I got an email from Andrew Tuohy today. He let me know that someone else did some testing on FIREClean and canola oil with NMR and HPLC analysis. This means that this testing has now likely become the most expensive firearms related test ever (at least as far as I know). I was told that the NMR I used cost around $3 million. The IR Spec/ATR setup was around $30-50K when new, and if the NMR and HPLC setups are anything like the equipment in my school’s labs, that probably brings the total cost of equipment used to around $4 million.
Andrew also had a chemistry joke I hadn’t heard before (which is rare for a chemistry nerd like me): How do you get out of chemistry jail? Keep reading…
Here we go, round 2 of the results from what I’m going to call “The Great Lube Test of 2015” have now been posted on Vuurwapen Blog. As I said yesterday, what I post here is my interpretation of the results. Others may have their own opinions and interpretations based on this data. Anyway, here we go…
Procedure: All data for this comparison was taken on a Perkin Elmer Spectrum One FT-IR Spectrometer with Universal ATR Sampling Accessory. More detailed procedures are described in a previous post.
Sample #2 was a recently purchased sample of Shooter’s Choice FP-10 lubricant
Sample #7 was WeaponShield lubricant
Sample #9 was a 7 year old sample of Shooter’s Choice FP-10 lubricant
Qualitative results were as follows:
Sample #2: Hazy amber/brownish color. Somewhat viscous. Slightly “oily” and characteristic
Sample #7: Amber/brownish tint. Viscous. Strong characteristic odor, possibly a faint hint of mint or liquorice
Sample #9: Very cloudy brownish. Viscous. Similar odor to #7, not quite as strong
As with the CLP samples yesterday, all the samples here showed very intense peaks around 3000-2800 cm-1, indicating C-H bonds. We already know that these oil samples are hydrocarbons (hence “oils”) so this peak should not surprise anyone.
The comparison of Shooter’s Choice FP-10 samples over 7 years is an interesting contrast to the results posted yesterday. Where the CLP samples analyzed showed (what I believe to be) breakdown of the oxygen bonds, the FP-10 samples showed nearly identical intensity of the peaks between the spectra. The baselines of the two spectra are slightly different, but this is due to software limitations. The comparison spectra are not adjusted to baseline values like the individual spectra are (doing so would have created a horribly cluttered and difficult to read overlay).
Both FP-10 samples showed a large peak around 1450 cm-1 and a small peak around 1375 cm-1, likely indicating double bonds between carbon atoms. While the CLP spectra showed strong indications for carbon/oxygen bonds, these peaks more strongly indicate C=C bonds than anything with oxygen… at least from what I see. Every textbook has a slightly different chart for IR Spec. peaks, so I could be wrong here. If there are oxygen bonds present (which would need further testing to verify), then I would like to do more testing at some point to see if something provides stabilization for the FP-10, or if this effect is due to packaging differences between the CLP and FP-10. Things like ultraviolet light can break down some chemical bonds, so thicker packaging or the opacity of the bottle can change how easily some chemicals break down. This isn’t fact, just one hypothesis.
One thing that stands out from this set of results is that we now have our first difference in sample spectra. The WeaponShield lubricant shows very clear differences from the FP-10 samples. The WeaponShield showed both of the peaks seen in FP-10 (although a much larger peak around 1375 cm-1 than the FP-10 had), as well as peaks around 1730 and 1220 cm-1. These additional peaks likely indicate C=O bonds and C-O-C bonds respectively. If my theory about the CLP breakdown holds true, then maybe 10 years from now another IR scan of this sample would show less intense peaks. I’ll have to set a reminder for October 2025…
So, how do you get out of chemistry jail? You have to post covalent bond…