WD-40 on a rusty chain?

Pat

>
> 1. steel can most definitely be porous. and as far as the subject of
> chains are concerned, surface roughness can retain significant foreign
> material, or in this case, oil.
>
> 2. steel can most definitely absorb different materials in solidus.
> solubility of hydrogen in steel, even at room temperature, is phenomenal.
> but again, you're simply seeking to wriggle out from under your own
> mis-statement, not be factually correct.

Please explain how "steel can most definitely be porous" and "steel can most
definitely absorb different materials in solidus (sic)". And this time, use
references instead of your tone of righteous indignation simply because you
don't like Jobst. I find it hard to believe that even if steel can absorb
hydrogen, that it would be at all applicable to this discussion.

Pat in TX
>

jim beam

Pat wrote:
>> 1. steel can most definitely be porous. and as far as the subject of
>> chains are concerned, surface roughness can retain significant foreign
>> material, or in this case, oil.
>>
>> 2. steel can most definitely absorb different materials in solidus.
>> solubility of hydrogen in steel, even at room temperature, is phenomenal.
>> but again, you're simply seeking to wriggle out from under your own
>> mis-statement, not be factually correct.
>
> Please explain how "steel can most definitely be porous"

steel can be porous - that means holes in it. sintered applications are
the classic, but cheapo castings are another.


> and "steel can most
> definitely absorb different materials in solidus (sic)".

as far as the definitive statement is concerned, solid solutions are
very common. not really any different to liquid solutions except that
mixing takes a lot longer. carburized or nitrided components depend on
this phenomenon.

as far as the jobstian fudging is concerned however, he's alluding to
surface adsorption. adsorption is a different matter entirely, and
means a molecular layer sticks to a substrate, regardless of whether
it's source has been removed or not.



> And this time, use
> references

i could, but i really can't be bothered. use google for adsorption,
porosity and sintering, and solid solutions. these are all very common
scientific terms.



> instead of your tone of righteous indignation simply because you
> don't like Jobst.

it's not whether i like him, it's the fact that he's a bullshitter.

example: "Solvent will dissolve the binder for this mixture and allow
gravity removed it in the manner described."

oil has no "binder". it has viscosity, but that's not the same thing.
it has surface tension, but that's not the same thing. what he means is
that bulk application of a liquid can free the surface tension holding a
grit particle in place, and that the lower viscosity can speed its
migration. but scientifically, bulk oil can do exactly the same thing,
only a little slower. crap about "grit suspended in oil" is utter
fabrication because oil can't/won't do that unless you're discussing
very short time frames.



> I find it hard to believe that even if steel can absorb
> hydrogen, that it would be at all applicable to this discussion.

its possible relevance to chain lubrication is the use of cleaning
agents. if the agent evolves hydrogen, through some misapplication, it
can be a factor in the longevity of a chain. i'm not saying it does
happen, but since jobst insists in writing in definitive terms, example:
"Solvent /will/ dissolve the binder" [my emphasis], his definition is
incorrect.

for the record, hydrogen /probably/ is not a factor, but it's wrong to
make a definitive like: "Steel is not porous and at temperatures below
its melting point, does not absorb other materials" for exactly the
reasons i stated.

jim beam

Pat wrote:
>> 1. steel can most definitely be porous. and as far as the subject of
>> chains are concerned, surface roughness can retain significant foreign
>> material, or in this case, oil.
>>
>> 2. steel can most definitely absorb different materials in solidus.
>> solubility of hydrogen in steel, even at room temperature, is phenomenal.
>> but again, you're simply seeking to wriggle out from under your own
>> mis-statement, not be factually correct.
>
> Please explain how "steel can most definitely be porous"

steel can be porous - that means holes in it. sintered applications are
the classic, but cheapo castings are another.


> and "steel can most
> definitely absorb different materials in solidus (sic)".

as far as the definitive statement is concerned, solid solutions are
very common. not really any different to liquid solutions except that
mixing takes a lot longer. carburized or nitrided components depend on
this phenomenon.

as far as the jobstian fudging is concerned however, he's alluding to
surface adsorption. adsorption is a different matter entirely, and
means a molecular layer sticks to a substrate, regardless of whether
it's source has been removed or not.



> And this time, use
> references

i could, but i really can't be bothered. use google for adsorption,
porosity and sintering, and solid solutions. these are all very common
scientific terms.



> instead of your tone of righteous indignation simply because you
> don't like Jobst.

it's not whether i like him, it's the fact that he's a bullshitter.

example: "Solvent will dissolve the binder for this mixture and allow
gravity removed it in the manner described."

oil has no "binder". it has viscosity, but that's not the same thing.
it has surface tension, but that's not the same thing. what he means is
that bulk application of a liquid can free the surface tension holding a
grit particle in place, and that the lower viscosity can speed its
migration. but scientifically, bulk oil can do exactly the same thing,
only a little slower. crap about "grit suspended in oil" is utter
fabrication because oil can't/won't do that unless you're discussing
very short time frames.



