Oil is oil or is it??

[tomh207]

@Swefiddler personal attacks are frowned upon around here. The gentleman you refer to is a respected watchmaker of many years and well regarded here. Some people require to use dictation software to access the internet, software is imperfect, this may be what you are reacting to.

I suggest you apologise to him forthwith.

regards

 

Tom

[JohnR725]

6 minutes ago, Swefiddler said:

@JohnR725 your posts doesn’t make much sense. Are you some kind of AI posting robot or what? If so, please post elsewhere, or give some kind of indication you are an actual person.

It would go against my programming to indicate that I'm a human being. Then you request I post somewhere else I can achieve that for you if you would like? Is that what you would like

then if I am a real human being how exactly what I prove that to you. Or how can you prove that your real human being because you seem to lack proper diagnostic skills for reading like I might expect from a computer

oh and to muddy the waters here however the words appear in the paper I don't type the text is computer-generated does that make me a computer? Well of course it does but what kind of a computer?

[Swefiddler]

3 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

It would go against my programming to indicate that I'm a human being. Then you request I post somewhere else I can achieve that for you if you would like? Is that what you would like

then if I am a real human being how exactly what I prove that to you. Or how can you prove that your real human being because you seem to lack proper diagnostic skills for reading like I might expect from a computer

oh and to muddy the waters here however the words appear in the paper I don't type the text is computer-generated does that make me a computer? Well of course it does but what kind of a computer?

My apologies. My mistake.

[JohnR725]

8 minutes ago, Swefiddler said:

My apologies. My mistake.

First off you do not have to apologize I recognize we had a problem early on and wasn't sure what the problem was. So no apology is needed not for me

14 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

. Then you request I post somewhere else I can achieve that for you if you would like? Is that what you would like

I was hoping for the answer to this question but I guess now I won't get the answer.

We all come to the discussion group to have a fun discussion we all come for differing reasons. Occasionally conflicts can occur and sometimes they can work out another times they don't. As I said I recognized early on that there was a problem so I'm going to help you out and solve your problem. The message board has a interesting feature I would label it as blacklisting let me give you an image of something. Congratulations your now number five. Of the 7300 messages I'm bound to have some people that have problems with whatever I'm doing and the way that I help them out is by making you go away. This means I will never again respond to anything you do I want to see anything you do I will be happy because I come the message board to have fun you can come to the message board and have fun or do whatever he wants without worrying about whatever I'm doing.

So no you did not owe me an apology all you needed to say was you're having a problem and I'm solving the problem.

 

 

[Swefiddler]

No need for blocking. I’m new here, but now I know the drill.

[RichardHarris123]

44 minutes ago, Swefiddler said:

@JohnR725 your posts doesn’t make much sense. Are you some kind of AI posting robot or what? If so, please post elsewhere, or give some kind of indication you are an actual person.

@JohnR725is indeed a  real person and a highly thought of member of this forum. His knowledge is invaluable. 

[mikepilk]

1 hour ago, Swefiddler said:

@JohnR725 your posts doesn’t make much sense. Are you some kind of AI posting robot or what? If so, please post elsewhere, or give some kind of indication you are an actual person.

 Oh, @JohnR725 is a real flesh and blood person. [Hides behind the sofa and waits for Johns reply ]

[Nucejoe]

7 hours ago, Swefiddler said:

@JohnR725 your posts doesn’t make much sense. Are you some kind of AI posting robot or what? If so, please post elsewhere, or give some kind of indication you are an actual 

 John doesn't type, speaks in mic. 

Highly skilled & knowlegable , very helpful too.

 

 

 

 

[JohnR725]

7 hours ago, Swefiddler said:

No need for blocking. I’m new here, but now I know the drill.

Celebrate for what it's worth? I shouldn't be seeing this at all yet here you still are to me. I think when I was in the middle of blocking I popped out to look at something and when I came back it hadn't finalized or something so in which case you're not blocked.

But it still brings up a problem of wonderful you know the drill but I don't know what the problem is with my answers and as I don't know the problem to be honest I don't feel like wasting my time doing an answer which is why it actually made me very happy to block you so I wouldn't have to waste my time and effort. Which is quite amusing because for anyone who knows me they would know that horological lubrication is one of my obsessions which is why I have so much material.

