It’s been a long time coming. First there was Climategate, where e-mails revealed European authorities disinformation strategies which included a systematic takeover of the climate content on Wikipedia, to erase inconvenient scientific information and silence the dissenting opinions of hundreds of leading scientists. Then there was the NOAA whistleblower who revealed the systematic fraud strategies that were creating a fake data appearance of global warming. For those who forget, this included replacement of many high-altitude weather stations with low altitude weather stations that were inherently warmer, and even some new temperature stations on blacktop roofs and behind airport jet-engine exhaust zones. Of course that wasn’t enough by itself because you have to deal with the ocean temperatures… so they were just changing the data in the reporting.
Now, with an official 18 years of global cooling under our belts (using real temperature data), we have a long string of remarkable proofs that everything is getting cooler – just like the solar energy cycle predicted. Along with tens of thousands of other engineers, scientists and educators, I’ve been on the intelligent and correct side of this Global-Warming fraud: publicly since 2007.
Here are more complete details on the end of the climate scare fraud. Please share links to the article, because many people need to learn the facts and unlearn the deceptions. The ignorant and the hidden-agenda liars will still disagree with the facts, but their credibility is zero.
Meanwhile, however, we have to contend with the continued agendas that drove the Obummer EPA to declare that Carbon Dioxide was a pollutant. That was the key driver to force higher electrical costs, higher new vehicle costs with unrealistic and illegally forced MPG targets, “green business” scams, and wider use of the carbon-credits theft and money-transfer scheme – not to mention setting up the CARB shysters to dictate their fraud nationwide. As energy costs “necessarily skyrocket” per emperor O’s stated plan, and new vehicle designs move toward tiny aerogel capsules with unobtanium components and an average $60k USD pricetag, and the plan unfolds to allow ebola to decimate the nation and military so the emperor’s minions can seize more power, it becomes ever more clear that we must regain control of our corrupt government wannabe-marxist-masters. Remember to vote with intelligence: real environmental responsibility is great, but anyone who publicly supports GW-fraud-based agendas like those isn’t fit for any responsibility in any office in the free world.
I recently found this example of how extensively big-oil substitutes marketing deception for actual performance and test data. Here’s what is being passed off as “Product Specs” direct from Valvoline’s website on MaxLife:
MaxLife is formulated with extra anti-wear additives to exceed the engine protection requirements of ILSAC GF-3 and GF-4, and API SL/SM standards and is safe for use in new and rebuilt engines, and will not void new car warranties.”
That’s it. Believe it or not, those are supposed to be “product specs”. I also noticed that the description of MaxLife includes this wording “The synthetic blend formula…” But in their FAQ’s they have this specific Q&A:
“Is MaxLife motor oil a synthetic product?
No. MaxLife is made with premium base oils and special components to help slow the aging process of a vehicle’s engine.”
Clever, huh? They tell us it’s synthetic, but they also clarify by telling us it’s not. So then maybe it’s not really false advertising after all?
But then in another MaxLife FAQ, are these gems, listed as #7 and #10:
“Has MaxLife always been a synthetic blend?
MaxLife Synthetic Blend motor oil is actually the same product as regular MaxLife. MaxLife has always been a synthetic blend oil; we just now label the product that way. It is the same oil as before. As long as you have used MaxLife, you have used synthetic blended oil.”
Why is there no mileage limit given on MaxLife Synthetic motor oil? Mobil 1 says 15,000 miles and Amsoil says 25,000 miles?
Valvoline recommends following the oil change intervals recommended in your owner’s manual no matter what type of oil you use. Most manufacturers recommend every 3-months/3,000 miles.
So Valvoline is deliberately continuing the same give-me-money 3,000 mile oil change scam that GM and California have organized to end. And sorry, but what manufacturer recommends a 3,000 mile engine oil drain interval? GM’s OLS system averages 8,500 mile oil changes, and that assumes mediocre API Licensed petroleum.
A brief background is important for the majority of Americans who have no idea about the petroleum oil scam of the decade: It is only legal in America to sell Group III (hydrocracked petroleum) oil as “synthetic”, and the shelves are full of these supposed Big-Oil “synthetics”. Why? Because their studies showed that after 25 years of effort Amsoil had succeeded in bringing the synthetic-oil-market growth to critical mass, and demand was beginning to take off. Since a growing number of their customers were willing to pay big dollars for synthetics in order to save money and gain much better performance and value, Big Oil needed a solution. So in 1999 they flexed U.S. muscles, quietly redefining “synthetic” in order to deceive the public and cash in on the profits.
