How to wax your chain?



Leo Lichtman <[email protected]> wrote:
>"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.


I was just being obtuse using "stoichiometry", but you
bring up an interesting semantic problem.

You don't think dissolving a crystal (solid mass) of a
substance is a chemical reaction?

>And very little to do with bicycles :)


What do you do with your brain on long rides?

--Blair
 
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:
> >> 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.


You have as yet to quote an authoritative source on
lubrication science.

> >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.


As long as oil is around, it will lubricate. Not
sometimes, always. Paraffin wax will be squeezed out, and
just sit there in lumps not lubricating.

> 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.


You know what is in White Ligtning?

> And I'll tell them who told me.
>
> And I'll laugh.
>
> And so will they.
>
> Thanks for that.


<[email protected]>
> Wax under pressure is grease.


False.

--
Michael Press
 
Dissolving wax in a solvent with any consistency needs to be
done with heat, a potentilly dangerous procedure if you don't know
what you're doing. The safest procedure involves heating the solvent
by putting it in a container such as a coffee can and setting that in
a bath of boiled water, away from any flame or other potential source
of ignition such as an electric motor whose sparks can ignite fumes.
When the solvent has reached or exceeded the range of temperature at
which the wax melts (for paraffin, 120-140 degrees farenheit,
according to Ralph Mayer, _The Artist's Handbook of Materials and
Techniques_), molten wax can then be stirred in. As the mixture cools,
it should be stirred periodically. The final product will settle, and
needs to be stirred before use. It is a mixture with wax reduced to a
colloid, that is, its smallest possible particle size, and has a
limited shelf life unless it is agitated occasionally to keep the wax
particles from eventually clumping together.

As another poster has pointed out, a trip to the LBS is
simpler. Whatever wax mixture you use, though, it can be improved by
the addition of teflon powder such as that available here:

http://www.epoxyproducts.com/2_fillers.html

I add 1/4 teaspoon to a 4-ounce container of wax lube, and it seems to
help. With the teflon, the tendency of my Sram derailleur to squeak is
under control, whereas the pure wax alone was not enough.





You got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there.


- Yogi Berra
 
Snortley wrote:
> Dissolving wax in a solvent with any consistency needs to be
> done with heat


IME, putting small chunks of paraffin in odorless mineral spirits does
the trick without heat, though it does take several days for the
paraffin to dissolve. Smaller pieces would probably dissolve more
quickly.



>, a potentilly dangerous procedure if you don't know
> what you're doing. The safest procedure involves heating the solvent
> by putting it in a container such as a coffee can and setting that in
> a bath of boiled water, away from any flame or other potential source
> of ignition such as an electric motor whose sparks can ignite fumes.
> When the solvent has reached or exceeded the range of temperature at
> which the wax melts (for paraffin, 120-140 degrees farenheit,
> according to Ralph Mayer, _The Artist's Handbook of Materials and
> Techniques_), molten wax can then be stirred in. As the mixture cools,
> it should be stirred periodically. The final product will settle, and
> needs to be stirred before use. It is a mixture with wax reduced to a
> colloid, that is, its smallest possible particle size, and has a
> limited shelf life unless it is agitated occasionally to keep the wax
> particles from eventually clumping together.
>
> As another poster has pointed out, a trip to the LBS is
> simpler. Whatever wax mixture you use, though, it can be improved by
> the addition of teflon powder such as that available here:
>
> http://www.epoxyproducts.com/2_fillers.html
>
> I add 1/4 teaspoon to a 4-ounce container of wax lube, and it seems to
> help. With the teflon, the tendency of my Sram derailleur to squeak is
> under control, whereas the pure wax alone was not enough.
>
>
>
>
>
> You got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might not get there.
>
>
> - Yogi Berra
 
On 8 Oct 2006 06:45:22 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Snortley wrote:
>> Dissolving wax in a solvent with any consistency needs to be
>> done with heat

>
>IME, putting small chunks of paraffin in odorless mineral spirits does
>the trick without heat, though it does take several days for the
>paraffin to dissolve. Smaller pieces would probably dissolve more
>quickly.
>

Try a cheese grater.
 
R Brickston wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2006 06:45:22 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >Snortley wrote:
> >> Dissolving wax in a solvent with any consistency needs to be
> >> done with heat

> >
> >IME, putting small chunks of paraffin in odorless mineral spirits does
> >the trick without heat, though it does take several days for the
> >paraffin to dissolve. Smaller pieces would probably dissolve more
> >quickly.
> >

> Try a cheese grater.