Then as others have pointed out I have dyslexia. Mainly affecting writing so I use dictation software. The problem with dictation software is it's not perfect. It can be hard the read and recognizing that I can spend a lot of time on a simple answer really doing it until it looks perfect. Then I post a message and notice goofy wording complements mostly of the dictation software occasionally because I didn't quite pronounce something right. So yes it is a problem.

So celebrate I haven't blocked you apparently

[Neverenoughwatches]

It would be shame John, you have so much to offer as a teacher. I was thinking of asking you to sign something...like a legal document of some kind that states that you wont ever block me..no matter how annoying I become...just a thought

[JohnR725]

25 minutes ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

It would be shame John, you have so much to offer as a teacher. I was thinking of asking you to sign something...like a legal document of some kind that states that you wont ever block me..no matter how annoying I become...just a thought

Blocking people is a win-win scenario. The two people that do not seem to be whatever don't have to work together. Where here for fun learning if it's not fun then solve the problem which blacklisting would achieve.

Then you can celebrate because if I was going to block you you would've been number one. Do you remember what happened as a newbie when you join the discussion group?  Strangely enough I do and Mark terminated the discussion before well unpleasant conversations would've pursued. Yet you're still here and I'm still here as we each came to recognize the contributions of each other. 

Now for everyone else reading this I believe this is a discussion on let me check the title? Okay I don't really like the title but the subject of the discussion is a horological lubrication and apparently I'm doing something that I despise which is hijacking the discussion to become something else. So hijacking of discussion is over everyone else go back to?

Edited February 26 by JohnR725

[Neverenoughwatches]

59 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

 

Then you can celebrate because if I was going to block you you would've been number one. Do you remember what happened as a newbie when you join the discussion group?  Strangely enough I do and Mark terminated the discussion before well unpleasant conversations would've pursued. Yet you're still here and I'm still here as we each came to recognize the contributions of each other. 

Absolutely I do remember John almost three years ago now, I made a mistake. The outcome makes me happy and I hope it does for you too. Swefiddler also realises his mistake...so now we can resume normal service. Have a great safe day tomorrow Jonh

[JohnR725]

To help with some understanding here I'm attaching a PDF. The PDF is an entire article with page 5 talking about watch oil. Then I'm snipping out an image of the qualities of a good watch oil. Perhaps this might help in our discussion of what we trying to achieve here.

 

2000-02-web horological times watch oil reference.pdf

[Swefiddler]

Ok, clearly i messed up. For this i have been reprimanded by two mods, and i have apologised to @JohnR725

It was suggested to blacklist or block someone if deemed undesired, but i have no intention in doing so, i appreciate all and every feedback on this matter. This said, i wish to move along on topic. 

----------------
I want to be somewhat clear here what i would like to see in regards to correct lubrication, and it´s pretty simple really. Instead of "thin oil" being referenced as Moebius 9010, i would like to see a specification. Thats it. From this specification anyone can pick the brand of there choosing. 

The reason for this not happening is that Moebius is de-facto standard, and they don´t want to change that. So what i´m trying to do is to reverse engineer the product in a pursuite for alternatives. For this i use available data, and it is very clear that moebius only releases the bare minimum to satisfy EU demands for product safety. The majority of parameters that other suppliers provide are missing in the data sheets. Intentionally of course, making comparisons difficult/impossible. I have also analyzed the extensive data for Shell products, and there is absolutely nothing indicating that any of the here mentioned products do any harm to metal what so ever. If they indeed were agressive to metal in any way shape or form they would never be trusted to keep objects in the sky. 

12 hours ago, mbwatch said:

If you're referring to the one I think you're referring to, this would be pretty low on my list of things they don't do according to ideal practice. I am pretty sure that person has never once looked at a movement's service guide or tech sheet.

I follow a few. I pick up somethings here, somethings there. But you are probably right. Nekkid is great fun. 

17 hours ago, tomh207 said:

Oil is most definitely not just oil. 

