that softens and melts when warm"

Paraffin `wax' is not wax.
http://www.cyberlipid.org/wax/wax0001.htm#4

"Waxes is a general term used to refer to the mixture of
long-chain apolar lipids forming a protective coating
(cutin in the cuticle) on plant leaves and fruits but also
in animals (wax of honeybee, cuticular lipids of insects,
spermaceti of the sperm whale, skin lipids, uropygial
glands of birds, depot fat of planktonic crustacea),
algae, fungi and bacteria. Some waxes are of mineral
origin. Montan wax originates from mob or lignite, that
fossilized compound representing a late step of the
transformation of vegetal into hydrocarbons.

The various materials named waxes do not form a
chemically homogeneous group. All waxes are
water-resistant materials made up of various substances
including hydrocarbons (normal or branched alkanes and
alkenes), ketones, diketones, primary and secondary
alcohols, aldehydes, sterol esters, alkanoic acids,
terpenes (squalene) and monoesters (wax esters), all with
long or very long carbon chains (from 12 up to about 38
carbon atoms) and solid in a large range of temperature
(fusion point between 60 and 100°C).
More commonly, waxes are esters of an alcohol other than
glycerol (long chain alcohol, sterol, hydroxycarotenoids,
vitamin A) and a long chain acid (wax esters). Wax esters
are saponified by hot alkaline solutions and give a fatty
acid and an alcohol. They are soluble in aromatic
solvents, chloroform, ethers, esters and ketones."

> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=34306&dict=CALD
> grease:
> "animal or vegetable fat that is soft after melting, or
> more generally, any thick oily substance"
>
> Oh. I see: The words "under pressure" aren't necessary.
>
> Wax is always grease.

False. Prove it if you can.

> Thanks for pointing that out.
>
> >> And, eventually, all lubes will squeeze out of the bearing
> >> and not return.
> >
> >False.
>
> Name one, other than a bonded coating (e.g. teflon),
> or a bearing with a lubricant-recirculating system.
>
> The word "eventually" is open-ended, remember.

Eventually? Cannot make a categorical assertion. Oil
always returns to the mating surfaces.

--
Michael Press

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 3 Oct 2006 16:25:00 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> The acquisition and labor and packaging and cleanup for the
>> >> "home-brew" version can't be that cheap...
>> >
>> >Canning wax and mineral spirits; check the cost. You can have a
>> >lifetime supply of 'white lightning' for under $10.
>>
>> Does it look and smell like WL?
>
>Look, yes. Smell.....I really don't recall; is the smell important? Are
>you lubing a chain or shopping for cologne?
>>
>> What is the most likely non-going-out-of-my-way source
>> of mineral spirits?
>>
>
>Odorless mineral spirits are in any hardware store, paint store,
>Lowe's, Home Depot or Wal-Mart. Last time I looked, there were alot
>more of those than of LBSs.

Odorless scares me -- I worry I'm more likley to inhale the fumes than
something that is more noticeable.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[[email protected]]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2006 16:25:00 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Blair P. Houghton wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> The acquisition and labor and packaging and cleanup for the
> >> >> "home-brew" version can't be that cheap...
> >> >
> >> >Canning wax and mineral spirits; check the cost. You can have a
> >> >lifetime supply of 'white lightning' for under $10.
> >>
> >> Does it look and smell like WL?
> >
> >Look, yes. Smell.....I really don't recall; is the smell important? Are
> >you lubing a chain or shopping for cologne?
> >>
> >> What is the most likely non-going-out-of-my-way source
> >> of mineral spirits?
> >>
> >
> >Odorless mineral spirits are in any hardware store, paint store,
> >Lowe's, Home Depot or Wal-Mart. Last time I looked, there were alot
> >more of those than of LBSs.
>
> Odorless scares me -- I worry I'm more likley to inhale the fumes than
> something that is more noticeable.
>
>

Well, my practice with any solvent is to use ample ventilation, but you
make an interesting point. OTOH, standard mineral spirits are found to
be unpleasant by many, possibly putting them off the otherwise
economically sound idea of homebrew lubes (not only WL, but others
homebrews mimicing Pro-Link, etc.).Also, "odorless" mineral spirits
aren';t really odorless, but rather very low odor, IMO.