I'm not in a hurry, so I'll leave that to you; watch your knuckles.
 
On 8 Oct 2006 06:45:22 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

>
>Snortley wrote:
>> Dissolving wax in a solvent with any consistency needs to be
>> done with heat

>
>IME, putting small chunks of paraffin in odorless mineral spirits does
>the trick without heat, though it does take several days for the
>paraffin to dissolve. Smaller pieces would probably dissolve more
>quickly.


Can we make a commercial quality lube by using brightly colored
crayons?
 
Werehatrack wrote:

> Many of those have a suspended polishing (abrasive) compound included.
> Since the labels don't reveal that characteristic (at least, not in
> the US), it could be a real crapshoot.


If the label mentions polishing or cleaning, you can be sure it has
abrasives in it. I wouldn't bother with car wax. If you are going to
go to the hassle of using wax, just boil and dip.
Unless you ride where it is dry all the time, waxing is a hassle. I
use to wax and had great results. That is until the one summer when I
got caught in the rain three times in three weeks. I had to wax after
each rainy ride. What a pain. Now I just clean the chain and then use
motor oil. I put one drop on each link and let it soak in. I then
wipe the outside of the chain. It works well, rain or shine. It does
get a little dirtier than wax, but I can live with wiping it down every
so ften. It takes less time than waxing.
----------------
Alex
 
Motorcycle chain spray. If desired, wipe off the excess from the
outside of the chain after soaking the joints. Will creep into the
joints and not come off ever unless you do over 60 mph in the rain for
extended periods of time. Downside is that it IS a bit sticky, but
wiping the outsides could bring that down to an acceptable level.


Bruce W.1 wrote:
> For years I have put paraffin wax on my chain the old fashioned way,
> heat it on a stove and then drop in the chain. This has great results
> but there must be an easier way.
>
> Yes there are many chain lubricant products, but they all seem wimpy
> compared to a hot coat of paraffin. And most are greasy which results
> in dirt and grease getting on anything the chain touches. Boeshield T-9
> sounds like a good product but at $1 per ounce it ought to be.
>
> So I'm thinking of dissolving solid paraffin in a solvent. Just dip
> your chain and let it dry.
>
> Many things can dissolve paraffin. My question is, which is the least
> smelly and least toxic? There's:
> + naptha (lighter fluid)
> + benzene
> + turpentine
> + carbon tet
> + xylene
> + toluol
> and many others. What would you use for a paraffin solvent?
>
> Thanks for your help.
 
Jocko **** <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Can we make a commercial quality lube by using brightly colored
> crayons?


Hot damn! I imagine I can profit very handsomely among the fashion
concious fixie set here in Seattle. They're already running pink,
purple, and other colours of chains. Why not coloured waxes for those
chains?

;-)

--
Dane Buson - [email protected]
"English doesn't borrow from other languages. English follows other
languages down dark alleys, knocks them over, and goes through their
pockets for loose grammar."
 
Dane Buson wrote:
> Jocko **** <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Can we make a commercial quality lube by using brightly colored
> > crayons?

>
> Hot damn! I imagine I can profit very handsomely among the fashion
> concious fixie set here in Seattle. They're already running pink,
> purple, and other colours of chains. Why not coloured waxes for those
> chains?
>
> ;-)
>


Just imagine: Pink Lightning, Blue Lightning, Lavender Lightning, etc.!
The con artists at WL can probably charge 20% more for the colored
versions.
 
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006 12:09:19 -0700, Dane Buson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Jocko **** <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Can we make a commercial quality lube by using brightly colored
>> crayons?

>
>Hot damn! I imagine I can profit very handsomely among the fashion
>concious fixie set here in Seattle. They're already running pink,
>purple, and other colours of chains. Why not coloured waxes for those
>chains?
>
>;-)


For only $25, we'll custom match your handlebar tape! (I always knew
there was some use, somewhere, for buckets of crayons left at the end
of a school year!)

Pat

Email address works as is.
 
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:50:11 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>> Motorcycle chain spray. If desired, wipe off the excess from the
>> outside of the chain after soaking the joints. Will creep into the
>> joints and not come off ever unless you do over 60 mph in the rain for
>> extended periods of time. Downside is that it IS a bit sticky, but
>> wiping the outsides could bring that down to an acceptable level.

