I am confused about out analysis, Blackstone Lab not correcting?

[LS1-CAMARO]

So, I sent in an oil analysis sample, which I will post as soon as I figure out how to post an adobe file. Anyway, I sent in a note saying that 6 quarts went in, and about 4 came out. My report had 2 categories:

-Unit averages
-Universal averages.

What is missing? A correction factor. I am really annoyed that no attempt is made to correct for oil burning. For example, if iron is present in an oil with a full sump (6 quarts) at 15 ppm. If the EXACT same amount of Iron is present in 4 quarts of oil, the number would be measured at 20 ppm, or 33% higher, even though the total ware would be EXACTLY the same. I feel like I just wasted 30 bucks sending a sample into a lab that overlooked a fundamental concept about concentration and correction factor. Also, was the universal average for 15,000 miles or 3,000 miles. Why do I not see this defined. I want to be able to have some basis for interpreting the data myself. I am smart enough, however, to know that I don't know everything, so before I call up and ask for a refund, am I missing something? Thank you.

[ July 14, 2006, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: LS1-CAMARO ]

 

[JavaMan]

I guess interpreting is available for a price from those that provide this service. The analysis did provide you with the information to extrapolate and determine the iron concentration in your oil volume. Is an oil analysis worth the price? I guess that's debatable. I like to get one every now and again just to see if my engine is out of whack vs. averages.

 

[Gary Allan]

Also, was the universal average for 15,000 miles or 3,000 miles.


The comments should have appeared (at one part, anyway) "You oil appears like oil in use for 6000 miles. Yours was in service more then that. Try 8500 next time and check back.

That 6000 miles (or whatever they referred to) is the average mileage that the universal averages is made up from.

Look at the last line or two of the comments:

We might be taking a walk to Auto-Gen. Buckle your seat belt.

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Your dipstick was ok? No make up/added oil?

Post the results in UOA section THEN fasten your seatbelt.

 

[LS1-CAMARO]

My dipstick was OK, I initially overfilled it by ~3/4 of a quart and the oil level never dipped below "operating range", nor did the low oil light ever trip. i checked the lever every few days.

 

[LS1-CAMARO]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Also, was the universal average for 15,000 miles or 3,000 miles.


The comments should have appeared (at one part, anyway) "You oil appears like oil in use for 6000 miles. Yours was in service more then that. Try 8500 next time and check back.

That 6000 miles (or whatever they referred to) is the average mileage that the universal averages is made up from.

Look at the last line or two of the comments:

We might be taking a walk to Auto-Gen. Buckle your seat belt.

---

Absolutely no mention of ware per milage, just numbers. I spent 30 bucks.

[ July 17, 2006, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Bio-T ]

 

[LS1-CAMARO]

How did you post the report, did you scan it?

 

[LS1-CAMARO]

In all reality, they should give "normal concentrations" in terms of miles and sump capasity, I would think.

 

[LS1-CAMARO]

"©COPYRIGHT BLACKSTONE LABORATORIES 2001 LIABILITY LIMITED TO COST OF SAMPLE ANALYSIS
P.O. NUMBER CC: MC (Prepaid)
THOMAS: Thanks for the note. We don't normally consider it a problem to burn oil, as most engines
do. But if your engine's oil consumption rate changes, either increasing or decreasing dramatically,
that can spell trouble. As it is, we found high iron and lead, both coming from the bearings. We
assume the wear is due to the long oil change. GM engines aren't the best wearing out there, so you
may want to consider shorter oil changes to reduce wear. The TBN read 1.1, quite low & very little
active additive left. No contaminants (like fuel) found. Check back."
LS1 CAMARO

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

LS1, I'm sorta surprised that you, as a member of this board for quite a while, haven't analyzed other's used oil analysis over in the used oil analysis section. It seems like you expected a service that Blackstone does not offer.

