Home Spindle Lube Test

Just goes to show that not all lubricants are created equal. Thanks for sharing the results. Sean
>

Inpep: I just went back and re-read your explanation. It makes perfect sense to me and i have nothing to argue with you about on this. In fact, i would even go further in saying that one can use too heavy of a viscosity lubricant, which would result in increased drag and / or less than expected results.

I still don't get where we are "diverging" on what we are looking for as an end result though. Isn't the goal of a lubricant to reduce external frictional losses to a minimum without introducing further drag into the equation of its' own accord? I understand about viscosity, "shearing" of oil, the use of fillers to widen thermal stability, etc...

What i'm getting at is this: If a product is the slipperiest substance known to man, and it is both thermally and chemically stable for the intended use, how could system losses or internal drag be reduced any further? Obviously, i'm taking into consideration that the mating surfaces are properly machined, etc... Help me out here, will ya? Sean
>

Bob: I think that Rockvirgo has demonstrated just the opposite of what you stated i.e. "all engine oils are overkill - even olive oil will do". There's obviously a very big difference in the ability to lubricate and reduce friction between the items compared.

If ALL of the motor oils were "overkill", they would all reduce drag to the same approximate point. Given that they all show markedly different settling times, the differences in drag / frictional loss is still quite measurable. This tells me that seeking out and using the best product is not overkill.

Until the playing field is leveled to the point of diminishing returns between multiple "identical" products, selecting the one that works best seems only logical to me. That is, if the price differential isn't beyond reason. That's why i kept referring to Tufoil in a similar thread. When you've got minimal friction, you've got the least amount of motor and bearing wear with the least possible need for speed correction.

By the way, multi-weight oil makes use of more "binders" or "fillers" as additives. These additives allow the oil to "stretch" and change viscosity as temperature varies. The more fillers that you have, the less oil that you have. If one is running a device that maintains a relatively consistent operating temperature with consistent ambient temperatures, it is best to pick the most suitable single grade lubricant for the job at hand. This is why most industrial grade machinery calls for straight 30 weight oil. It won't break down as quickly due to using fewer "binders" or "fillers". Sean
>

Inpep: By reducing wear on the mating surfaces as you described, the lubricant reduces friction that could be transferred into the platter. It also mimizes the associated the loss of energy due to the reduction of mechanical binding and / or thermal considerations.

This allows the bearing / platter stem to last longer without having to be replaced, the motor driving the platter lasts longer due to having to do less work and there is less need for error correction of the speed because the rotational mass of the platter remains more consistent due to less drag and energy loss.

Given that a good lubricant that is well chosen for the intended use achieves all of these inter-related factors simultaneously, i stand by my original statements and suggestion. The use of the slipperiest substance known to man will reduce wear, will minimize frictional and thermal losses, won't introduce its' own drag into the equation and is temperature stable beyond that of any oil based product that i'm aware of. On top of that, any "friction" or "wear" that is generated within the bearing / platter stem cavity itself that could be passed onto the platter will be somewhat better damped by this lubricant due to its' thicker nature.

The fact that this stuff can be bought for less than $15 per 8 oz bottle is WAY less than any other "audio related" or "snake oil" type lubricant that you'll ever find. Yes, it may be "overkill", but what aspect of "high end audio" isn't in most regards??? Sean
>

Inpep: You obviously never read my original recommendations on the subject. If you had done so, we wouldn't have been having "the great debate" that we are now. Nor would others have been able to use your responses to me as "ammo" to try and undermine my credibility. Those detractors should take note that you've just proven my point with your above responses, which they will be made aware of by the end of this post.

The product that i recommended is a hybrid that is based on various lubricants combined into one product. While your comments about Teflon are right on the money, this product does not rely on Teflon alone. That's because Teflon will fail by itself when placed under a load. As such, they've added Moly to the formula, which will hold up under load. On top of that, Moly is thick enough to cling to the surfaces, which in turn helps suspend the Teflon.

Only problem with this is that both of these substances lack "flowability", so circulation and self-induced drag could come into play. Not wanting to add fillers to the formula, which would improve the flow but do nothing but subtract from the long term performance of the lubricant, they added a straight weight oil. The oil increases "flowability" and makes the entire product more "liquid", increasing circulation and parts coverage.

The specific materials in this product consist of Polytetraflouroethylene, Molybdenum Di Phosphordithlioate, Methacrylate / Vinyl Pyrrolidine Copolymer, Petroleum Hydrocarbon Motor Oil, Polyalpha Olefin, Didecyl Adipate Dimer Ester, etc... I have no idea as to the exact percentages used of any of them, all i know is that it works and works as claimed. For the record, this product is not water soluble, so moisture isn't a problem either.

Given their claims, this product was submitted to the US Government for testing. During testing at the NIST, this product was found to be "the slipperiest substance known to man". Based on the test results as performed by the US Government and other results submitted, the Guiness book of World Records recognizes this product as "the worlds most efficient lubricant". Given the fact that this product is marketed in several different forms designed for various load and thermal conditions, i'm quite certain that there is one that will work for just about any given application. This is one of the few "additives" and / or lubricants that is actually approved by the FTC as meeting its' claims.

