Any video/image examples of sludge cleaning from short OCI?

Messages
666
Location
CA
Sludge, sure, maybe.

Varnish? Ha. No.

Ever tried to clean burnt oil off a stainless pan? Good luck without an SOS pad and elbow grease.
 
Messages
6,938
Location
Roanoke Virginia
He does NOT do scientific testing and is relatively forthcoming about that fact. These are for entertainment, they aren't properly controlled and properly vetted testing protocols with well defined error bars and understanding of the limits. The problem is that many (most?) people don't understand that aspect of it and thus feel that these are proper metrics to gauge performance by.

Again, this has all been well covered in the numerous threads on the subject, but some of them are pretty long.
Oh I didn’t know that I have found his tests to be very cool and helpful. I’ve never heard him say that he didn’t do them scientifically but that’s good to know. I like a lot of YouTubers that most people on here don’t like though.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
45,840
Location
Ontario, Canada
Oh I didn’t know that I have found his tests to be very cool and helpful. I’ve never heard him say that he didn’t do them scientifically but that’s good to know. I like a lot of YouTubers that most people on here don’t like though.

Actual scientifically valid testing is not something that is going to have appeal on Youtube. It's long, it's boring, it's not very sexy. It requires a ton of redundancy, analysis and the explanation of caveats that define the error bars for the data that comes out of what is being tested.

A good example of what this looks like in application is 540 RAT's "ranking" of engine oils on his "test rig". When the error bars for the machine being used are properly applied to his "results" the first something like 20 oils are all identical and same for the next 30 (don't quote me on those numbers, but you get the idea). And of course his test only really determines how well those oils work in lubricating his test rig, they are not a correlation to actual performance in an engine which requires, not surprisingly, testing in actual engines.

This is part of the reason certifications and approvals are so important. Every oil that meets Porsche A40 has to pass their testing protocol, which is simulated lapping of the Nurburgring in an engine test rig followed by tear-down and measurements. No Micky Mouse garage test filmed with a GoPro is going to even remotely approach that level of testing, and that's just ONE protocol that most of the Euro oils meet.

The Porsche test is similar to this one (this is a Nurburgring simulation test):
 
Messages
6,938
Location
Roanoke Virginia
Actual scientifically valid testing is not something that is going to have appeal on Youtube. It's long, it's boring, it's not very sexy. It requires a ton of redundancy, analysis and the explanation of caveats that define the error bars for the data that comes out of what is being tested.

A good example of what this looks like in application is 540 RAT's "ranking" of engine oils on his "test rig". When the error bars for the machine being used are properly applied to his "results" the first something like 20 oils are all identical and same for the next 30 (don't quote me on those numbers, but you get the idea). And of course his test only really determines how well those oils work in lubricating his test rig, they are not a correlation to actual performance in an engine which requires, not surprisingly, testing in actual engines.

This is part of the reason certifications and approvals are so important. Every oil that meets Porsche A40 has to pass their testing protocol, which is simulated lapping of the Nurburgring in an engine test rig followed by tear-down and measurements. No Micky Mouse garage test filmed with a GoPro is going to even remotely approach that level of testing, and that's just ONE protocol that most of the Euro oils meet.
Oh ok well I appreciate you always helping me understand these things better. I was unaware but I do see how the scientific test would be boring very boring most likely. Yes I get the idea on the numbers and stuff. I still enjoy watching his content especially on the anti seize test and loctite test and the using anti seize as oil test.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
45,840
Location
Ontario, Canada
Oh ok well I appreciate you always helping me understand these things better. I was unaware but I do see how the scientific test would be boring very boring most likely. Yes I get the idea on the numbers and stuff. I still enjoy watching his content especially on the anti seize test and loctite test and the using anti seize as oil test.

No problem. See the edit with the Porsche testing video, then consider THIS:

Porsche A40 testing procedure: This test will last 203 hours.
The engine, and the oil, will go through:
- 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving,
- 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter driving,
- 40 cold starts,
- 5 times the simulation of 1-hour sessions on the “Nürburgring” racetrack,
- 3.5 hours of “running-in” program

Measurements on the engine and on the oil will be done at regular intervals, and the following parameter will be taken into account to grant the approval or not:
- torque curve (internal friction),
- oxidation of the oil,
- Piston cleanliness and ring sticking,
- Valve train wear protection. Cam & tappet wear must be less than 10 μm.
- Engine cleanliness and sludge: after 203 hours, no deposits must be visible.
- Bearing wear protection: visual rating according to Porsche in-house method.
 
Messages
6,938
Location
Roanoke Virginia
No problem. See the edit with the Porsche testing video, then consider THIS:

Porsche A40 testing procedure: This test will last 203 hours.
The engine, and the oil, will go through:
- 4 times the simulation of 35 hours of summer driving,
- 4 times the simulation of 13.5 hours of winter driving,
- 40 cold starts,
- 5 times the simulation of 1-hour sessions on the “Nürburgring” racetrack,
- 3.5 hours of “running-in” program

Measurements on the engine and on the oil will be done at regular intervals, and the following parameter will be taken into account to grant the approval or not:
- torque curve (internal friction),
- oxidation of the oil,
- Piston cleanliness and ring sticking,
- Valve train wear protection. Cam & tappet wear must be less than 10 μm.
- Engine cleanliness and sludge: after 203 hours, no deposits must be visible.
- Bearing wear protection: visual rating according to Porsche in-house method.
Very cool I never thought of all that at all.
 

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Messages
45,840
Location
Ontario, Canada
Very cool I never thought of all that at all.

Yep, so oils like Ravenol SSL, Mobil 1 0w-40, Castrol Edge 0w-40...etc that have A40 on them have passed that protocol as well as all the others for the approvals they hold. That's why a number of us pay attention to the Euro approvals, as they are quite stringent in nature.