> I find it hard to believe that even if steel can absorb
> hydrogen, that it would be at all applicable to this discussion.

its possible relevance to chain lubrication is the use of cleaning
agents. if the agent evolves hydrogen, through some misapplication, it
can be a factor in the longevity of a chain. i'm not saying it does
happen, but since jobst insists in writing in definitive terms, example:
"Solvent /will/ dissolve the binder" [my emphasis], his definition is
incorrect.

for the record, hydrogen /probably/ is not a factor, but it's wrong to
make a definitive like: "Steel is not porous and at temperatures below
its melting point, does not absorb other materials" for exactly the
reasons i stated.

jim beam

Pat wrote:
>> These devices make a mess with dirty solvent sprayed from their chain
>> exit port.
>>
>>> Convincing people that WD-40 is a poor lubricant is often hopeless.
>> Old wives tales have religious attraction for many folks.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> Hey, I doubt this has anything to do with "old wives". How many people
> discussing this topic have been "old wives" anyway? It reminds me of
> listening to "Click and Clack" one day and they were discussing a
> carbureator and one of them said, "Oh, that's an old wives' tale." As if old
> women spent their time discussing carbureator rebuilding? How about calling
> it a folk tale or urban legend....
>

you're missing the point of a linguistic metaphor.

jim beam

Pat wrote:
>> These devices make a mess with dirty solvent sprayed from their chain
>> exit port.
>>
>>> Convincing people that WD-40 is a poor lubricant is often hopeless.
>> Old wives tales have religious attraction for many folks.
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> Hey, I doubt this has anything to do with "old wives". How many people
> discussing this topic have been "old wives" anyway? It reminds me of
> listening to "Click and Clack" one day and they were discussing a
> carbureator and one of them said, "Oh, that's an old wives' tale." As if old
> women spent their time discussing carbureator rebuilding? How about calling
> it a folk tale or urban legend....
>

you're missing the point of a linguistic metaphor.

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Pat who? wrote:

>> These devices make a mess with dirty solvent sprayed from their
>> chain exit port.

>>> Convincing people that WD-40 is a poor lubricant is often
>>> hopeless.

>> Old wives tales have religious attraction for many folks.

> Hey, I doubt this has anything to do with "old wives". How many
> people discussing this topic have been "old wives" anyway? It
> reminds me of listening to "Click and Clack" one day and they were
> discussing a carbureator and one of them said, "Oh, that's an old
> wives' tale." As if old women spent their time discussing
> carbureator rebuilding? How about calling it a folk tale or urban
> legend...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...%20wives%20tale
--
Jobst Brandt

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Pat who? wrote:

>> These devices make a mess with dirty solvent sprayed from their
>> chain exit port.

>>> Convincing people that WD-40 is a poor lubricant is often
>>> hopeless.

>> Old wives tales have religious attraction for many folks.

> Hey, I doubt this has anything to do with "old wives". How many
> people discussing this topic have been "old wives" anyway? It
> reminds me of listening to "Click and Clack" one day and they were
> discussing a carbureator and one of them said, "Oh, that's an old
> wives' tale." As if old women spent their time discussing
> carbureator rebuilding? How about calling it a folk tale or urban
> legend...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...%20wives%20tale
--
Jobst Brandt

Michael Press

In article <SL2dnYTygs184fjVnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@ptd.net>,
"David L. Johnson" <david.johnson@lehigh.edu> wrote:

> jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> > What is soaking when a chain is submerged in oil? The way you say
> > that one might visualize a non-metal getting limp with oil. Steel
> > does not absorb oil.
> ...
> > Chain cleaning tools with rotating brushes are ineffective in doing
> > that. Soaking in solvent allows the grit suspended in oil to separate
> > and fall out when the chain is agitated with its pins vertical.
>
> So, does steel absorb solvent, but not oil?

Did you forget the smiley?

Spritzing solvent on a chain, then rubbing the outside
does not remove grit from the inside. The grit sits there
and laughs at you.

Dumping a chain into solvent and agitating immerses the
interior of the chain in solvent. First the solvent removes
the oil that glues the grit. Then the grit washes around
like pebbles on Dover Beach and one-by-one the grit
particles fall out of the chain interior. A grit particle
on the bottom of the solvent basin has very small probability
of jumping into the chain interstices, while one-by-one,
grit particles in the chain continue to fall out.

