I gave a cursory read to this "research" study and it's by a competitor's own work. That does not mean it's conclusions are wrong or their product is better or not. It's what we called biased for selling, cause for concern. I found several obvious errors in it. eg: Evans product is flammable with FP 225-232F.https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27488 That's in the combustible range, not flammable range. So it's "combustible" not flammable. {I did not check race criteria.} Could be just semantics on the part of the author but indicates a loose use of technical terms. {I did not check the values for either product.} They did not use the viscosity at temperature for the comparison that states it's ten time higher. Viscosity generally goes down, usually non-linearly, with temperature. Dynamic, not kinematic viscosity should be used, since it's related to shear. Effects of viscosity are in the film coefficient term* and bulk resistance to flow.http://facstaff.cbu.edu/rprice/lectures/htcoeff.html Reynolds number (Re) has viscosity in denominator.http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/reynolds-number-d_237.html
They would publish the full range of results, not just the conclusions or speculation in peer reviewed work.