Does anyone use Terry Dyson's Analysis??

[Not the Autorx Frank]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Yes, but is he doing the actual testing and report or just sending it out? It is quite obvious B_S leaves a lot to the imagination. Thanks


Why don't you ask him and report back. He is quite a nice guy. If I had to guess, he prob uses one of many avail labs.

 

[demarpaint]

I figured one of the members here who actually uses his services would already know. I'm not a member of his site, and would have to dig to find out a way to contact him. If no one knows maybe I'll dig, I'll see. Thanks

 

[Not the Autorx Frank]

{removed non site sponsor info. Google him}

Seems your more interested in questions than answers. Its on the front page of his website.

 

[greenjp]

Terry uses a single lab, {removed non-site sponsor link}, for his oil analysis customers. He uses them specifically because of the quality of the reports they provide.

For the "raw" tests, Terry provides independent QC on the results.

He will also perform interpretations of existing reports from other labs.

jeff

 

[Not the Autorx Frank]

(Some Lab Somewhere)

Spectroscopy

Spectrographic metals analysis is usually the 'heart' of most oil analysis programs. Using either a Rotrode Emission Spectrometer or an Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectrometer (ICP), 20 or more metals can be simultaneously determined. The metals analyzed for include wear, additive, and contaminant metals and are reported in parts per million (ppm).

(Some Lab Somewhere) uses a Rotating Disk Emission Spectrometer. The instrument is quick and easy to operate and is accurate within acceptable limits.

The Rotrode Spectrometer has a particle size detection limitation of between 3µ and 10µ (depending on the particular metal in question and the amount of surface oxidation on the particle surface) compared to the .5µ - 2µ limitation of the ICP. Results of the Rotrode Spectrometer are accurate to about 1 or 2 ppm. Results of the ICP are accurate to .1 ppm. The advantage of the Rotrode Spectrometer is that no dilution of the sample is required, while the advantage of the ICP is its accuracy. With proper sample preparation, an ICP can measure in the 10's of parts per billion (ppb). Particle size limitations of an ICP are even more sever than a Rotrode Spectrometer because the sample and particles have to be nebulized. If measuring very low concentrations, the diluent (usually diesel fuel) has to be at least as clean.

For routine lube oil analysis, accuracy below the 1 ppm level is not required. The results are very trendable from sample to sample if the sampling interval doesn't exceed every three months and proper sampling procedures are adhered to.

At (Some Lab Somewhere) we analyze for 21 elements

Iron

Silicon

Lead

Boron

Copper

Tin

Sodium

Phosphorus

Aluminum

Potassium

Chromium

Zinc

Nickel

Calcium

Silver

Magnesium

Vanadium

Titanium

Molybdenum

Antimony


Notice some metals can be both additives and contaminants, such as Calcium, or wear metals and additives, such as Zinc.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Not the Autorx Frank
{removed non site sponsor info. Google him}

Seems your more interested in questions than answers. Its on the front page of his website.


Through questions you get answers. Why the hostility? You even said it was a good question. Reading this thread I got the impression Mr. Dyson sent the oil out for a report. If that was the case then the report is only as good as the data given to him. If he does in fact analyze the oil himself then I have my answer.

One of the main purposes of this board is to get answers, and share info in order to help others.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: CougarRed
Here's some things the Dyson Raw report gives you that the basic Blackstone does not:

TAN
More accurate Flash Point
Oxidation
Nitration
More accurate fuel dilution
KF
Viscosity Index

The TAN is important because the TBN number is difficult to interpret without it.

The fuel dilution measurements are critical to determine what's going on in the report.

Oxidation and Nitration are critical to determine combustion efficiency.

Versus Blackstone, you get what you pay for IMO.

Plus, the wear numbers are more meaningful on their own since they are gathered by a method that catches particles in a wider and better range of sizes.

 

[demarpaint]

That $59 might just be a better deal if he does in fact have a way of guaranteeing accuracy, as opposed to a shot in the dark $25 report.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
How does a person know if the "Raw report" is accurate? B_S reports are often filled with errors. Are the Dyson "Raw Reports" 100% accurate? Just wondering, no point in getting a report that might be incorrect. I'd rather pay more if I can be guaranteed an accurate report. Does Dyson look at the "Raw report" and certify it is accurate?

I'm not starting a flame war I'm asking questions to gather more info. Thanks

Good question. As with any report, you don't.

The lab is ISO certified, and Terry himself does QC on all the data (as mentioned). Those things help; call them extra layers of assurance. It's up to you what that's worth.

I trust him because the numbers, his interpretations, and my own research have all added up. However, I would never advise taking anything on faith. Trust but verify, as they say.

Blackstone will re-run tests if you doubt their accuracy. I'm sure Terry's lab will do the same. Sometimes he requests that himself as part of his QC process.

 

[demarpaint]

I take everything with a grain of salt. I'd feel a bit more confident in one of his reports I think. Thanks

 

[Johnny]

If I could afford it, I would use Terry without hesitation. He is a first class person.