 

[Leo Lichtman]

<[email protected]> wrote: (clip) you can make a couple of
gallons of homebrew WL, including a dispensing bottle, for well under $15.
Or you can continue to let the folks at WL to rip you off. You decide.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just because it's many-fold more expensive doesn't make it a rip-off.
Haven't you paid $1.25 (or even more) for a cup of coffee, when you could
have had the same cup at home for only a few cents? There's more to life
than saving money.

I get pleasure by saving money, but I don't go to extremes, nor do I blame
the people who profit by selling convenience or enjoyment.

 

[[email protected]]

Michael Press quoted:
>
> "Waxes is a general term used to refer to the mixture of
> long-chain apolar lipids forming a protective coating
> (cutin in the cuticle) on plant leaves and fruits but also
> in animals (wax of honeybee, cuticular lipids of insects,
> spermaceti of the sperm whale..."

So, anyone try lubing their chain with spermaceti? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

Leo Lichtman wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote: (clip) you can make a couple of
> gallons of homebrew WL, including a dispensing bottle, for well under $15.
> Or you can continue to let the folks at WL to rip you off. You decide.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Just because it's many-fold more expensive doesn't make it a rip-off.
> Haven't you paid $1.25 (or even more) for a cup of coffee, when you could
> have had the same cup at home for only a few cents? There's more to life
> than saving money.
>
> I get pleasure by saving money, but I don't go to extremes, nor do I blame
> the people who profit by selling convenience or enjoyment.


WL could be sold at 25% of it's retail and leave the makers fat and
happy. The extant pricing constitutes a ripoff.

 

[[email protected]]

On 3 Oct 2006 19:48:24 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Michael Press quoted:
>>
>> "Waxes is a general term used to refer to the mixture of
>> long-chain apolar lipids forming a protective coating
>> (cutin in the cuticle) on plant leaves and fruits but also
>> in animals (wax of honeybee, cuticular lipids of insects,
>> spermaceti of the sperm whale..."
>
>So, anyone try lubing their chain with spermaceti? ;-)
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Dear Frank,

Rumor has it that John Dacey keeps an unmarked keg under his shop
counter and when Keirin racers visiting from Japan want that little
extra bit of speed--

Never mind.

" . . . so the tun of the whale contains by far the most precious of
all his oily vintages; namely, the highly-prized spermaceti, in its
absolutely pure, limpid, and odoriferous state. Nor is this precious
substance found unalloyed in any other part of the creature. Though
in life it remains perfectly fluid, yet, upon exposure to the air,
after death, it soon begins to concrete; sending forth beautiful
crystalline shoots, as when the first thin delicate ice is just
forming in water. A large whale's case generally yields about five
hundred gallons of sperm, though from unavoidable circumstances,
considerable of it is spilled, leaks, and dribbles away, or is
otherwise irrevocably lost in the ticklish business of securing what
you can."

Cheers,

H. Melville

 

[R Brickston]

On 3 Oct 2006 20:05:47 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Leo Lichtman wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote: (clip) you can make a couple of
>> gallons of homebrew WL, including a dispensing bottle, for well under $15.
>> Or you can continue to let the folks at WL to rip you off. You decide.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Just because it's many-fold more expensive doesn't make it a rip-off.
>> Haven't you paid $1.25 (or even more) for a cup of coffee, when you could
>> have had the same cup at home for only a few cents? There's more to life
>> than saving money.
>>
>> I get pleasure by saving money, but I don't go to extremes, nor do I blame
>> the people who profit by selling convenience or enjoyment.
>
>
>WL could be sold at 25% of it's retail and leave the makers fat and
>happy. The extant pricing constitutes a ripoff.

I wonder if the packaging costs more thatn the product.

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article
><[email protected]>,
> Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >In article
>> ><[email protected]>,
>> > Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Wax under pressure is grease.
>> >
>> >False.
>>
>> In what way?
>
>You made the claim. Quote a definitive source on
>lubrication to support it.

I just quoted a definitive source on the definitions
of both wax and grease. They were the same definition.

So what I said is as true as a definition can make it.

And what you said, well, is not.

>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=89420&dict=CALD
>> wax:
>> "1. a solid fatty substance that softens and melts when warm"
>
>Paraffin `wax' is not wax.

>http://www.cyberlipid.org/wax/wax0001.htm#4

You do know that the word "paraffin" does not appear at
that link, right?

Try again.

>> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=34306&dict=CALD
>> grease:
>> "animal or vegetable fat that is soft after melting, or
>> more generally, any thick oily substance"
>>
>> Oh. I see: The words "under pressure" aren't necessary.
>>
>> Wax is always grease.
>
>False. Prove it if you can.

I just did. You prove otherwise. To Cambridge.

>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>>
>> >> And, eventually, all lubes will squeeze out of the bearing
>> >> and not return.
>> >
>> >False.
>>
>> Name one, other than a bonded coating (e.g. teflon),
>> or a bearing with a lubricant-recirculating system.
>>
>> The word "eventually" is open-ended, remember.
>
>Eventually? Cannot make a categorical assertion. Oil
>always returns to the mating surfaces.

False. Your categorical assertion is not open-ended, and
ignores the obvious case where the last molecule of oil
is squeezed out of the interface between the surfaces and
leaves their vicinity entirely. Bearings do dry out when
there is nothing pushing the lubricant back up into them.

If you like you can put "or drain" after "squeeze".
It's not necessary, but if it will placate you, it's worth
25 cents.

--Blair
"Wear a helmet, even when
you're not riding."

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

R Brickston <rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@> wrote:
>On 3 Oct 2006 20:05:47 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>Leo Lichtman wrote:
>>WL could be sold at 25% of it's retail and leave the makers fat and
>>happy. The extant pricing constitutes a ripoff.
>
>I wonder if the packaging costs more thatn the product.

If not, the delivery, handling, stocking, accounting,
marketing, management, customer service, liability
insurance...

Just being in business takes money. And at WL sales
volumes, overhead has got to be tacked onto every bottle
in spades.

The LBS gets its cut, too. Retail markups (other than
commodity food) are 50-900%.

I doubt the WL people are hurting, but I wouldn't be too
surprised if the recent spike in diesel prices pushed them
into worrying range of their gross margin dropping below
zero-risk capital cost.

If it were that easy, every LBS would have its own brand
of dissolved wax. Or the competition would show up and
undercut the price and we wouldn't be having this argument.

--Blair

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> The acquisition and labor and packaging and cleanup for the
>> >> "home-brew" version can't be that cheap...
>> >
>> >Canning wax and mineral spirits; check the cost. You can have a
>> >lifetime supply of 'white lightning' for under $10.
>>
>> Does it look and smell like WL?
>
>Look, yes. Smell.....I really don't recall; is the smell important? Are
>you lubing a chain or shopping for cologne?

Living in a house with an attached garage. If the stuff
is going to drip and wet through the newspaper and leave
me looking for something stronger to suck it out of the
concrete floor...

WL is pretty innocuous.

Though...cologne...I bet triathlete chicks...hmm...

>Odorless mineral spirits are in any hardware store, paint store,
>Lowe's, Home Depot or Wal-Mart.

Thank you. I suppose I just never noticed.

>Last time I looked, there were alot
>more of those than of LBSs.

Lots of homes. All the non-riders need somewhere to put
their couch.

>> Would it do to just break up the wax and drop it in
>> the MS can and wait? How small should the wax chunks
>> be and how long should the wait be?
>
>Put any ratio of wax to solvent you see fit. Just remove any
>undissolved wax or add more solvent.

If it was about me "seeing fit" I wouldn't be asking
about stoichiometry. And is pulverizing to pea-size
overkill or necessary if I want to use it in less
than a month?

>> Does it store okay in that can?
>
>Which can is that?

The can of MS.

I can't really see how canning wax would

>> What are the ideal proportions [w/v]?
>
>See above.

There was nothing above to see, O obtuse one.

>> Does mixing it with 80W-90 gear oil make a water-resistant
>> version? Cuz I have a quart of that to get rid of too...
>
>You're on your own with that.

Glad I asked.

>> How many gallons in a "lifetime supply"?
>
>How much do you ride? I'd say a gallon will last a l-o-n-g time for
>most riders.

You mean "how much do you lube".

An 8-oz bottle of White Lightning has lasted me over a year,
but for half of that I was using gear oil. I got a bunch of
lubes at once looking for something simple that I could use
on both my bicycle and motorcycle. The 80W-90 was the ticket.
But the grunge buildup on my bicycle chain was both thick
and easy to accidentally contact with leg, shorts, shirt, etc.

>> Does it attack the rubber o-rings in motorcycle chains?
>
>I have no idea.

Me either.