So with the new definition of a “synthetic” being a Group III (petroleum) as background, I have to conclude that MaxLife is only a Group II, perhaps with some synthetic additives (they claim 30% synthetic in one spot): that’s as mediocre as oil can get and still (barely) pass the API minimums. Clear and factual information? Comparative test data? Forget about it.
The Treasury Department teaches that you have to know what real money is, in order to spot a counterfeit. So because most people have never seen one, here’s a real motor oil product data page. And here’s my idea of comparative engine oil test data. Keep in mind that those are the industry benchmark ASTM tests that all the oil companies use – but to the public it’s as if they don’t even exist. Only one oil company publishes meaningful test results, they’re done by the same certified independent labs that do much of the API testing, and in over 30 years of publishing results against named engine oils with embarrasing performance gaps, they’ve never once been accused of falsified data. (Hmmm.)
In conclusion, here’s my translation out of Valvoline marketing-hype into reality:
All oils that meet any minimum requirements will “help slow the aging process” more than canola oil, but you can feel good about using our run-of-the-mill-mineral-oil because we’ve studied how the magic “synthetic” word, combined with our copy writing and label-designing skills, can give you warm emotional fuzzies about paying too much money for it.
Suggestion: don’t be a gullible consumer. If you educate yourself you can triple your remaining vehicle life. The million mile van used the best synthetic lubes and nanofiber filtration technology, and is still running strong on the original untouched transmission with 150,000 mile synthetic tranny fluid changes.
Irresponsible and unqualified “maroons” too often leave ugly trash commments on vehicle forums, making grossly incorrect statements about Amsoil synthetic oils that just infuriate me. Like this classic gem from the Slant Six forum: “Don’t let the Scamsoil droids convince you their expensive gunk is superior to properly-tested, properly-certified regular or synthetic name brand oil.” Or over at Ford-trucks.com you find “Most of Scamsoil’s products ARE NOT API certified!!!! Sounds like you have been reading the lies on the Scamsoil website, stay away”.
If they were merely sharing their opinion and stating their credentials, people wouldn’t have much heartburn over it. But to make false statements like that, irresponsibly leading people away from the superior performance and lower costs of advanced technology, gets me irate.
So, for the record, let’s establish qualifications before we talk about facts. I’m a B.S. degreed Mechanical Engineer. I’ve been in industry for more than 20 years, the last 5 as an engineering manager, and have spent more than the last 10 in the Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers, where most automotive parts are made and a lot of value-added engineering is done to improve the products and manufacturing processes. As a matter of fact, while the OEM has some involvement when a subassembly has a defect, guess who is required to do an “8-D” root-cause analysis, implement corrective actions, and monitor to make sure the CA’s are effective and it can’t happen again?
In 2004 I bought a 2002 GMC Sierra with the Duramax turbodiesel and Allison transmission package. That was the beginning of a journey of extensive personal research into vehicle drivetrain lubrication and filtration, and a growing passion to tell people the astonishing facts I learned. I became an Amsoil dealer, not only to help people get literature and best pricing, but to continue learning.
Opinions are as worthless as armpits – everyone has one, but most of them are smelly. And you can see some of the smelly opinions in detail on this “scamsoil” page for Amsoil skeptics, which corrects Amsoil myths using facts. I tell people what I know, and the conclusions I can reasonably prove with facts and data. So let’s talk about facts. But before I can get far, I have to explain the common sense backdrop to correctly “frame” the facts.
I find it interesting how one-sided the online forums often are: if an Amsoil dealer makes a statement, he’s often dissed, disbelieved, and ridiculed – even if he’s an engineer. If he’s not a “supporting sponsor” of the forum who is paying for the right to make “commercial” comments, he may get warned, censored or kicked off by the moderators for “advertising” helpful facts or suggestions. However, no one seems to question if naysayers have ever worked for petroleum suppliers, if they have an engineering degree, or if they have had training sponsored by “big oil” – and they aren’t required to be a paying sponsor to make glowing recommendations of petro oils. Couple that with a forum’s discussion environment of one or two pararaph comments, and the deck is strongly stacked against open an discussion of engineering facts and test data.
Executive Summary-in-One-Paragraph of the
Facts on API Certification of Synthetic Engine Oils
Under Their EOLCS:
Unfortunately for consumers, the API has no Certification for high performance: only minimum performance. Further, the API provides no reasonable certification options for genuine Group IV and Group V synthetics, deliberately maintaining a skewed structure that multiplies synthetic test costs by several times. In addition, the API Certification adds content restrictions (not required by the SAE, not required by the OEM’s) that prevent long drain intervals and prevent very low wear rates. So the world of API Licensing implies that high-profit mediocre products are high performance, it ensures that only petroleum-company oils can be cost-effectively Certified by the API, and it ensures that the world’s highest-performance products cannot be API Licensed/Certified at all. Fortunately for consumers who want high performance and high value, the API Certification monopoly is a voluntary trademark Licensing program that does not matter in vehicle warranties.