Your diesel oil likely is for a combustion engine and will have detergents added for decarbonisation of components due to combustion, watches don’t. If nothing else there is a potential issue with that for watches, namely adversely affecting the plating of wheels and plates/bridges/cocks after long exposure. There are many stories of watches having the above affected with too long an exposure to cleaners that are designed for use cleaning watch parts. where is @canthus when you need him? Tom

The statement "oil is just oil" was regarding the fact that no matter what oil you use, it has a limited lifespan and should be changed every now and then. I totaly agree that there are several different factors to take into consideraton when selecting the correct lubrication, but there is no mystery going on. The all derive from petrolium base oils, natural or syntetic. Moebius is not an oil producer, so probably buys the base oils from a trusted supplier. 

I hear a lot of these theories that alternative oil in someway should be agreesive to various internal componenets but so far i haven´t seen anything to verify that this actually happened and what oil or other substance should have been involved. 
I prefere facts and substantiated, verifyable reults. I have tested varius oils on scrapped movement parts over an extended period of time and i can see nothing that indicates corrosion or such. 

20 hours ago, Knebo said:

And what do you conclude from that? 

I think companies have just become more and more secretive. Or more effective at maintaining the secrecy. So the "leaks" have become more rare. 

My conclusion is that the companies don´t want to give anything away for free in the secretive world of horology. Also that they do not want to promote a product from a competitior even if they use it on a regular basis. Also, as @JohnR725 mentioned the major players wants to keep this for themselvs.

20 hours ago, Knebo said:

We also know for several other brands. For example Rolex and Jaeger-LeCoultre. For the thin oils, they all use 9010. That means something. For the thicker ones and greases, Rolex has their own proprietary ones (even if some older service manuals also use some Moebius HP oils). 

I'm not an expert, but I think you're underestimating the importance of viscosity for the oils to stay in the correct place. 

The effectiveness of capillary action depends critically on the smallness of the gaps where the oil should stay. The balance jewels have extremely small gaps/tolerances and therefore 9010 is ok. 

Even for the escape wheel, where tolerances and endshake also tend to be very small, Epilame treatment is usually recommended/required. Otherwise it'll creep away. 

If tolerances/gaps/endshake are even marginally wider, further up the train (or older or lower end movements), thicker oils are needed to "bridge" the gaps (i.e. sustain the capillary action). 

Correct, the do reference 9010 in some older sheets, and my guess is that these references made the brand strong. So strong, infact, that it is basically unchallanged to this day.

Maybe i do underestimate the importance, but look at the properties for 9010, 9030 änd 9040. 
9010 is 150 mm2/sec @20

9030 is 60 mm2/sec @20

9040 is 25 mm2/sec @20

All these oils are intended to be used as thin oils, and obviously the are intended to stay in place, and they will indeed do so if applied correctly. 9040 is really super ultra thin, but stays in place nonetheless. ETA basically recommend epilame for the winding works, not for the train.  

If the tolerances are exceeded the jewels should be replaced. You can not compensate wear with thicker oil. The only reason to use thicker oil is that there is a correlation between higher viscosity and the ability to whitstand pressure. One should always use the thinnest possible oil that can withstand the pressure involved to reduce drag and friction, especially in micro mechanics. Looking at moebius product, the viscosity varies extensivly depending on temp, much more so than the product im currently testing. 

[tomh207]

I think that the industry essentially has ended up predominantly using moebius oils as that tends to be what the manufacturer seems to be specifying for servicing their products. This has likely ended up that because an independent service wants to maintain the manufacturer accreditation, which is good for business, they will tend to stock only the moebius oils. Why find something else, even if it would be a cost saving, if you have to keep using Swiss unicorn tears to earn a living anyway. 
 

I see it that as amateur watch repair/serviceing hobbyists we could use lard and be happy, however we ask the professionals we are lucky enough to bump into along the way what oils they use to get a recommendation as what is the best to use. In Europe and America I think this generally is moebius, if we had a sizeable contingent of Japanese watchmakers here maybe they would recommend seiko or citizen oils. India would likely be anchor oils, though everything I have seen about these oils say that they are very inconsistent in properties and consistency. It would be very interesting if we could get information as to Chinese manufacturers recommendations, especially Sea-Gull as the largest movement manufacturer on the planet.

@Swefiddler as you have probably gathered by now watch lubricants are an “interesting “ topic. Around here at least the conversation tends more towards learning and understanding rather than the more “tribal” exchanges I have seen on other forums/groups. 
 

The part where I said about possible effects to metal was specifically about plating/gilding of movement parts. This can be very delicate especially in vintage/antique watches and there are numerous anecdotes around the internet of various “harmless” cleaners/chemicals causing damage. Just something else to consider.

 

Tom

[nickelsilver]

Keep in mind that viscosity is one of many factors in what makes an oil suitable for a given application. If you look through the many, many oils offered by the various companies, you will find many that share the same viscosity but are applicable in specific situations.

 

A good example:

 

Mobil made (makes) an oil called Vactra #2. It became the standard for slideway lubrication on machine tools, and was heavily used in the printing industry (think newspapers). This is an ISO #68 oil, with tackifier (Peritack), which helps it stay on vertical surfaces without running away.

 

In the 80s, to comply with EPA regulations, Mobil took the tackifier out. Rather, they took it out 100% in California, and 1/2% was removed per year elsewhere. Turns out the printing industry was a larger market for it than the machine tool industry, and the printing equipment really needed the tackifer. Confronted with many angry customers on the west coast after equipement failure, Mobil created a new oil, or more accurately, re-introduced the old Vactra formula as Vacuoline. By this time the big users, who simply specified "Vactra 2" in service manuals before, now simply stated the actual performance requirements of the oil. There were always other makers making Vactra 2 equivalents.

 

It all gets more confusing as machine tools moved from dovetail ways to box ways, and CNC equipment with water-based coolants became commonplace. Turns out the new non-tackifier Vactra works best with those; the tackifier could cause problems in automated lube systems and also contaminate the coolant. So in some cases Vactra 2 is the best thing. On an older manual machine tool, you would want Vacuoline.

 

Of course these are all ISO #68 viscosity oils.

 

I have machines that specify Kluber Isotel LDS 15 grease for the spindle bearings. This stuff is just as expensive as you might think if you've priced Kluber P125 braking grease for watches. With replacement bearings going for 400+ (in some cases ++++) bucks a pop, I never minded shelling out for the Kluber. Likewise, working on watches for money, where I guarantee my work, I use industry standard lubricants, that are within their expiration dates (pretty much ).

 

Edit- Digging back in to the Mobil story (was going from 20 year memory), turns out Vacuoline has existed since at least the '50s. It was the same as Vactra (before it changed), but with an added additive package, I guess for even more special situations. Still ISO #68.  At least Vacuoline 1409 is, there's 1405 at #32, and 1419 at #220 as well.

Edited February 26 by nickelsilver

[Swefiddler]

17 minutes ago, nickelsilver said:

Keep in mind that viscosity is one of many factors in what makes an oil suitable for a given application. If you look through the many, many oils offered by the various companies, you will find many that share the same viscosity but are applicable in specific situations.

Yes. But the other properties are not specified. They are only mentioned, as you say, out of application. For this reason i have focused on the thinnest oil, and my conclusion based on available data is that ASDU is a superior product to 9010.

58 minutes ago, tomh207 said:

I think that the industry essentially has ended up predominantly using moebius oils as that tends to be what the manufacturer seems to be specifying for servicing their products. This has likely ended up that because an independent service wants to maintain the manufacturer accreditation, which is good for business, they will tend to stock only the moebius oils. Why find something else, even if it would be a cost saving, if you have to keep using Swiss unicorn tears to earn a living anyway. 

I see it that as amateur watch repair/serviceing hobbyists we could use lard and be happy, however we ask the professionals we are lucky enough to bump into along the way what oils they use to get a recommendation as what is the best to use.

Yes, for sure. But i also suspect a habitual pattern were watchmakers do what they learned in training. If those products were present there with good results, why bother, as you say, finding something else even if it´s a better/cheaper product.

I will never be an certified watchmaker, so for me this is out of curiosity and as a reflection to a rather static and conservative world.

I have struggled a bit finding a thick oil replacement on the consumer market. There are commersial hi viscosity oils, but mostly in non practical packing. I will keep looking

Edited February 26 by Swefiddler

[tomh207]

@Swefiddler the difficulty we have here is as you pointed out, we don’t have access to the properties of any horological oils to a level where even a lubrication engineer cant do more than make an educated guess at alternatives.

so I suppose for me personally I look at it as a moot point, so I have a small but valuable collection of non-vintage Swiss unicorn tears and they are easily available at reputable outlets with no guesswork, or even real work required.

 

Tom

[JohnR725]

28 minutes ago, Swefiddler said:

But i also suspect a habitual pattern were watchmakers do what they learned in training. If those products were present there with good results, why bother, as you say, finding something else even if it´s a better/cheaper product.

I actually find this quote quite amusing. On the other hand I'm probably the exception to the rule on this group. So what did I use in school will technically I went the two schools I don't remember what we used in the first school although I'm sure it was Swiss just don't remember what they were I do remember from the second school. Balance jewels and escapement 9010. 9020 the entire gear train. Then for barrel arbor, mainspring and the keyless 8300.

Now why am I the exception to the rule?

Well 9010 for the escapement works is what we used in school. But then I discovered 941 specifically designed for the escapement. Then later I switch to 9415 better for the escapement. Well better as long as you don't get too heavy-handed and get too much then you will have a problem. Then I do suspect that there's something better than this. For instance the Swiss lubricator escape wheels from the factory was something called Lubrifar.  ETA has been using it since 1995 so it's not a new substance. Basically it's a horological lubrication applied to the outer teeth of the escape wheel with the key ingredient of molybdenum disulfide. So it seems to me that if we mixed a small quantity of that into the 9415 we would achieve the same results. Which would be good I think for the vintage pocket watches I do and it has the problem that typically it washes off with the recommendation to normally replace the escape wheel which isn't always possible.

Then strangely enough the 9020 for the gear train I've tried other stuff but I've come back to 9020. Other than not entirely sure why but I use HP 1300 on the center wheel where I probably could just use the 9020.

Then the 8300 from school don't think I have any of that. Switch to 8200 for the mainspring previously for all of the keyless was using PML stem grease as it seems to stay in place long-term and seems to work really well. Although as you might have grasped why use something that works really well when may be something might work better? So currently for the keyless and all the greasing components 9504.

Then the mainspring 8200 but that's not synthetic why do we not have a synthetic lubrication for the mainspring? Oh wait I forgot all mainsprings are supposed to be prelubricated.  Although lately I was thinking of switching to 8201 as it has Molybdenum bisulfide Mixed in which seems like it be good for high pressure pocket watch mainsprings perhaps

2 hours ago, tomh207 said:

I think that the industry essentially has ended up predominantly using moebius oils as that tends to be what the manufacturer seems to be specifying for servicing their products. This has likely ended up that because an independent service wants to maintain the manufacturer accreditation, which is good for business, they will tend to stock only the moebius oils. Why find something else, even if it would be a cost saving, if you have to keep using Swiss unicorn tears to earn a living anyway. 

Yes I wonder what would happen if your Rolex service center and you are caught using something other than what was approved? Yes that would be really bad wouldn't it.

2 hours ago, Swefiddler said:

i would like to see a specification.

Why don't I expand what we would both like to see. Yes specifications would be nice and their very definitely lacking their lacking to the degree of it's basically impossible to make choices because there's not enough information or if you're not careful you can make wrong choices. I snipped out an image from the product catalog. Basically unfortunately the only specification we really have a go on is viscosity and conveniently for this example let's not look at viscosity. Oh and then they also have a temperature thing but typically that's not going be an issue so let's just look at the pretty little symbols and see which oil is the best.

So basically 9020 and 9010 appear to be identical except for viscosity. With 9027 actually appearing to be the best as it seems to have the best full complete symbols. Oh we were ignoring the viscosity appears to be slightly heavier than the rest. Then is 9010 and 9020 exactly identical except viscosities will of course they are the chart says they are why with the chart light to us well it doesn't which is the problem.

