Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 2, 2014 18:28:49 GMT -5
I thought about this years ago, the dates are right, about 1930 seems the first available additives, maybe not from Moly. Neither person is still around to check, but I heard the arguments and heard the dates myself, and in the 1950's we still had the mixing gear and pressure filtration oil recovery system in the old yard. The pump I still have and it is an Armstrong rotary pump. Myself I was told the American market had moly from about 1936, and I have seen photos from Brooklands Race track with molybdenum additives advertised on posters in the pits. They closed at the outbreak of the war.
Moly was imported in the war in large amounts, and US military vehicles used it, but I do not know how widely, the packs were a concentrate that was added, and then mixed with the pressure pump circulating the oil in a drum it fitted. It was not mixed in the engine, which molyslip was.
Also I have seen references to using it in 1930's Stuart Turner Generating sets and small boat motors, warning to make sure any additive is added at the correct rate.
I know that Grandad was always trying new things, he ran petrol engine lorries only, no diesel till forced to after the war. He ran tachometers in all cabs, and that was actually popular with his drivers, especially under the war conditions.
Stephen
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 2, 2014 18:43:49 GMT -5
From a reference book, Standard Oil, and Westinghouse, for instance, had it in production as a solid in 1937, and it was availble before that date from smaller oil suppliers, as far back as 1850!!. It's properties were understood and applied by the US Oil industry from about 1929/30 according to another reference, so maybe it is just the Molyslip company that supplied after the war. I also have a Scott Motor cycle engine instruction sheet from the mid 1930's where they say not to add to the oil in the Pilgrim pump of the Scott twin two stroke.
Stephen.
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Aug 2, 2014 20:08:49 GMT -5
Mirriam Webster gives the "First known use of Molybdenum Sulphide as circa 1931" without stating what that use was, nor giving any proper reference. In fact proper references are always difficult to find. Many on the internet, Wiki for instance, are often not based anything other than it's what the author wishes to be correct. Even worse, many cross-reference each other as proof of truth. The most complete work I can find is "Tribology Series 35: Molybdenum Disulphide Lubrication by A.R. Lansdown". This is copyright so I can't quote directly. It would seem it was 1934 when the properties of molybdenum sulphide were clearly understood and patented by Cooper and Damerell for use in oils and greases. The date then given for the expansion of interest in MoS2 was 1938-9. It goes on to say that the first military uses began in 1950. As regards general use on motor vehicles, it seems Roll Royce headed the list, using it on leaf springs, and by 1962 applications were reported by many major vehicle manufacturers. About this time too, the paper says, molybdenum disulphide started to be added to oils, but that this was mainly initiated by the user rather than the motor manufacturers. (Google it - look at google books entry - pages 5,6,7).
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 3, 2014 4:53:15 GMT -5
Getting nowhere then as the self same book refers to Standard Oil using it, and confuses it's self about solid and liquid suspended forms. I still have a can with the compound in the garage with a military arrow, Uk, marked 1943. Also if it was a late as 1960, then why was moly being discussed in 1953/54 in the Autocar, which mentioned Molysip specifically. I do not have the article, but the Major refers to it in his letters that I still have, and they contain the reference to wartime use that he based his dislike on.... Strange how time distorts exact histories of items, just as the internet can be so wrong, I suspect the reference books may also be wrong on many details.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 3, 2014 5:01:40 GMT -5
Anyway way off the point, moly is too messy to use in cameras, silicon and PTFE are clean and stable. Stephen
|
|
truls
Lifetime Member
Posts: 568
|
Post by truls on Aug 3, 2014 6:01:00 GMT -5
Anyway way off the point, moly is too messy to use in cameras, silicon and PTFE are clean and stable. Stephen The technical discussion of oils got too complicated for me.. Fun story about the major or General, not a good combination being stubborn as it prevents the world of going forward doing progress. I knew a man years ago, he insisted on driving Citroen cars, even if the car always had some fault, and it finally rusted away. When he purchased a new car, a Citroen... Annyway, I'm happy with the lube, it has a slight comfortable resistance, so it do not interfere with changing the aperture. Time will show how long the lubrication will last.
|
|
Stephen
Lifetime Member
Still collecting.......
Posts: 2,718
|
Post by Stephen on Aug 3, 2014 13:25:05 GMT -5
On dates not matching information and evidence, I have a miniature plate camera, an Ernemann Heag XV, on the face of it. The XV was made from about 1905, and was one of the first camera with an aluminium body. It had a Detective Aplanat F6.3 lens, which this one has, set in a Pneumatic shutter. It has no viewfinder, bar a wire frame, from 1909 they had fixed mirror boxes, later post 1911 have a mirror box that folds at the front. The format is 4.5x6 mm, making one of the smallest plate cameras ever made.
I bought the camera in the 1970's from a customer, an elderly lady, who said it had belonged to her husband, who had used it in China, whilst he was a junior dipolomat at the turn of the century. She said it was purchased on the theory that the Chinese would not think it was a camera, being used to larger plate models on tripods etc.
The time is, of course, The Boxer Rebellion, and he was present during the Legation siege, covered by the Hollywood film "55 days at Peking".
I thought, on the face of it does not tally up, the siege was in 1901, June 20th to August14th, and the Ernemann was not in production then, so confusion must have occurred as to this particular camera being in Peking......
