We pretend they don’t exist.What about Blackstone Labs?
They don’t even do gas chromatography. They try to estimate it off of flash point.
We pretend they don’t exist.What about Blackstone Labs?
Their refusal to use the proper method for determining fuel % still baffles me. They must be the most profitable oil analysis company in the world but yet they don’t spend the money needed to have state of the art equipment? Don’t they care about accuracy? They must be reading BITOG and hearing our complaints for all of these years. Give customers what they wantWe pretend they don’t exist.
They don’t even do gas chromatography. They try to estimate it off of flash point.
It’s somewhat less than a refusal. There is an ASTM method for using flash point to estimate fuel, but the method notes that it is a screening test. It likely has a low accuracy. Nor do we know if Blackstone is even using that particular ASTM test or performing it properly. It would be awesome if these analysis companies would publish the stated accuracy numbers with each test.Their refusal to use the proper method for determining fuel % still baffles me. They must be the most profitable oil analysis company in the world but yet they don’t spend the money needed to have state of the art equipment? Don’t they care about accuracy? They must be reading BITOG and hearing our complaints for all of these years. Give customers what they want
Looks like they use ASTM D92 for the flashpoint and infer fuel dilution from that.It’s somewhat less than a refusal. There is an ASTM method for using flash point to estimate fuel, but the method notes that it is a screening test. It likely has a low accuracy. Nor do we know if Blackstone is even using that particular ASTM test or performing it properly.
Those compounds in the brake cleaner would not show up as the same peaks on a GC analysis. And even if they did, to get to 4% in your sample would mean a hecka lot in there.Well, I manage to get some time on the phone with an analyst at Polaris. First, let me say how refreshing it is that you can get a human being on the phone who is VERY knowledgeable about analysis. Instantly and obviously knew PDSC, GC, and all the relevant technical aspects of analysis.
The Analysis told me they did a partial re-run and 2/3 oxidation re-runs confirmed the elevated oxidation, likewise for the fuel dilution. I asked them to re-run KV100 just to be sure because it seems incompatible with the other data points.
But now I'm convinced that I sent them a contaminated sample because I had cleaned the sample pump tube by blowing it out with non-chlorinated brake cleaner and then compressed air. Reading that CRC can, you can see it has Acetone, N-heptane and all kinds of other hydrocarbons that would 100% show up as "fuel" and as oxidation products. The procedure of blowing out the tubing with compressed air probably not only failed to remove heavier solvents, but likely added traces of water and who knows what else.
I think it's the only plausible explanation as to how I ended up with nearly 4% dilution with no proportional change in KV100. It also explains the high oxidation values and nitration values that are simply not realistic.
Thoughts?
I'm going to take another sample here at 2k and use some virgin tubing. We'll see what that sample shows. I'm guessing it shows fuel at closer to 2.5%, oxidation back in the 20s, and nitration barely moved at all.