Okay we know that 9010 and 9020 are exactly identical except viscosity and there's a reference to temperatures. Here's an amusing chart doesn't exactly look like they're identical doesn't

Knowledge that's not being shared for variety of reasons? Evolution of horological lubrication in other words the Swiss companies change over time for instance Omega uses 9010 on their keyless in the late 50s. Later they switch to 9020 and I believe now they're up to an HP oil they're getting heavier. But why are they using grease?

One of the problems for the watch companies at least until relatively recently was that they would make a watch and other than worrying about it over the warranty time span once the warranty expires they typically had nothing to do with servicing. If there was some catastrophically bad item they would probably find out the specific parts a disintegrated and there'd be upgrades the parts but they were never really involved in servicing. But now there are involved in servicing and I have to wonder if that influences lubrication choices. My suspicion is this would also apply to the quantity of lubrication both Rolex Omega went from super minimalistic to considerably more lubrication to be applied is it because I discovered that minimalistic didn't last between the service intervals?

Although we do have to be careful with the watch companies in that in a lot of cases they don't care of the watch disintegrates. For instance a Swatch group service center they don't change the mainspring they change the entire mainspring barrel and escapement component still just change those so maybe we really don't want to follow their choices because are just going to replace things down the road.

That course we end up with the lack the specifications on why the Swiss or anyone else in the watch manufacturing industries specify what they do? Like why use oil on a keyless when you could use grease for instance. The problem here is a lot of this would become a theoretical laboratory discussion because were trying to invent new lubrication for instance the normal user or the watchmaker or whoever is replacing a lubrication typically doesn't have to know a lot of things they only have to know that it's supposed to work.

Oh and then a course the simplest answer to all of this is how many people want to lubricate their priceless watch and find out that saving a few dollars or conceivably spending a lot more money on some product and their watch disintegrated down the road?

 

[Neverenoughwatches]

3 hours ago, Swefiddler said:

Instead of "thin oil" being referenced as Moebius 9010, i would like to see a specification. Thats it. From this specification anyone can pick the brand of there choosing. 

The reason for this not happening is that Moebius is de-facto standard, and they don´t want to change that. So what i´m trying to do is to reverse engineer the product in a pursuite for alternatives. For this i use available data, and it is very clear that moebius only releases the bare minimum to satisfy EU demands for product safety. The majority of parameters that other suppliers provide are missing in the data sheets. Intentionally of course,

If money has been plowed into research and development and you've turned out a good product , it's logical that you dont want anyone to copy it. 

3 hours ago, Swefiddler said:

have also analyzed the extensive data for Shell products, and there is absolutely nothing indicating that any of the here mentioned products do any harm to metal what so ever. If they indeed were agressive to metal in any way shape or form they would never be trusted to keep objects in the sky. 

What metals are we talking about ? In a watch a lot of it is brass and nickel plated metal.  Some cleaners can be corrosive and as Tom mentions engine oils might have cleaning ingredients. This all depends what the shell oil components we are talking about.

2 hours ago, Swefiddler said:

Yes. But the other properties are not specified. They are only mentioned, as you say, out of application. For this reason i have focused on the thinnest oil, and my conclusion based on available data is that ASDU is a superior product to 9010.

That's why you're re having such a hard time with getting us on board with this. Without hard evidence of one product being better than another, it's not going to happen. Stick to what is known that works is the best policy.

[Swefiddler]

27 minutes ago, JohnR725 said:

Oh and then a course the simplest answer to all of this is how many people want to lubricate their priceless watch and find out that saving a few dollars or conceivably spending a lot more money on some product and their watch disintegrated down the road?

 

The products i have tested are certified to keep people in the air. They have to same viscosity caracteristics as swiss and they will for sure lubricate a timepiece. Following you discussion @JohnR725, ASDU would probably be sufficent in the entire train.  Grease for arbor.

Another topic i temp range. You 9020 is way more viscous @20 than 9010, 270 v 150. This, as i understand from your experience, has not been a problem. 