Did you watch the video? It's pretty incredible.
 
Messages
6,938
Location
Roanoke Virginia
Yep, so oils like Ravenol SSL, Mobil 1 0w-40, Castrol Edge 0w-40...etc that have A40 on them have passed that protocol as well as all the others for the approvals they hold. That's why a number of us pay attention to the Euro approvals, as they are quite stringent in nature.

Did you watch the video? It's pretty incredible.
The video didn’t show up on my end.
 
Messages
6,425
Location
New Braunfels
HOLY MOTHER OF PEOPLE NOT KNOWING THE WHOLE STORY PRESENTING NON SEQUITUR COMPARISONS THAT ARE POLAR OPPOSITES BATMAN, LOL

I'm not only aware of the process, we team with a few tank companies in Texas that do it. Now let me explain the errors in your comparison.

First that "oil" is treated for incremental cleaning ( based on the sample analysis not unlike cleaning scale from a boiler) so its not "motor oil" ( and this aint a car engine)

It uses heat and velocity ( heat expands the pipe and thermally shocks the hard deposits and the velocity breaks them and carries them off)

Plus this is for piping ( not the same pathways and pressures of an ICE as is the subject of the thread and context of my statements)

Often, this is used in conjunction with pigging depending on the type and degree of contamination.

I want you now to explain to the class how you are going to effectively adapt and duplicate this process inside an internal combustion engine? (otherwise it was a meaningless comparison right up there with it is equally realistic to break the engine down and hand wipe every part before reassembly during an oil change to make sure the sludge/varnish is gone and there is no wear)
It sounds like your expirience is limited to surface equipment and mine is with production wells and the subsurface components. Heat solves,the deposits, thermal expansion may help if the material normally operates,at lower temperature. but I am speaking of subsurface, which Traverses the tubing quite warm. But hot oil/ wateroperations are warmer and the additional heat helps to dissolve them
In the application I am speaking about the heat of the oil is transferred to annular tubing within a well. The heat causes the paraffins to melt and the solvency of the oil or even hot water carries off the deposits.
this Is not thermal shock, which could damage tubing and pipes but rather uses the I ate physical property of solvency of crude oil or water combined combined with heat to dissolve deposits into the fluid and remove these deposits.
Admittadly this is a simple comparison to demonstrate that oil is a solvent, and heat helps the process. something as simple as a hot hot crude oil can clean an anulus within a well to restore production or even free up subsurface pumps or clear the way for plungers. again there are a lot of formation risk that have to be evaluated with this procedure (much like pressure flushing am engine)but it does have a basis in the physical properties of deposits and the solvency of fluidS(oil or water) The raw crude in this case has a high content of aromatics that increase solvency.
The comparison to the ICE, an engine that is brought up to temperature and the oil is changed before it reached maximum suspension capacity of contaminants, will be cleaner than an engine that is not brought up to temperature regularly and run beyond the oils holding capacity, for long periods and exceeds the engine oils capacity.
Engine oil Oil is continuously Picking up and suspending deposits during operation. failure Modes are contaminates beyond the capacity of the lube, and lack of temperature, and areas that do not have oil flow.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,965
Location
USA
It sounds like your expirience is limited to surface equipment and mine is with production wells and the subsurface components.
Incorrect on mine- not commenting on yours but it seems questionable

Heat solves,the deposits, thermal expansion may help if the material normally operates,at lower temperature. but I am speaking of subsurface, which Traverses the tubing quite warm. But hot oil/ wateroperations are warmer and the additional heat helps to dissolve them
In the application I am speaking about the heat of the oil is transferred to annular tubing within a well. The heat causes the paraffins to melt and the solvency of the oil or even hot water carries off the deposits.

Like I said, thermal shock. That's not a 'chemical' action- that's a mechanical action as broke down the differences and you just confiemed it.

Is not thermal shock, which could damage tubing and pipes but rather uses the I ate physical property of solvency of crude oil or water combined combined with heat to dissolve deposits into the fluid and remove these deposits.

Here's a news flash for you- any time there is a thermal delta between components (even when shrink fitting a bushing) that's a "shock" creating a boundary condition. The "degree" and effect of that shock is a do out of the event. Heat doesn't "dissolve"- it assists converting back to a slurry (sludge) with other components.

Admittadly this is a simple comparison to demonstrate that oil is a solvent, and heat helps the process. something as simple as a hot hot crude oil can clean an anulus within a well to restore production or even free up subsurface pumps

It demonstrates nothing of the sort and failed miserably- the only thing it has demonstrated ( by your own description) is that you have no working knowledge of the physics or chemistry of the process or the oil.

The comparison to the ICE, an engine that is brought up to temperature and the oil is changed before it reached maximum suspension capacity of contaminants, will be cleaner than an engine that is not brought up to temperature regularly and run beyond the oils holding capacity, for long periods and exceeds the engine oils capacity.
No, that is totally incorrect, anecdotal, speculative and drawing a conclusion unsupported by any legitimate evidence or science.

Engine oil Oil is continuously Picking up and suspending deposits during operation. failure Modes are contaminates beyond the capacity of the lube, and lack of temperature, and areas that do not have oil flow.

You need to also go back and review the RCFA and FMEA process too. Explain how contaminates are 'failure modes" and what is a capacity of a lube relative to them? That whole statement is non sense.
 
Messages
1,965
Location
USA
Actual scientifically valid testing is not something that is going to have appeal on Youtube. It's long, it's boring, it's not very sexy. It requires a ton of redundancy, analysis and the explanation of caveats that define the error bars for the data that comes out of what is being tested.
Must state for the record- That was a very good and thoroughly detailed explanation upthread of what and why the legitimate testing process is what it is and why others are not
 
Top