>
>Indeed, it isn't surprising that the best lube for a chain is chain
>lube. Get the one for non-O ring chains. Unfortunately, chain-lube is
>inexpensive and it works extremely well, unlike most of the expensive
>bicycle chain lubricants. You can wipe the outside of the chain with a
>rag soaked in kerosene or WD-40 to clean the outside.
>
>Above all, avoid waxing your chain.


Dear SMS,

Why?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Motorcycle chain spray. If desired, wipe off the excess from the
> outside of the chain after soaking the joints. Will creep into the
> joints and not come off ever unless you do over 60 mph in the rain for
> extended periods of time. Downside is that it IS a bit sticky, but
> wiping the outsides could bring that down to an acceptable level.


Indeed, it isn't surprising that the best lube for a chain is chain
lube. Get the one for non-O ring chains. Unfortunately, chain-lube is
inexpensive and it works extremely well, unlike most of the expensive
bicycle chain lubricants. You can wipe the outside of the chain with a
rag soaked in kerosene or WD-40 to clean the outside.

Above all, avoid waxing your chain.
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:50:11 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Above all, avoid waxing your chain.

>
> Dear SMS,
>
> Why?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel


Why, because the World's Greatest Expert hath spoken!
 
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>You have as yet to quote an authoritative source on
>lubrication science.


You have yet to quote an authoritative source that
says that paraffin wax is not a wax. The source you
quoted says it is.

>> 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.

>
>As long as oil is around, it will lubricate. Not
>sometimes, always. Paraffin wax will be squeezed out, and
>just sit there in lumps not lubricating.


to the bearing. Or your chain doesn't

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

>
>You know what is in White Ligtning?


You don't?

>> Wax under pressure is grease.

>
>False.


You keep saying that, and it keeps being wrong.

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

> Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> >You have as yet to quote an authoritative source on
> >lubrication science.

>
> You have yet to quote an authoritative source that
> says that paraffin wax is not a wax. The source you
> quoted says it is.


Let's call long chain alkanes wax then.

[...]

> >You know what is in White Ligtning?

>
> You don't?


Answer the question, or say that you will not answer.

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

> >
> >False.

>
> You keep saying that, and it keeps being wrong.


You made the assertion. Prove it.
 
Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article
><[email protected]>,
> Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >You have as yet to quote an authoritative source on
>> >lubrication science.

>>
>> You have yet to quote an authoritative source that
>> says that paraffin wax is not a wax. The source you
>> quoted says it is.

>
>Let's call long chain alkanes wax then.
>
>[...]
>
>> >You know what is in White Ligtning?

>>
>> You don't?

>
>Answer the question, or say that you will not answer.
>
>In article
><[email protected]>,
> Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> Wax under pressure is grease.
>> >
>> >False.

>>
>> You keep saying that, and it keeps being wrong.

>
>You made the assertion. Prove it.


I did.

You didn't disprove my proof.

You just whined that you didn't like it.

Tough ****. Stay ignorant. We'll stay informed that
you're ignorant.

--Blair
 
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:
> >> >You have as yet to quote an authoritative source on
> >> >lubrication science.
> >>
> >> You have yet to quote an authoritative source that
> >> says that paraffin wax is not a wax. The source you
> >> quoted says it is.

> >
> >Let's call long chain alkanes wax then.
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> >You know what is in White Ligtning?
> >>
> >> You don't?

> >
> >Answer the question, or say that you will not answer.
> >
> >In article
> ><[email protected]>,
> > Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> Wax under pressure is grease.
> >> >
> >> >False.
> >>
> >> You keep saying that, and it keeps being wrong.

> >
> >You made the assertion. Prove it.

>
> I did.


Humor me. How is it that wax under pressure is grease?

--
Michael Press
 
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:
>> >
>> >> Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >You have as yet to quote an authoritative source on
>> >> >lubrication science.
>> >>
>> >> You have yet to quote an authoritative source that
>> >> says that paraffin wax is not a wax. The source you
>> >> quoted says it is.
>> >
>> >Let's call long chain alkanes wax then.
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >
>> >> >You know what is in White Ligtning?
>> >>
>> >> You don't?
>> >
>> >Answer the question, or say that you will not answer.
>> >
>> >In article
>> ><[email protected]>,
>> > Blair P. Houghton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> Wax under pressure is grease.
>> >> >
>> >> >False.
>> >>
>> >> You keep saying that, and it keeps being wrong.
>> >
>> >You made the assertion. Prove it.

>>
>> I did.

>
>Humor me. How is it that wax under pressure is grease?


You weren't listening, or are pretending you're
too dumb to remember.

Wax is always grease.

--Blair