GeorgeCLS M1 GC Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Messages
531
Location
Columbus, Ohio
The floodgates of H*ll will be unleashed with this posting, but here is the latest on my GC sample processing. The lab called this morning, having run the GC on the Mobil 1 EP 5W-30. The results were inconclusive, which the lab knew may well happen, so they reserved samples of both Group III and PAO to run as direct comparatives to better able compare the shapes. When they went to get the samples, they were gone.. Thus, until they get additional virgin PAO and Group III for comparative, inconclusive results: i.e. NO results.. The lab has no idea when they might secure base stock samples of each for comparison..

I am as disappointed as anyone, obviously.. This is the real, true story as of today. I do not have the imagination to make this stuff up! I paid my money up front, several months ago, for this GC run, so doubly disappointed.. The lab was quite frank at the beginning that they would "try to fit the test in" and did have samples of both base stocks in the lab at the time.. And a "sorry about that" is all I got...
George Morrison, STLE CLS
 
Thanks for the update George. Let the conspiracy begin...

ts0lr.gif
 
Thanks George for your effort.
cheers.gif


I stand by what Tom NJ has found. He has more experience in the industry than anyone on this board other than maybe bruce.
 
Thank you for the report and your efforts George, I don't doubt you have been trying. I have pretty much come to terms that things change. It is interesting to see how difficult it is to get a GC done then properly interpreted as is shown by your frustrating(to you) effort to get this done.
We do a lot of speculating, conjecture and jumping to conclusions on this forum but eventually we have to come to terms with the information that we have available.
 
Thanks, George. We patiently await your results. Now in the interim ..XOM may evolve to GTL basestocks ..but so
confused.gif
 
I second all thank yous, George. I certainly don't question your efforts. Now the lab you chose, on the other hand, they seem to be the keystone cops of the oil testing industry. Not only are they slow, but perhaps, incompetent.
 
Quote:


. . . The results were inconclusive, which the lab knew may well happen, so they reserved samples of both Group III and PAO to run as direct comparatives to better able compare the shapes. When they went to get the samples, they were gone . . .




. . . and Mickey was reportedly seen running from the building.
 
Quote:


Quote:


. . . The results were inconclusive, which the lab knew may well happen, so they reserved samples of both Group III and PAO to run as direct comparatives to better able compare the shapes. When they went to get the samples, they were gone . . .




. . . and Mickey was reportedly seen running from the building.




laugh.gif
 
Surprisingly when I worked for an environmental company, it was very difficult to get good lab work done. Lost samples, ran the wrong sample, contaminated the sample, ran the wrong tests, and on and on....
 
Thanks for your efforts George. Like many others, I appreciate your contributions to this forum and will patiently await these test results.
cheers.gif
 
No floodgates needed. We appreciate your hard work in attempting to make this happen. We're sad to hear these results, but as BITOG'ers, we'll wait patiently for any future tests.

IMO, things change so much that data is quickly obsolete. Perhaps waiting longer for results isn't such a bad idea.

cheers.gif
cheers.gif
patriot.gif
 
When a GC test is performed, can the the lab remain intentionally "blind" to the material, other than in general terms of its composition?

Does the lab prefer or require knowledge of who the
manufacturer of the material is and precisely what it is, if such knowledge exists?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom