Here is what I find the oddest about the report.
The author clearly states:
It is important to note here that no correlation is suggested
between the times required to initiate rapid oxidation reported in
this study and “real life” operating conditions nor is it felt that any
such relationship can be formulated. These test conditions rapidly
accelerate oxidation by agitation, which greatly increases the
exposure of the oil to oxygen.
But then he goes on to base his conclusions on the same relationship to these conditions which he "feels" can not be formulated. How can these tow seemingly diametrically opposed statements be reconciled.
Only the Author can possibly explain this..and he has chosen to refrain from offering any insight into his logic as exhibited in his report.
Mr. Beatty goes on to say:
Indeed the “real life” mechanism is believed to be that of a
thin film of oil constantly spashed on tank surfaces followed by a
classic drying reaction.
A point I made in a discussion with Mr. Beatty several months before he began this study. One wonders why Mr. Beatty chose to NOT test this since he obviously believes it to be the most likely source of polymerization in REAL LIFE? This may be a rare occurrence in real life VO conversions but is at least 100 times more common than the polymerization process/dangers Mr. Beatty "warns" of in his reports conclusions.
In fact my own research and REAL LIFE observations of hundreds of VO conversions has lead me to recommend 4 of the 7 recommendations MR. Beatty has provided. It is the remaining 3 I had hoped to discuss with the Author privately or in public. Unfortunately Mr. Beatty has declined every time he has been queried on his willingness to participate.