Now, that’s stunning information for many people. So let me clarify:
Close examination of the OEM Owners’ Manuals shows that engine oils must meet the API/SAE Service Grade requirements that the OEM states. Continue reading
Will the real lubrication expert please stand up? I often find that I’m a bit of an “odd duck out” in engineering because I have a different philosophy, perhaps an expert’s philosophy of excellence. Most engineers seem to find respect in being “vendor neutral” generalists who are content when things are working — the classic “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality. They say essentially “a lot of companies make good products, and you just need one that works for you”. To me, that’s a lazy cop-out that often carries “vendor neutrality” nearly to the point of customer/consumer abuse. Because there often ARE products of superior performance by exceptional design. If you understand and use superior products effectively, they can deliver BIG performance advantages, and synthetic lubricants are one of those areas.
Yes, learning to evaluate and compare design and performance takes a lot of work. You have to learn your field well, you have to analyze constantly, and you have to suspect everything. And yes, being an advocate for one or two products can make an engineering expert sound like a biased salesman. But I think a genuine expert has his greatest value in researching and identifying the “benchmark” performance standards, and recommending and applying them properly for the greatest customer benefit. I think it’s an engineer’s job to deliver the highest performance/value possible. I’ve done that repeatedly in multiple industries and processes, and have always been able to deliver a strong competitive advantage – usually at least an 80% improvement over what “experts” say is possible.
One paperclip is usually as good as another, and when they aren’t it doesn’t matter. But the more complex the field, the more likely that there is a world technology leader that brings stunning performance and great value to the table. In lubrication fluid and filtration performance, AMSOIL is that leader. We’ve seen it “up close and personal” in our own vehicles, it reflects what the test data and oil analysis reveal, and we know that when you understand the benefits of AMSOIL synthetic lube and filter technologies, you’ll see big benefits for your vehicles and equipment.
Marketing is worthless. AMSOIL is about performance… about data… about being least expensive to use and providing the greatest protection at the same time. That’s real value. I became an AMSOIL dealer because I recognized the best synthetic oils and the cost savings they bring. Amsoil has 25,000 and 35,000 mile oils that when you finally change them are still outperforming most oils when they’re first poured out of their bottles. Hey, show me a better or more cost-effective engine oil than AMSOIL, and I’ll recommend it. Show me a better filter than nanofiber technology, and I’ll recommend it. But my experience says you’ll waste a lot of time looking. Other companies could technically do what Amsoil does, but they won’t — because giving their customers the best value and highest performance possible is the Golden Rule, which takes too much talented dedication and is a violation of their corporate business strategy.
I recently got this e-mail from Tom, an engineer:
Brian, I’m thinking that you’ll have such a field day with the following article (Mark Barnes, “Is There a Lubrication Silver Bullet?” Machinery Lubrication Magazine. January 2006), that I was bound and determined to send it to you . . .can you let me know what you think of it?
Yeh, that’s an interesting article alright. I’d say that if they are going to take “Noria’s strict vendor neutral policy” seriously, Mr. Barnes and a couple of cohorts ought to sign up as Amsoil Dealers and go to Amsoil U. They seem to try hard to be objective, but wow – when you’re smack dab in the middle of billions of dollars of international oil company influence, backed by years of anti-synthetic propaganda, I don’t see how neutral they can be if they don’t get the inside perspective of the one company who has most defined synthetics and has battled big-oil agendas for decades.
At the same time, I’ve seen this scenario before from people considered true experts in their field. Perhaps I’m reading too much into his comments, but it sure sounds familiar. Try this on for size:
About 2-3 years ago I took a new seminar on Global Process Control from one of the most recognized international engineering consultants in the field. 25+ yrs experience, client list history probably as long as your leg, on at least three continents. Yet I saw some serious inaccuracies in his perspectives for one particular high-visibility process – he was taking the entire range of the most expensive high-volume equipment in the industry, and saying it was all a waste of money and low-balling it’s value and performance as a whole. “Throwing the baby out with the bath water.”
Over dinner that night, I asked him if all his bad equipment experiences hadn’t been with the two specific widely-advertised household-name brands, and he said yes. I told him that’s the reason why I’ve tested but never selected their equipment – they’re mostly marketing hype jobs with a lot of problems, limitations and quirks, as he had basically pointed out. Then I asked him if he had ever worked with two other lower-profile and lower volume brands which were my top two standards for benchmark performance levels. He looked at me quizzically and said “no”.
I told him something like this: Ed, you and I are great engineers who come from completely different worlds. But for three years, I walked in your shoes a little as the miracle worker they asked to come in ASAP. You need to understand that as a high-performance consultant, you’re never urgently called in to see how great someone’s processes are working. You’re never called in to optimize a process that’s already working real well, but they are curious if it’s possible to improve the performance by another 80%, or if 2% is all they can hope for. These other guys have great performing equipment that’s capable of high performance advantages if you know how to use it, but you never see any of it in your customers – they all call you because they bought crap that doesn’t work and they need you to perform a 15 minute miracle because they’re losing thousands or millions of dollars an hour. The companies I’ve worked for will never call you because their processes run rings around their competitors, far better than anything they’ve ever done before, and they’re optimized to be very profitable and stable. And I gave him an example from one of my automotive launches for Ford, so stunning that he found it hard to believe my numbers: 20% faster than possible, at a defect rate at least 70% below what the suppliers thought was possible. As a favor, I called a plant engineer and verified my memory.
Well, he took that to heart. And the next day he said, you know, what you’ve accomplished for companies is very impressive. But you need to realize that none of the customers I work with have an engineer trained in these processes – much less a good one. They don’t need to buy fancy equipment that makes it easier for them to screw up more things, because they’ll never get the potential out of it.
Several months later I found that on his website he had changed his tune and was applauding a company whose equipment actually performed well.
Can you see what I’m getting at?
In the article, Mr. Barnes says “What about synthetics? What about fuel economy and extended oil drains – it is assumed that I have a preference. Again, my response is the same: I own a newer model car, so I don’t need to be concerned with high-mileage issues. I am fortunate to live in a temperate climate where I am not forced to start my car when it’s -40°F. Most of my driving is on highway (mostly to and from the airport, given how much traveling I do!), and I do not own a boat or trailer to tow uphill on weekends. Therefore, I’m content to change my oil every 5,000 miles as my owners manual recommends. And lastly, I do not race my car in the passing lane (I guess I’m getting old!).
Based on these factors, I choose a brandname, 5W30 mineral oil, which again meets the API and SAE requirements for my vehicle. [Oops - by the API's own admission, those requirements are minimums only.] That is not to say that you should not use any other oil type, or that synthetics or high-mileage formulations are gimmicks – they’re not. If you live in a colder climate, wish to extend oil drains, have an older car, have a high RPM motorcycle or have particularly severe duty, you may choose to spend the money to upgrade. For me, this doesn’t make sense. By ensuring I maintain my vehicle properly (tire pressure, timing etc.), I can achieve better fuel economy than I can by switching from one oil brand to another.”
Yes, but that distracts from the fact that a 5-10% fuel economy bump when using AMSOIL synthetic oils is an extra boost, in addition to normal proper maintenance. It also ignores the savings of money, and savings of 80% in time and natural resources that you get with 25,000 mile oil changes instead of 5,000 miles. And it ignores the benefits of minimum 70% wear rate reductions which triple the remaining life of an engine.
Look at the last three sentences that conclude his article:
“If you know an application is having lubrication issues, instead of opening the Yellow Pages to look for the next lubricant supplier to invite through the revolving purchasing door, look in the mirror and ask yourself: “Is my lubrication program – areas that I can control such as correct application, cleanliness and storage – up to par?” Is looking for a silver bullet really the answer?”
Here’s a guy (Mark Barnes) that is clearly a seasoned expert but is not focused on high performance cost-savings, because with every customer he’s dealing with the high costs of basic ignorance, or poor practices that create mistakes waiting to happen, or maybe the aftermath of incompetent lube sales guys. I can almost guarantee he’s been in companies whose new maintenance lube guy pumped the wrong grease into 10 different $3,000 motor bearings and they all failed within a day. (That’s why the equipment manufacturers use the grease they do in their bearings: it’s not the best choice, but it IS the one that will sell more motors or rebuild parts when standard greases chemically interact with theirs and pour out of the bearings.) It’s those customers with serious problems that bring him in, because they’re desperate and they heard this guy can help.
And he’s going to buy a new vehicle when his current one has 80,000 or 120,000 miles on it, and he sees no advantage to synthetics because as he admits early in the article, he’s never taken as hard a look at it as his customers assume he has. None of them understands that he doesn’t know his subject matter when he’s talking about synthetic engine oils, or that while his advice works it is FAR from optimal in either cost or performance.