--
Michael Press

jim beam

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Pat who? wrote:
>
>>> These devices make a mess with dirty solvent sprayed from their
>>> chain exit port.
>
>>>> Convincing people that WD-40 is a poor lubricant is often
>>>> hopeless.
>
>>> Old wives tales have religious attraction for many folks.
>
>> Hey, I doubt this has anything to do with "old wives". How many
>> people discussing this topic have been "old wives" anyway? It
>> reminds me of listening to "Click and Clack" one day and they were
>> discussing a carbureator and one of them said, "Oh, that's an old
>> wives' tale." As if old women spent their time discussing
>> carbureator rebuilding? How about calling it a folk tale or urban
>> legend...
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...%20wives%20tale

or more accurately:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...andt%20engineer

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:27:05 -0500, "Pat" <tmail@tmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>>
>> 1. steel can most definitely be porous. and as far as the subject of
>> chains are concerned, surface roughness can retain significant foreign
>> material, or in this case, oil.
>>
>> 2. steel can most definitely absorb different materials in solidus.
>> solubility of hydrogen in steel, even at room temperature, is phenomenal.
>> but again, you're simply seeking to wriggle out from under your own
>> mis-statement, not be factually correct.
>
>Please explain how "steel can most definitely be porous" and "steel can most
>definitely absorb different materials in solidus (sic)". And this time, use
>references instead of your tone of righteous indignation simply because you
>don't like Jobst. I find it hard to believe that even if steel can absorb
>hydrogen, that it would be at all applicable to this discussion.
>
>Pat in TX
>>
>
Most definitely IS gemane to the discussion at hand.
Hidrogen embrittelment is a SERIOUS problem. I tried derusting some
chains I had lying arouns, using a phosphoric acid solution. The
chains came out looking like brand new. I put a chain on my bike, and
broke a link the first time a bore down on the pedal. Replaced the
link. and promptly broke another one. I threw out all 3 chains - they
were absolutely useless - because they absorbed hydrogen.

Apparently, if I had baked them at 275 or so for a couple hours they
may have returned to useable status.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

jim beam

clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:27:05 -0500, "Pat" <tmail@tmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> 1. steel can most definitely be porous. and as far as the subject of
>>> chains are concerned, surface roughness can retain significant foreign
>>> material, or in this case, oil.
>>>
>>> 2. steel can most definitely absorb different materials in solidus.
>>> solubility of hydrogen in steel, even at room temperature, is phenomenal.
>>> but again, you're simply seeking to wriggle out from under your own
>>> mis-statement, not be factually correct.
>> Please explain how "steel can most definitely be porous" and "steel can most
>> definitely absorb different materials in solidus (sic)". And this time, use
>> references instead of your tone of righteous indignation simply because you
>> don't like Jobst. I find it hard to believe that even if steel can absorb
>> hydrogen, that it would be at all applicable to this discussion.
>>
>> Pat in TX
> Most definitely IS gemane to the discussion at hand.
> Hidrogen embrittelment is a SERIOUS problem. I tried derusting some
> chains I had lying arouns, using a phosphoric acid solution. The
> chains came out looking like brand new. I put a chain on my bike, and
> broke a link the first time a bore down on the pedal. Replaced the
> link. and promptly broke another one. I threw out all 3 chains - they
> were absolutely useless - because they absorbed hydrogen.
>
> Apparently, if I had baked them at 275 or so for a couple hours they
> may have returned to useable status.

correct. for small componentry like that, it will probably diffuse out
on its own if you leave it for a week or two, but elevated temperatures
are a much more thorough fix. don't over-heat - can ruin the temper of
the steel.

Pat

>> Hey, I doubt this has anything to do with "old wives". How many
>> people discussing this topic have been "old wives" anyway? It
>> reminds me of listening to "Click and Clack" one day and they were
>> discussing a carbureator and one of them said, "Oh, that's an old
>> wives' tale." As if old women spent their time discussing
>> carbureator rebuilding? How about calling it a folk tale or urban
>> legend...
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...%20wives%20tale
> --
> Jobst Brandt

Well, because the term "old wives tale" is sexist, how about this
substitute?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/folk%20lore

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

On Jun 28, 12:11*pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > Pat who? wrote:
>
> >>> Old wives tales have religious attraction for many folks.
>
> >> Hey, I doubt this has anything to do with "old wives". *How many
> >> people discussing this topic have been "old wives" anyway? *It
> >> reminds me of listening to "Click and Clack" one day and they were
> >> discussing a carbureator and one of them said, "Oh, that's an old
> >> wives' tale." *As if old women spent their time discussing
> >> carbureator rebuilding? *How about calling it a folk tale or urban
> >> legend...
>
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...%20wives%20tale
>
> or more accurately:
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...andt%20engineer

Dude,

Jobst just agreed with you (about the roots of
"old wives' tale") and you _still_ flamed him.

Ben