Refs: (a) Draft letter 10320 OPR: 05M32. Ser 05M3/120
(b) DTRC TM-28-89-38, date not clear
I have reviewed references (a) and (b), as well as other evidence addressing the advantages and disadvantages of the product called Militec-1 which generically appears to be an additive for lubricants.
My involvement has been peripheral, as I can stretch the term "safety and survivability" almost as long as one's imagination, but in context, my interest was piqued by a desk top demonstration conducted in my office, and a life long awareness that we had some bearing lubrication problems in various sectors of the Navy.
I therefore referred the subject to RADM David Donohue, who was serving as the Fleet Maintenance Officer, CINCLANTFLT.
-------------------------
This started a path through several weapons users (MARCORPS, DEA, FBI, GSA, etc.; vehicles USAF and Army; and all sorts of way stations in the Navy, including the Submarine Materials Review Board at NEHC. Even cutting and grinding operators got into the act.
It was apparent that numerous types of activities recognized a "problem" with current lubricants, and there may be negative reports from users of Militec-l, but I am not aware of any.
-------------------------
It is no particular secret that I am not impressed with the vast majority of laboratory tests for materials.
If toilet paper were invented today it could never pass the ignition; smoke; toxicity; medical (stanching razor nicks), (substituting for handkerchiefs) (effects on the business end of the users); optics cleaning, etc. tests, and the COMPAG would never let it shut out round stones and corn cobs.
On the other hand, the Navy is enamored with Nomex which passes Method 5903 of Fed Std. 191 fire resistant tests with flying colors, and yet can be ignited by a common match.