A big challenge for both experts and students is data. What data exists, where do you find it, and is it valid? Most lubrication “experts” have never learned to sift through these questions, and data can be hard to come by unless you generate it yourself – which takes lots of time, and requires additional experience and skills. I occasionally see the claim in online forums that Amsoil has no performance data, which is pathetically hilarious because Amsoil has been the King of published data for decades – publishing not only their performance but also the performance of their competition who won’t tell their customers their ASTM test results. Either people can’t find AMSOIL data because they don’t look very hard, or they just listen to others who say there is no data. Mr. Barnes’ expertise is evidently grease, but if he downloaded the Gear Lube White Paper comparison of gear lubes, he might find a clue as to how Amsoil’s greases perform in comparison to conventional petroleum embarrassments.
Another claim is that Amsoil data can’t be trusted because they are the ones who publish it. Several funny problems with that claim: first, they are publishing ASTM test results from certified labs that are used by many oil companies, so if their data isn’t good then neither is any API or SAE data; second, AMSOIL is the only one who publishes test data (even when Exxon-Mobil was asked point-blank for ASTM test data on Mobil 1 vs AMSOIL, they provided nothing but marketing sleight-of-hand); third, although published data claims are legally wide open to false advertising lawsuits, and AMSOIL has huge competitors with deep petro pockets, AMSOIL has never been the subject of even one accusation of false advertising – even though they often publish test results right on their packaging, naming competitive oils. So the decades of legal inaction from AMSOIL’s competition is actual proof that AMSOIL’s test data is accurate.
What Mr. Barnes and Noria seem to miss, steeped in the decades of mediocre petroleum products and synthetic dis-information campaigns, is that the petro companies have a barely-get-by-for-the-specific-application approach, in order to maximize profits. That is reflected in many areas, including the clever API Licensing restrictions which don’t allow high-performance synthetics, and the engine sequence tests. (Fortunately, owners manuals and warranties are based on meeting API/SAE Service Grades, not on being Licensed to display a trademark.)
See, Amsoil’s approach, to engineer the highest possible performance, is the odd duck out. When AMSOIL ran one of their synthetic engine oils through a API Sequence IIIF and had them extend it to triple length, and it flatlined 40% below the failure threshold, the lab boys were stunned – the history of the engine stand had never seen anything like it. To me that makes it rather obvious why Amsoil isn’t going to waste time whining about the API locking them out of Licensing unless they dumb down their product content and performance to the mediocre levels of high petroleum profits.
The ironic thing about Mr. Barnes’ article title is that Amsoil strives to be that Lubrication Silver Bullet — that seems to be their endless mission, and they do it well. To hear Saab experts tell it, AMSOIL is the best Silver Bullet there is to combat fatal sludge formation in sludge-prone engines that cannot stomach API licensed petroleum products, which matches his definition of a Silver Bullet as “a magical weapon, especially one that instantly solves a long-standing problem”.
So from one lubrication expert to another, I’d say that yes, there is a Lubrication Silver Bullet that can stop wear in its’ tracks, lower operating temperatures, lower maintenance costs, use less energy to operate, not allow sludge and varnish buildup, maintain turbochargers in like-new condition, and double or triple equipment life with maximum-performance synthetic lubrication and nanofiber filtration technology. AMSOIL does seem a lot like a Silver Bullet. But in the world of lubrication engineering, you find many who call AMSOIL the Gold Standard.
The ads all sound great, but what’s the bare truth? Most consumers have no idea how to identify and separate marketing smoke-blowers from engineered excellent performance. So, I’m going to tell you.
Several manufacturers of aftermarket air intake filters make great-sounding claims about how well their engine air intake filters remove the fine, sandy grit that causes engine wear. It’s good they’re at least making some claims, because most of the worst performers just ignore the issue of wear particles that pass through their filters. (That’s a consumer hint – don’t buy filters that don’t even attempt to tell you how well they perform.) But how great do those filters really perform in removing dust wear particles?
One company boasts an ISO 5011 test stand with certified performance that’s “testing to the highest standards”. Sounds great. Another uses filter media designed with 5 layers of progressive filtering that’s 99.4% efficient, and “so revolutionary that we applied for and received a patent.” These filters are probably better than the OEM and OEM-style paper filters. But what’s the best performance? As an automotive engineer, I’m adamant in recommending nanofiber filtration technology that’s 98.7% efficient at 2 microns, and 100% efficient at 3 microns. But 99.4% looks like a better number than 98.7%, right? So why do I recommend something that appears to be worse performance, and how do I know that nanofiber technology is really better? Stick with me a couple of minutes to sweep away the fogs of consumer deception, and I’ll explain.