 

[unDummy]

My lawyer and accountant are 1st class people but I avoid them like the plague.

I don't see the need to over pay for an opinion. Post your UOA here and at Noria and enjoy equivalent free opinions.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: unDummy
My lawyer and accountant are 1st class people but I avoid them like the plague.

I don't see the need to over pay for an opinion. Post your UOA here and at Noria and enjoy equivalent free opinions.



True, I'd get a report I feel is accurate and post it here for opinions. I wouldn't pay for an opinion either. All I'd want is to be certain the report is accurate, if I can't be certain of the accuracy of the report I wouldn't bother. Which is why I haven't done a UOA, yet. Once I can overcome the uncertainty I might go for it! I'm still not there.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: unDummy
Post your UOA here and at Noria and enjoy equivalent free opinions.


Last I checked, "equivalent" means "of equal value." That doesn't seem to be the definition you're using here. Perhaps you meant "equally verbose" or "reflecting a similar degree of conviction?"

 

[unDummy]

No, I'm mean equivalent without the over-payed consultant.
Sorry, I have seen the Dyson UOAs and I wasn't impressed.

BTW, I'm also not impressed by politicians prior to election day, and not convinced by any car salesman when shopping.

You can do your own research rather easily. Or, you can pay someone to do it for you. But, the results are the same.

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: unDummy
I don't see the need to over pay for an opinion. Post your UOA here and at Noria and enjoy equivalent free opinions.

The expression "you get what you pay for" applies here. The collective commentary you'll see for a UOA here falls very far short of the insight Terry can provide.

As someone who does research for a living, I'd say you are fooling yourself if you think anyone can effectively research a complex topic as well as someone who's an expert.

jeff

 

[AEHaas]

"Sorry, I have seen the Dyson UOAs and I wasn't impressed."

...But have you experienced it?
There is a sheet of paper with raw data, lab test results.
...often containing "Sticky Notes" in PDF format to highlight areas of interest.
...an audio tape up to 20 or 30 minutes long (in my cases) discussing all the results and how it affects everything else.
...there are questions Terry often asks back to you to allow him to more accurately assess your test results for Your application. You may end up talking on the phone.
...a Word.doc with written conclusions and a host of suggestions that is individual to your needs and application.

I have personally used different labs over the years. There is nothing else I can do to obtain more useful information.

I repeat however, that you are wasting your money on these services if you are not actually going to use them to their fullest extent. For me, automotive lubricants are a fluid field. It is always changing. In order to stay on the leading edge it takes constant education and the drive to follow through.

aehaas

 

[dkryan]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
That $59 might just be a better deal if he does in fact have a way of guaranteeing accuracy, as opposed to a shot in the dark $25 report.


demar - assuming you have a family physician and he orders a complete blood count (don't cry, it's just a needle), tell us what you do to ensure 100% accuracy by the lab that processes your bloodwork.

Think carefully, your life may depend upon it.

 

[QuadDriver]

I have had a simple philosophy that has served me for over 30 years:

change your oil at the recommended intervals with the recommended fluid and it (car, boat, tractor, lawnmower) will last until:

a) you wreck it
b) it rusts away
c) you get tired of it

Any other outcomes, while possible, are so improbable as to be noise in the data.

My multiyear hiatus from this site was based on a set of conversations with the 'UOA weenies' as I call them. research them. See that they are actually unwilling, and quite frankly, unable to derive any meaningful information from a report that you cannot also glean from looking at various dipsticks and fluid levels.*1

I rigged a proposal 100% in their favor and no one wanted to be exposed. For good reason. The loss of that $99 (or apparently $130 now) yearly per person. OR put simply: does anyone REALLY need an expert to tell them that exposed window panes are a major source of heat loss in a home?

Notes:

1 - IF you are unable to derive your motors' condition from essentially a visual inspection, thats ok, not everyone is an ace mechanic. However, if your paid ace mechanic cannot, get a new ace mechanic. It really IS that simple.

 

[greenjp]

Originally Posted By: QuadDriver
I have had a simple philosophy that has served me for over 30 years...
...
I rigged a proposal 100% in their favor and no one wanted to be exposed. For good reason. The loss of that $99 (or apparently $130 now) yearly per person. OR put simply: does anyone REALLY need an expert to tell them that exposed window panes are a major source of heat loss in a home?

To your first point, you're probably close to being correct for a pretty good percentage of vehicles and owners. As I said in my first post, this is a funny hobby (starting with reading & posting on car message boards in the first place), and hobbies are all about taking things to levels that "normal" people would find silly.

Cars today are mostly quite good and if you do what you're supposed to they'll last a long time. However the many examples of cars that did in fact go bad even when the suggested maintenance was followed suggests that the other outcomes are much more likely than "so improbable".

As to your last point, I'd consider possibility #3 - they were quite able and perhaps initially willing to provide the proof you requested, but upon a little reflection decided not to waste their time in a pointless internet debate with someone who's mind was already made up and apparently unwilling to consider information that would be contrary to his opinion.

jeff