Re: Grease and waxes

On Mon, 08 Jul 2024 16:17:56 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Sat Jul 6 08:36:16 2024 John B.  wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jul 2024 19:01:33 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 

On Thu Jul 4 09:31:59 2024 John B.  wrote:

On Wed, 03 Jul 2024 17:19:24 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 

On Wed Jul 3 12:18:33 2024 John B.  wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 20:31:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
 

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 17:12:30 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>

As usual the obvious candidates without a shred of knowledge of chemistry told you all that I didn't know what I was talking about when I said that Silca was making a block that looked like Chocolate that converted grease to wax.

>
It seems that we're sliding down the slippery slope that ends in yet
another chain lubrication alchemy discussion.  Oh well.  Let the
tribology begin.
>
I do recall you mentioning something about Silca.  It would have been
nice if you had included your source of (mis)information.
<https://silca.cc/blogs/silca/chain-waxing-system-and-stripchip-faq>
<https://youtu.be/cEnD95UwE3w>
The process is called "oleogelation".  It's mostly used for converting
unhealthy saturated fats into somewhat less healthy unsaturated fats:
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7022307/>
Beyond what I've just read about the topic, I know nothing. Therefore,
you are welcome to speculate whether bicycles are faster with either
type of fat.
>

I have continued to be curious why people that know nothing
would say things about which they know nothing.

>
It would seem that you've never listened to a political debate. 
>

Grease and wax asr ONE chemical chain from being the same thing.

>
Ummmm... no.  They're close, but not that close:
<https://www.quora.com/Organic-Chemistry-What-if-anything-is-the-official-difference-between-oil-fat-wax-and-grease>
>
"Most basically, oils and fats are triglycerides; fatty acid esters of
glycerine, oils being liquid at room temperature and fats being solid.
Waxes are esters of a fatty acid and a fatty alcohol. I am
deliberately not including substances of mineral origin."
>
"Oils are liquid at room temperature, fat is solid at room
temperature, wax is generally nonedible but malleable at or near room
temperature, and grease is a used oil or fat that contains high free
fatty acids or other solids from having cooked food."
>

Where the hell do you get Candle Wax from - TALLOW - which is animal
fat.

>
Ummm... you could make candles from tallow, but today's candles are
made from paraffin wax and stearic acid.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candle>
If you've ever smelled a burning tallow candle, you'll understand why
organic chemists were searching for alternatives.  Some of the
alternatives candle wax compounds were equally disgusting:
"Unravelling the Science of Candle Odours: Tallow Candles"
<https://highlandcandlecompany.com/unravelling-the-science-of-candle-odours-tallow-candles/>
Votive or prayer candles were frequently doped with more pleasant
smelling aromatic perfumes to hide the tallow stench.
>

The lubricating grease on a new chain (SRAM no longer put this
grease on a chain) is petroleum based but the chemistry is the same.

 
Some years back there was considerable talk about heating chain lube
so it flowed into the chain better and I made a wax heater from a
electric cooking pot and used it for years. No thermostat so I
eyeballed it but it did seem to lengthen chain life considerably.
 
 
--
Cheers,
 
John B.
 

>
>
>
>
Now John and Liebermann are chemists. Who knew?

 
Goodness, now our resident BIPOS is telling us they heating oil is
Chemistry????
--
Cheers,
 
John B.
 

>
>
>
>
Why not? You told us how important being a crew chief of an obsolete, never used bomber was important.

 
Never used bomber??? Yes,, never used to drop bombs but used  as a
reconnaissance aircraft by the 6091st Reconnaissance Squadron from
1954 till 1961.
--
Cheers,
 
John B.
 

>
>
>
>
John, are you NOW telling us that you were assigned to the 6091st?
>
Becauxe if you ARE why don't you know that their photoreconnasence was almost entirely handled early by RB29's then F-5's and later by RB-58's which were supersonic.
>
Although the RB-50 was essentially a B29 with larger engines it was an entire failure being both slower and less manuverable than the RB29.
>
You continue to leave out rather important bits of information while proclaiming your important role in all of this. You were in the Air  Force PERIOD. You really held no important positions but what you did s necessary. Someone had to take the incident reports from the crew

s.

Ah Tommy, and how would you know... but for your edification the
6091st which was formed to replace the 91st Reconnaissance and was
equipped with:

Aircraft
    RB-29 Superfortress (Photo-Recon), 1954
    RB-50B Superfortress (Photo/Weather Recon), 1954–1961
    RB-50G Superfortress (ELINT/Radar Recon), 1954–1961
    RB-45C Tornado, 1954
    RB-57F Canberra, 1965–1968
    C-47 Skytrain, 1954–1968
    C-119G Flying Boxcar, 1954–1968
    C-130B-II Hercules, 1961–1968
    EC-97G Stratofreighter, 1963—1968

Note the period in use of the various planes.

see  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6091st_Reconnaissance_Squadron
for more details.

--
Cheers,

John B.