There are four things that count in air filtration: flow volume, holding capacity, and filtration particle size at a specific efficiency.
Flow Volume. Some companies focus exclusively on flow volume.
Three things to beware:
– Flow volume at what pressure drop?
– What’s your engine’s maximum airflow? Any flow beyond what your engine can use is useless to you. In racing or pulling applications with modified vehicles, a high pressure drop (because of high air flow volume) can often collapse the filter. The engine-damaging results are expensive.
– Very low pressure drop at very high flow usually means that at least 50% of meaningful wear particles are passing right through into your engine.
Holding capacity. How much particulate will the filter hold before the pressure drop across the filter is measureably reducing your fuel economy or power? In the case of oiled-cotton-gauze filters, how much particulate will the filter hold before it’s passing nearly all the wear particles into your engine? (The classic answer is “not much”.)
Filtration Particle Size. The accepted engineering rule of thumb is that damaging wear particles are those with a size of 5 to 25 microns. Filtering smaller ones is icing on the cake. Claiming filter performance efficiency on particles larger than 20 microns is a warning sign that the filter performance is very poor.
Filtration Efficiency. This is listed as a percentage, which refers to what percent of a certain size of particles are captured by the filter. Beware: in order for either the particle-size or efficiency to have ANY meaning at all, you MUST know both numbers. Any company who quotes one without the other is simply trying to deceive you, and generally implies that their real performance in removing wear particles is average to poor.
So that’s the bottom line. What matters is that AMSOIL’s Ea line of nanofiber air filters is 98.7% efficient at 2 microns. According to an SAE research paper, that level of filtration reduces particle-based engine wear to levels so low that it is difficult to detect any wear.
What about certified ISO testing? That’s all legitimately potentially impressive, but “the devil’s in the details”. What’s the particle size at what efficiency percentage? They don’t tell you, so you have to figure it out. That’s pretty tough if you aren’t a trained engineer… and not very convenient for consumers! For example, an “SAE Coarse Dust Test” uses A4, and if you look at a typical sample of certified test dust (sent to me by a filter company that advertises their ISO testing), you find that more than 85% of the test dust is larger than 10 microns, less than 35% is smaller than 20 microns in size, and particles that are 5 microns or smaller are less than 10% of the dust. So, “coarse dust” does a poor job in both representing typical driving exposure, AND in representing the 5 to 25 micron wear-particle range that is so critical to your engine.
So what does that mean? A couple of very important things.
First, “coarse” test dust is exactly that, and it’s not going to tell you much other than that you have a filter. It’s a good test of how well your filter will work in a baja race if you’re eating a lot of dust kicked up in front of you. But is that what you’re doing? If they really wanted to test and demonstrate meaningful performance, they would use “fine” test dust.
Secondly, it means that when they do comparison “side by side” “apples to apples” testing against a much better filter, like a nanofiber media, their filter performance can look very good – even identical. Because as the coarse dust builds up on their coarse filter, the classic “dust cake” forms, enabling the filter to take out much smaller particles than it otherwise could. If they tested it with fine dust, the results would be very different.
AMSOIL doesn’t play games. Ea filters are tested with fine dust by the most respected certified filtration test lab in the nation, and they publish the particle size and efficiency together with flow and capacity data. They tell us everything, nothing hidden. No-one else does that. 15 times the dust holding capacity of oiled gauze filters, at an identical (very low) 0.5 inches of pressure drop. And just try to beat 98.7% at 2 microns. Ain’t gonna happen.
By the way, nanofiber filters don’t use oil, are quickly re-cleanable and re-useable, and are also cheaper to use than any other filter solution. Yeh. Use nanofiber and win on time, win on cost, win on performance. Who can beat that?
The U.S. Army must agree with me, because nanofiber filtration technology is what the M1A1 Abrams battle tank has been using for more than a decade.
OK, what’s the real scoop on differentials? What do aftermarket differential covers do for you? Should you buy one or make it yourself? When should you worry about it? When do you need a temperature gauge for your differential? Those questions and more came up in a recent online user forum, and the experts’ answers were excellent. If you do any towing, I believe this information is critical for you.
OEM’s agree that to maximize your differential life you need to do your first fluid change at 5,000 miles, and lubrication and drivetrain engineers will add that a high-performance synthetic is the best and longest-lasting choice. Maybe you’ve heard that, but what synthetic should you choose? Remarkably, there are downright embarrassing differences in the tested performance of gear lubes on the market. In fact, using the wrong one in a towing application will probably take your differential into early failure. You can download a free research study detailing the performance testing of 14 name-brand gear lubes. Think it doesn’t matter much? On the contrary, we found it very disturbing that over half of the name-brand gear lubes failed one or more of the standard performance tests.