As such, i'll stand by my original statements. Like i've said before, i'll eat crow, acknowledge my mistakes and be greatful for the corrections as they come. I don't want to be responsibe for "spreading disinformation". As far as i can tell, this isnt' one of those times.

As to your comment: "friction and wear aren't substances that can be "transmitted" as you put it. Its not like vibrations!", this is absolutely wrong. Friction and wear occur from part to part contact and / or natural erosion within that specific environment to a lesser extent. Any time that you have part to part contact, the end result of that "collision" ( to whatever extent ) is that you'll have vibrations generated. Given that those vibrations can be dissipated via hydraulic damping, the use of a lubricant that takes that criteria into consideration could very easily reduce those vibrations as transferred to other nearby materials. The only problem is that the mechanical energy has to be dissipated somewhere. With hydraulic damping, that energy is dissipated as heat / thermal loss within the lubricant itself. As such, the lubricant also has to be able to withstand the thermal conditions that it will be operating under with great ease if it is to be used with high levels of reliability over a long period of time.

Please correct me if i'm wrong or clarify areas that are lacking the proper explanation. Sean
>

Inpep: "Why are you restating things that I have already elucidated and then claiming that you were correct all the time?"

Sean: Nothing that i've seen you post "corrected" anything that i originally stated. The product that i initially recommended reduces wear and friction beyond that of any other product on the market, doesn't introduce drag of its' own accord, offers long term reliability and is quite cost effective. Where did i fail in my initial response?

What you did point out that i took for granted / overlooked in this specific thread was "longevity". I didn't take into account the ability of the lubricant to sustain the necessary lubricating properties for a long period of time i.e. a "quick & dirty" test like this might not reveal the fact that a product that "works great" now may not work very well at all after a short period of time later.

Inpep "You don't know the exact formula for that lubricant but I do!"

Sean: I posted the chemical make-up of the product based on the information that the manufacturer has posted on their website. If it is incorrect / lacking, talk to them.

Inpep "In fact one of the components, the didecyl adipate dimer ester (we abreviated to DIDA) was one of the many lubricant bases that we (BASF) made for Castrol."

Sean: That could be and i'll take your word for it. None the less, it doesn't change the contents of this thread.

Inpep "I have nothing more to add that would help you in understanding the facts of lubricating systems and lubricants themselves."

Sean: I guess not. In another thread about the same basic subject, i recommended a product that met / surpassed all of the criteria that you discussed. I mentioned the product by name, provided multiple links to it, etc... How you arrived at the idea that i was referrencing a completely different product ( Mobil 1 ) from a different manufacturer is beyond me.

The fact that you're just now responding to someone that commented on the use of Teflon on 12/16 whereas the product that i mentioned a couple of months ago uses Teflon as one of the primary ingredients ( along with multiple other additives ) basically demonstrates how out of touch you are with the topics being discussed in several overlapping threads. Sean
>

Metralla: If i said that i could levitate the Empire State Building on the internet without providing anything other than that statement as evidence, would you believe that?

I'm NOT saying that Bob is a liar as he's never said anything that would ever lead me to that conclusion. In fact, i think that Bob's contributions to this forum are uniformly high in calibre and very worthwhile / beneficial additions. The fact that i made mention of that specific product weeks and weeks ago without Bob acknowledging it in that thread and / or in this thread while thinking i was talking about a completely different product is what throws me for a loop. If he was / is familiar with it, why not point out the specific flaws in that suggestion / product to begin with? That product is what i've based most of my statements on. Knocking the wind out of my sails by being able to discredit that product and / or using it for this type of specific application would have silenced me a long time ago. It would have also taught us all what to / not to look for in such a situation. While Bob has gone into further explanation to clarify why the "quick & dirty" test may be flawed in terms of longevity, which is something that i completely overlooked and needed to be corrected, i've still not seen anything to refute my suggestion of that specific product.

Like i said, that product meets / exceeds all of the criteria that he's brought to the discussion as far as i can tell, as he's yet to explain how it doesn't. Given that he claims to have intricate working knowledge of the product that i'm talking about, it should be easy to correct any errors pertaining to its' use that i've made. I may be wrong about my suggestion, but i've yet to see anything in this or other related threads that explains why. That's why i said that i'll stand by my statements until i'm shown otherwise. Sean
>

Thanks for clarifying where you were coming from Bob. Given the similar content and people participating in other threads, i ended up tying them all together as one. Your response was definitely on target to this specific thread but was lacking in scope compared to how i was viewing / responding to things. I guess this all boils down to a lack of communications / seeing & responding to things from a different point of view. As mentioned above, my comments lacked forethought in terms of longevity and i'm glad that you pointed that out. It made me re-think the situation / wording that i chose and may have saved others a LOT of time, grief and cost. For that, you are to be commended and i want to say "THANK YOU" for doing so.

In effect, your comments and pointing this out covered my lack in-depth analysis of the subject at the time. Then again, i was never contemplating someone using something along the lines of an easily evaporated ( water based ) substance or "vegetable oil", etc... for something like this. Then again, i know that this is possible because i get to "clean up" such messes when dealing with customers at work. You should see the mess that it makes when people try to clean out potentiometers or flush off circuit boards using something like carburator cleaner or WD-40!!! Sean
>