>> How much does the dispensing bottle cost, if you've
>> never bought WL before?
>
>Check that in a Hobby Lobby, Michael's or the craft dept in Wal-Mart. I
>can promise you this: you can make a couple of gallons of homebrew WL,
>including a dispensing bottle, for well under $15. Or you can continue
>to let the folks at WL to rip you off. You decide.
>
>> "I might just do that, while waiting
>> to run out of current inventory..."

--Blair
"It's on the priority 3 shopping list,
along with bulk trash bags and A/C
filters..."

 

[[email protected]]

R Brickston wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2006 20:05:47 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Leo Lichtman wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote: (clip) you can make a couple of
> >> gallons of homebrew WL, including a dispensing bottle, for well under $15.
> >> Or you can continue to let the folks at WL to rip you off. You decide.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Just because it's many-fold more expensive doesn't make it a rip-off.
> >> Haven't you paid $1.25 (or even more) for a cup of coffee, when you could
> >> have had the same cup at home for only a few cents? There's more to life
> >> than saving money.
> >>
> >> I get pleasure by saving money, but I don't go to extremes, nor do I blame
> >> the people who profit by selling convenience or enjoyment.
> >
> >
> >WL could be sold at 25% of it's retail and leave the makers fat and
> >happy. The extant pricing constitutes a ripoff.
>
> I wonder if the packaging costs more thatn the product.

The advertising certainly does.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article
> ><[email protected]>,
> > Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >In article
> >> ><[email protected]>,
> >> > Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Wax under pressure is grease.
> >> >
> >> >False.
> >>
> >> In what way?
> >
> >You made the claim. Quote a definitive source on
> >lubrication to support it.
>
> I just quoted a definitive source on the definitions
> of both wax and grease. They were the same definition.

Not from a science for kiddie's dictionary, from an
authoritative source on lubrication.
<http://www.cyberlipid.org/wax/wax0001.htm#4>
trumps `Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary'

> So what I said is as true as a definition can make it.
>
> And what you said, well, is not.
>
> >> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=89420&dict=CALD
> >> wax:
> >> "1. a solid fatty substance that softens and melts when warm"
> >
> >Paraffin `wax' is not wax.
>
> >http://www.cyberlipid.org/wax/wax0001.htm#4
>
> You do know that the word "paraffin" does not appear at
> that link, right?

Yes, because paraffin `wax' is not wax. Paraffin `wax' is
composed of long chain alkanes. You _will_ find alkanes
mentioned at that site.

> Try again.
>
> >> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=34306&dict=CALD
> >> grease:
> >> "animal or vegetable fat that is soft after melting, or
> >> more generally, any thick oily substance"

That is not grease for the purposes of discussing
lubrication. Find a good source on lubrication.

> >> Oh. I see: The words "under pressure" aren't necessary.
> >>
> >> Wax is always grease.
> >
> >False. Prove it if you can.
>
> I just did. You prove otherwise. To Cambridge.

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary is incompetent to
settle this. Find a good technical discussion on
lubrication. Enter 'tribology' into Cambridge Advanced
Learner's Dictionary, and see that it has no entry.

> >> Thanks for pointing that out.
> >>
> >> >> And, eventually, all lubes will squeeze out of the bearing
> >> >> and not return.
> >> >
> >> >False.
> >>
> >> Name one, other than a bonded coating (e.g. teflon),
> >> or a bearing with a lubricant-recirculating system.
> >>
> >> The word "eventually" is open-ended, remember.
> >
> >Eventually? Cannot make a categorical assertion. Oil
> >always returns to the mating surfaces.
>
> False. Your categorical assertion is not open-ended, and
> ignores the obvious case where the last molecule of oil
> is squeezed out of the interface between the surfaces and
> leaves their vicinity entirely. Bearings do dry out when
> there is nothing pushing the lubricant back up into them.

It does not need to be pushed in. Oil will creep back into
the mating surfaces.

Yes oil can migrate away. This property allows it to
migrate back into the mating surfaces. While it is in the
vicinity of the surfaces to be lubricated it will creep in
and lubricate the surfaces.

Paraffin `wax' will be pushed out from between two mating
surfaces the first time pressure is applied and never
return. It will sit there in gobs next to the mating
surfaces but not lubricating. Oil will immediately re-wet
the mating surfaces.