That study is also excellent because at the beginning, as background, it outlines the results of operating-temperature studies done on differentials in towing applications. The information from those studies is eye-opening. So enjoy. And remember, your entire vehicle and towing load rests on TWO GEAR TEETH in your differential: your gear lube choice is critical !
It appears that scientists are continuing to learn a lot more about what actually causes climactic variations. In fact, it’s gotten to the point where perhaps a majority of scientists are outright calling Global Warming and Greenhouse gases a “scam”. Why are these types of positions being taken, even while others are still calling global warming “unequivocal” and treating it as a sky-is-falling fact of tragic proportion?
It appears that those still promoting global warming aren’t keeping up with the data. Two of the best recent examples cover the logic, the issues, and the scientific mechanisms that are driving the most up-to-date scientific opinions:
A recent article in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society is detailed here:
This one – “Global Warming not Affected by Man” covers more detail:
“The late New Zealand professor Augie Auer explained that three-quarters of the planet is ocean, and 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is governed by water vapour.
“Of that remaining 5 percent, only about 3.6 percent is governed by CO2 and when you break it down even further, studies have shown that the anthropogenic (man-made) contribution to CO2 versus the natural is about 3.2 percent.”
“So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.115 percent … that’s like .12 cents in $100. It’s minuscule … it’s nothing. “”
I like to point out a couple of common sense things that seem to escape many people. First, that naturally-caused forest fires generate huge amounts of oxide emissions, and mankind already does a great deal to prevent and extinquish such fires – that alone does a lot to reduce our “carbon footprint”. And second, mankind’s worldwide activities can’t hold a candle to the output from a volcanic eruption.
Finally, the scientific research is getting to the point where it can effectively explain common sense. So back to diesels: Mr. EPA, how about rolling back the greenhouse gas emissions requirements set in place for 2007 vehicles, and unleashing modern diesels to get a 10% fuel economy improvement? Isn’t saving 10% in fuel economy more environmentally responsible than reducing gas emissions that have no measurable environmental impact?
The Global Warming issue is certainly a battle of two paradigms. One paradigm must be more accurate, and the other more flawed. Each side claims that scientists are being unethically pressured. Which one is suffering from the proven paradigm impact on scientific research? No matter which way you’re leaning in the “global warming” and “greenhouse gases” issues, it is critical that you read Dr. Ball’s article which I’ve included below. From one of the world’s greatest and most authoritative Climatologists, it is one of the best overall summary evaluations that I have read of the “global warming crisis”.
When Copernicus presented scientific evidence that defied the earth-is-the-center-of-the-universe “fact”, the popular cultural paradigm was stronger than the real scientific data: everyone had been taught the “scientific facts” in school and in the media, so they already “knew” that Copernicus was wrong. So because he dared to present the truth, he was severely mistreated.
In his classic and famous book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Thomas Kuhn revealed how the mental paradigm of researchers and scientists is very powerful in determining experimental results, dramatically influencing the outcome of “objective” research. In fact, the further the data is from what they “expect” to see, the more likely that they will completely throw out disagreeing portions of the data as “flyers”, or “errors”. Once they throw out that data and publish the remains, their readers assume that the data is complete and conclusive – but it’s not. This is part of what has created and sustained the present global-warming paradigm.
But in the case of the UN’s “final” original IPCC signed report, another element was introduced into the published version. Those with control over the publishing of the final report have been accused of deliberately altering the approved content… for political reasons. A number of the original scientific scientists and reviewers claim that a handful of elite IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) members unethically altered the report into its’ “final” version, after the original final version had been signed, apparently in order to falsely represent as scientific fact that global warming is a real and severe problem that is largely caused by mankind. When the “signed” IPCC report was presented as if the signers agreed to the published version, it created a strong international paradigm that has been functioning internationally to help ignore, renounce, discredit, villify, muzzle or minimize the voices of many of the world’s top scientists who are trying to present the actual data… including much fuller scientific evidence which didn’t exist 10 years ago. This paradigm is so strong that even reasonable, fairly logical people are dismissing the credibility of any scientist (or individual) that doesn’t agree with the global-warming conclusions, without fair or reasonable consideration of their credentials, their evidence, or their logic.