9010 is marketed as 

"100% synthetic universal fluid thin oil based on ether and aliphatic alcohol with excellent resistance to ageing and good resistance to pressure.

Also very effective for use under wet conditions. With excellent lubricity and outstanding grip, this oil is ideal for regulating parts and fast mobiles.

Suitable for all materials.

Also available in blue (9010-B)."

9020 is marketed as 

"100% synthetic universal fluid thin oil based on ether and aliphatic alcohol with excellent resistance to aging and good resistance to pressure.

Also very effective for use under wet conditions. With excellent lubricity and outstanding grip, this oil is mainly used for precision micromechanics.

Also available in red."

 

They seems to be about the same with the exception  of "regulating parts and fast mobiles". This is pretty much in line with you @JohnR725 previous statments. But i have a concern about the increased viscosity in lower temp range. 9020 reaches 1450 @0, thats twice 9010 @625 and tripple+ of ASDU @450. Surely this increase must have som kind of influence on the operation of the movement, especially the smaller components. Perhaps it´s not so common to wear a timepiece beeing 0C, but taking into consideration that the visco diagrams are exponential, this takes effect in all temp ranges. ASDU definately has the steepest curv, 9020 the flattest. Flat meaning greater visco variation depending on temp. 

Here in scandinavia a reasonable temp range would be from +50 (sauna) to -10 (beeing worn on the outside of sweater riding a snowmobile, skiing, icelake fishing etc), and the visco variations would definately come into play. 

In none of these cases, no matter what oil, will the timepiece disintegrated. 

[Swefiddler]

1 hour ago, Neverenoughwatches said:

If money has been plowed into research and development and you've turned out a good product , it's logical that you dont want anyone to copy it. 

What metals are we talking about ? In a watch a lot of it is brass and nickel plated metal.  Some cleaners can be corrosive and as Tom mentions engine oils might have cleaning ingredients. This all depends what the shell oil components we are talking about.

That's why you're re having such a hard time with getting us on board with this. Without hard evidence of one product being better than another, it's not going to happen. Stick to what is known that works is the best policy.

If "cleaners" = additives the answer is no. There are no such ingredients in ASDU. The active additives enhances HP properties.

What kind of evidence do you need? What kind of mysterious component are we looking for? It is documented here all the ingredients of 9010. We know the viscosity numbers, surface tension etc. 

We know that 9010 works, yes, but is it the best product available? Or is the popularity based on a monopoly enhanced by a protective, secretive and conservative market, unvilling to look for options?

I didn´t expect to get people on board, but i did expect some excitment. 

Edited February 26 by Swefiddler

[Neverenoughwatches]

Not to harp on. 9010's characteristics are in the data sheet ....but all of them ???

It's ingredients are listed, how much of each ??

9010 can't be synthesised from this information ( not by us anyway ), so from that I can't really see how a true comparison can be made between two different products.

Characteristics will change as proportions change.  How many different types of bread and bread characteristics can be made using all the same ingredients but in different amounts.

[JohnL]

This isn't my area so I asked someone who's area it is/was; previous R&D specialist of head or R&D for Shell. He's a bit vague, but he's one of the leading people in the world in his field

I explained the topic. His responses were brief:

"Oil is oil, or is it?" -> "Oil is not oil. Some oils migrate, evaporate, oxidise, leave residue. Others do not"

The presumption can be made here that he is aware that viscosity and other attributes can match

When I said that Moebius oils are expensive and people are looking for alternatives -> "Bad plan"

Take what you will from it. It's not my field and I'm not going to badger him further, but I am going to accept what he says.

 

Edited February 26 by JohnL
spelling

[Swefiddler]

I dont want this thread to grow hostile, neither is it very constructive to fortify one’s position beyond reason. So I rest my case for now, hoping that this discussion may be inspiring for some. I have a sample vial of ASDU I can send within EU if someone’s interested in some testing. I picked up on this dead thread from 2023. At that point someone had a plan in doing comparisons, but from what I can tell that didn’t happen. Hopefully it can happen now.