I've always thought, if you're going to lubricate a machine with a non-spec'd lubricant, you ought know more about the machine, and the lubricant, than the guy who spec'd that lubricant in the first place.
Do you?
I'm not the OP, and I didn't take offense, but, this is an appeal to authority. Whoever spec'd the lubricant in the first place didn't spec out the best possible lubricant for the tool. They spec'd out the best lubricant that met a variety of specifications, not least of which would be price.
It's entirely possible that there's a better lubricant for things out there, but the cost/benefit ratio may not make it worth it to the manufacturer or most end-users.
Air tool oil being a common thing, it's entirely possible/probable that air tools today are designed around air tool oil as a lubricant, since that's what most people will have, and "better" lubricants never get tested.
Who here puts synthetic oil/lubricants in their vehicle? Is your vehicle spec'd to use synthetic? Or is it spec'd to use normal stuff? Should a person not consider "better" oil for their car because they're not an automotive engineer?
Ultimately, the guy thinks he may have a better solution that may make his stuff last longer/perform better. That he's asking questions about it indicates a desire to learn, which should be applauded. And, entirely understandable, when one buys expensive tools/toys.
. Just some a little turbine whizzing around at just above room temperature. And I thought vanes were stationary and blades orbited. Air tool manufacturers need to get on the bandwagon.