In a recent response to my earlier posting, Inel stated that the IPCC “has the greatest credibility worldwide”. But that credibility is based on a false consensus created with incomplete and censored scientific data, and it’s being used as a dramatic excuse to manipulate and control the political arena, and citizens, worldwide. As Dr. Ball states below, “consensus is not a scientific fact”. Nor does consensus create facts which are “unequivocal”.
Unfortunately, even if they are permitted/priviledged to read it, most people are not equipped to measure the validity of Dr. Ball’s observations and perspective. But in my primary field of expertise – manufacturing welding engineering – I have to endlessly battle the giants of wrong “facts” that “everyone knows” about welding processes. I’ve encountered widely recognized national and international welding technology companies and consultants who were firmly wrong, and their opinions would have cost my employer hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars, if I hadn’t persisted in excellence to produce the best, most profitable results. In the end, those results have always proven that I’m right… but the paradigm battles can be intense.
My point here is that I can clearly see Dr. Ball’s position and character in what he writes about his lifelong area of expertise: I recognize the absolute certainty that grows out of a solid blend of seasoned expertise, logic, professionalism, and persistance in the face of great opposition. Whether he wins or loses isn’t the point – he’s fighting for the truth, because it’s in the best interests of the vast majority, and because he feels a deep professional responsibility to advance factual knowledge in his area of expertise.
Here’s the link, followed by his opening paragraph:
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why… “
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.
Brian Dobben is a Mechanical and Welding Engineer with a proven track record of accurate detailed analysis, and bucking international experts to produce 80% improvements in the “best” benchmark welding performance standards.
A major U.S. Senate report is pending which blows the lid on a story the media doesn’t want to talk about. A remarkable number, a growing number, of famous environmental scientists around the world have turned into full-blown skeptics on global warming. They point to a growing weight of scientific evidence against global warming, and to the even greater evidence that mankind’s activities have almost no impact on global temperatures.
An article released this week by the U.S. Senate Committe on Environment and Public Works highlights the history and current positions of several of the world’s most noted environmental scientists. Some of the Scientists cited include geophysicist Claude Allegre, geologist Bruno Wiskel, astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, mathemetician engineer David Evans, climate researcher Tad Murty, botanist David Bellamy, climate scientist Chris de Freitas, physicist Zbigniew Jaworowski, and many more.
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa, taught students that CO2 was the primary driver of climate change. No longer. As the Senate article details, Patterson says his conversion on the issue “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. In the majority? What about the many claims that the IPCC’s report, and the scientific evidence is unequivocal? Maybe they forgot to tell the Geological Society of America.
Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. “But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it’s like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn’t — come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.”
Dr. Chris de Freitas wrote this last August 17th: “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
Yet on the other hand, Greenpeace is building a replica of Noah’s Ark, and their message sounds so familiar: “Climate change is real, it’s happening now and unless world leaders take urgent, decisive and far-reaching action, the next decades will see human misery on a scale not experienced in modern times,” said Greenpeace activist Hilal Atici. “Those leaders have a mandate from the people … to massively cut greenhouse gas emissions and to do it now.”
Who do you suppose has more credibility? Who should get more press coverage? Greenpeace? Or scientists who dedicated themselves to global warming, yet have now reversed their position based on scientific data which shows almost no climate link to manmade factors, but a strong link to solar activity and absorbed solar energy?
Global warming concerns: these days, they drive many decisions that are made daily by private citizens and public policy makers. But as an engineer, I’ve long been suspicious about the idea of NOx (Nitrous Oxide) tailpipe emissions being anything more warming than the Nitrogen and Oxygen already in the atmousphere. As a matter of fact, I’ve been very suspicious about the validity of any of it… but I’m not a climate scientist.
However, recently I’ve found scientists who are speaking out on this subject. And wouldn’t you guess? It’s all about the money, and those many people and nations who would like to destroy our Republic (no, the United States is not a democracy). Other countries want to strangle us (and Western Civilization) with stringent and costly regulations that they have no intention of following themselves, because to them it’s nothing more than economic warfare.
Well over 10 Billion dollars has been spent on climate studies in the last 5 years. Know what the facts say? Global warming is mostly about FRAUD. Costly, and potentially dangerous fraud. http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1523.htm
Also check out this link: http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1473.htm
So it turns out that I’m exactly right about the new ridiculously strict EPA regulations on diesel emissions that take effect for 2007 diesels and diesel fuels: there is no more environmental protection to be gained from these tailpipe edicts than from regulating the content of cow manure emissions. Think about the implications of that fact.
Feb 22nd Update: Inel offered some interesting observations and perspectives. And the eloquent and persuasive writing has prompted me to investigate further and respond. Continue reading