--
Michael Press

 

[Leo Lichtman]

"Blair P. Houghton" wrote: (clip) If it was about me "seeing fit" I
wouldn't be asking about stoichiometry. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just for the record, this is not about stoichiometry--that refers to the
ratio of substances in a chemical reaction. It has nothing to do with
solubility limits. And very little to do with bicycles

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article
><[email protected]>,
> Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I just quoted a definitive source on the definitions
>> of both wax and grease. They were the same definition.
>
>Not from a science for kiddie's dictionary, from an
>authoritative source on lubrication.
><http://www.cyberlipid.org/wax/wax0001.htm#4>
>trumps `Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary'

I used the first source I checked.

You searched the interwebs until you found a source
that satisfied your need for false cognitive closure.

And, as I said, that site does not say that wax is not
grease. And it says nothing about paraffin.

Try.

Again.

>Yes, because paraffin `wax' is not wax. Paraffin `wax' is
>composed of long chain alkanes. You _will_ find alkanes
>mentioned at that site.

Yes. It says

"All waxes are water-resistant materials made up of various
substances including hydrocarbons (normal or branched
alkanes and alkenes)..."

Oh look. Alkanes make waxes. Like paraffin.

So your argument that paraffin is not a wax comes from the
fact that a website omits mention of the word paraffin,
while mentioning alkanes, of which paraffin is one.

Are you really that daft?

Here. If we are to follow your lead and read the
cyberlipid site as though we are fundamentalist theologists
parsing the bible and taking its every nuance as truth-by-
construction, then here they prove that grease is not a
lubricant, by mentioning both separately in the same list:

"Azelaic acid is used, as simple esters or branched-chain
esters) in the manufacture of plasticizers (for vinyl
chloride resins, rubber), lubricants and greases."
http://www.cyberlipid.org/fa/acid0004.htm

Now HOW could THEY separate GREASES from LUBRICANTS
unless GREASES were NOT lubricants? (are my eyes
rotating as fast as yours? no? i guess I need more
training time...)

>> >> http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=34306&dict=CALD
>> >> grease:
>> >> "animal or vegetable fat that is soft after melting, or
>> >> more generally, any thick oily substance"
>
>That is not grease for the purposes of discussing
>lubrication. Find a good source on lubrication.

Maybe you think that petroleum oils aren't animal or
vegetable fat. Maybe you really are that daft, plus 100
million years of cooking to make preternatural daffiness.

>> >> Oh. I see: The words "under pressure" aren't necessary.
>> >>
>> >> Wax is always grease.
>> >
>> >False. Prove it if you can.
>>
>> I just did. You prove otherwise. To Cambridge.
>
>Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary is incompetent to
>settle this. Find a good technical discussion on
>lubrication. Enter 'tribology' into Cambridge Advanced
>Learner's Dictionary, and see that it has no entry.

Oh noes! Paraffin isn't wax because the dictionary doesn't
have "tribology" in it!

I guess that means that English isn't a language and
apples aren't fruit, too.

>> False. Your categorical assertion is not open-ended, and
>> ignores the obvious case where the last molecule of oil
>> is squeezed out of the interface between the surfaces and
>> leaves their vicinity entirely. Bearings do dry out when
>> there is nothing pushing the lubricant back up into them.
>
>It does not need to be pushed in. Oil will creep back into
>the mating surfaces.

Not if it leaves the non-mating surfaces, or creeps
into other surfaces that aren't mating, or stays put
after leaving the mating surfaces.

>Yes oil can migrate away. This property allows it to
>migrate back into the mating surfaces. While it is in the
>vicinity of the surfaces to be lubricated it will creep in
>and lubricate the surfaces.

Sometimes. Other times, it won't. The chances that
a bearing with a means for the lubricant to leave will
remain lubricated eternally are vanishingly small.

The only bearing I own that is even close to permanently
lubricated is the one in my refrigerator motor.
Refrigerator motors are sealed in welded vessels with
plumbed fittings being the only means for anything to
enter or exit. No bearing on a bicycle resembles that.

Least of all the chain.

>Paraffin `wax' will be pushed out from between two mating
>surfaces the first time pressure is applied and never
>return. It will sit there in gobs next to the mating
>surfaces but not lubricating. Oil will immediately re-wet
>the mating surfaces.

I'll tell the people at White Lightning that their product
only works for one pass of the chain.

And I'll tell them who told me.

And I'll laugh.

And so will they.

Thanks for that.

--Blair

 

[Blair P. Houghton]

<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>The advertising certainly does.

What are you paying for that Dasani?

--Blair