But about a year later the lady customer came in with a box of prints and a handful of negatives taken by the camera, and some included photos of Boxer Rebels, and two views of the damaged Peking walls. I am sure that the camera was the one used, it has a notch in the mask frame, and the glass negative holder frame is less by 3mm in both dimensions, the notch is in the body aperture, and the plate holder. Laying the negs over the frame match 100%.
There was a note in the box which appears to be a receipt from the Times, who she said had purchased several negatives for publication at the time.
So what is going on here? the camera should not have been around in 1901, have dated from 1905, four years adrift. I gave copies of the negs to the Imperial War Museum and they said they were definitely taken just after the Boxer Rebellion, and they traced published pictures which matched the view in one shot.
Either the shots are wrong, taken four years later, or the date of the introduction of the Ernemann XV is wrong, or any combination of both!
I suspect that the camera was made earlier, as all later references to it show slightly better features, maybe it was just a very early version. The Empress did not return to Peking for three years and perhaps the pictures were taken then, but that does not tie up with the receipt.....
Time has not been kind to the camera, the aluminium is turning to white oxide, and I have disassembled it to replace the aluminium sheets under the leather outer. The lens and shutter are in good condition, as are the struts...but the question remains, is there ever any proof it was used during the Peking Boxer rebellion Siege?
Stephen
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Aug 3, 2014 22:30:55 GMT -5
I work on the premise that all information might be wrong, including anecdotal evidence. I have always had something of a need to "prove it for myself". However, what does tend to be less wrong are the dates attached to patents, though there can be a big difference between filing a patent and actually producing something that can be used. In brief these are the US patents I can find covering lubricants. First year is when patent was filed, second is the publication date (one or two missing both dates). 1897: water, one quart of rosin-oil, one pound of sulfate of soda, one pound of black antimony, and one-half a pound of magnesium, said parts being mixed and combined substantially 1932/1934: lead sulphide 1934/1939: 1. A lubricant comprising a lubricating oil or grease and a minor percentage of synthetic molybdenum sulphide substantially free from abrasive material. 2. A lubricant comprising a lubricating oil or grease and synthetic molybdenum sulphide to the extent of .05% to 5% of the whole by weight. 1938/1940: Blue lead. 1938/1941: polyvalent metal sulphate. 1940/1942: A lubricating compound composed of 94% of an oily base and containing 3% of zinc sulfide well dispersed therein, 3% of barium sulfate for retarding the decomposition of the zinc sulfide by overheating between movable parts of machinery. 1940/1942: 1. A lubricant of the class consisting of oils and greases containing finely-divided zinc sulphide, dispersed therein to an extent of not over 12% by weight, and characterized by its freedom from ingredients which would cause progressive abrasive action on the wearing surfaces to which it is applied. 2; A lubricant of the class consisting of oils and greases, characterized by its freedom from ingredients which would cause progressive abrasive action on the wearing surfaces to which it is applied, and comprising an oily base having approximately 10% byjweight of finely-divided zinc sulphide dispersed therein. 1942: zinc sulphide 1942: various compounds with phosphate esters. 1943/1944: molybdenum disulphide and variations thereof. (Westinghouse) US2367946 1942/Jan 23, 1945 Westinghouse Electric & Mfg Co Process of producing metallic disulphides, tellurides, and selenides US 2609342 Sept. 2 1952 : LUBRICANT James R. White, Wenonah, and Orrin H. Clark and Warren W. Woods, Woodbury, N. J., as- . signors to Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, 1. A lubricant consisting essentially of a liquid selected from the group consisting of glycerine and ethylene glycol, containing from about 0.5 per cent by weight and up to about per cent by weight of a comminuted solid selected from the group consisting of molybdenum disulfide, titanium disulfide, tin disulfide, zirconium disulfide and tungsten disulfide. 2. A lubricant consisting essentially of glycerine containing from about 0.5 per cent by weight and up to about 10 per cent by weight of minus 325-mesh molybdenum disulfide. 3. A lubricant consisting essentially of ethylene glycol containing from about 0.5 per cent by weight and up to about 10 per cent by weight of minus 325-mesh molybdenum disulfide. US3281355 Oct 25, 1966 Exxon Research Engineering Co Stable colloidal dispersions of molybdenum sulfide We have molybdenum sulphide, patent applied for in 1934 and molybdenum disulphide, 1943 (as regards lubricants). Whether MoS and MoS2 are actually one and the same, no one seems to want to say. I presume they are. One would assume that a company will patent an idea (which they believe will work) so others will not be allowed to copy its product. The actual production of a usable, in this case, lubricant is another matter. Molybdenum oil additive products certainly could have been in use in the mid 1930s. However, what evidence can be found suggests that manufacture on any sort of commercial basis was significantly after that. War does tend to speed up certain inventions, and by the time the USA found its way into WWII it is not unreasonable to assume that some molybdenum additives were being used. In fact, this is supported by several sources (e.g. abpetrochem.com. However I have still not found anything definite to suggest its actual usage as an oil additive before the late 1930s or early 1940s. There are many other petrol and oil additives. MoS2 improves the product as a lubricant. Other additives modify the viscosity, act as detergents or whatever.
|
|