 

[LS1-CAMARO]

Alright, the more I think about this, the more I am getting p'sed. The Blackstone Labs web site defines universal average as

"This column shows the averages for all the samples we've seen for this type of engine"

OK, so now, is it statistically fair to average ALL samples, therefore, the numbers for someone changing their oil at 2,000 miles can be interpreted exactly the same as numbers for a 15,000 oil change. Average, by itself is useless without knowing ANYTHING about the data pool and using data like this is an absolute embarrassment for a company that claims to perform "scientific analysis". This is a 5’th grade usage of statistics. I may start a post explaining how oil analysis is ripping people off and warn people not to spend their money on numbers that cannot be evaluated to make good choices about auto maintenance.
It is like having the tread of your tires measured after 60,000 miles and the technician telling you that your ware was 6/32, but be cautious because average ware is only 2/32. There is absolutely no frame of reference, if their 2/32 number was on cars typically driven 10,000 miles you are right at the normal ware, but if their 2/32 number is from cars typically running 20,000 miles, then you are prematurely warring your tires out. What freaking good is the ware number without a frame of reference to put it in. What freaking decisions can be made from JUST A NUMBER? I am so annoyed at myself for falling for this scam! This lab is taking hard earned money and providing data which is useless! Why has no one called them on this before?

 

[LS1-CAMARO]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ToyotaNSaturn:
LS1, I'm sorta surprised that you, as a member of this board for quite a while, haven't analyzed other's used oil analysis over in the used oil analysis section. It seems like you expected a service that Blackstone does not offer.

---

REceiving useful data SHOULD BE THEIR SERVICE. If you don't understand how this data in incomplete, well then, I have nothing to offer you.

 

[flatlandtacoma]

I think you are confused wanting a correction factor for burned oil. It's not like evaporation where the solvent disappears and the contaminant concentrates in the sump. If the oil gets past the rings or valve guides and is burned or leaks out, everything suspended in the oil goes with it. No need for a correction factor.

 

[Terry]

LS1-CAMARO, I appreciate your frustration with this issue.

Blackstone posts both "unit averages" and "universal averages" that they collect in their data base. They DO have an average mileage they see in the universe of that engine family but honestly for the experienced tribologist/analyst it is not that helpful of a measure.

That data is useful to compare to but ONLY a relative measure. The interpretation is the area that will discern what all the levels mean, including accounting for used or added oil volume.

When I interpret an automotive analysis result we take the whole result and any input from you on ANYTHING that impacted the interpretation. Including added oil and consumed oil. This is why our service is interactive and more time consuming.

I also use proprietary data on the engine AND the oil that only we have seen to compare to YOUR result. I don't have that for every oil and every engine but I have many. I cannot tell you why I see a trend or issue many times but if results are what you seek, use my customers positive results posted here as a guide.


Please understand that elemental wear rates in a highly variable operating unit such as the automotive engine are not purely linear so there is no scientifically accurate way to add a statistically constant correction factor for top up oil or any of the other hundreds of variables. Maybe on a test stand in a controlled environment but not with your daily driver. One reason tribologists hate analyzing automotive application oil analysis results. It is an art and a science.

Anyone who is only looking at wear rates per mile and not looking at the total data set is misguided.

I don't know if you have ever used our services but if you want an intensive interpretation that is longer than a paragraph please consider using our Dyson Premium Analysis Service.

See www.dysonanalysis.com and click on Services.

I am trying to get my current and future customers off other labs reports and using our Premium kit so we can get enough raw data to provide a meaningful and accurate snapshot of that engine and lube for that interval.

Having said all this Bklabs is a good company with honest folk running it. I am sure they will give you an actual mileage that their universal average is derived from. They do lots of oil analysis in a day so that mileage changes daily.

Hope that helps. Worse case call Ryan on Monday. I am sure he will discuss in-depth with you the logic behind their values.

Sincerely, Terry

 

[Gary Allan]

I think you're over reacting. You must be having a bad day.

Call them up and ask what mileage the UA is based on.

UA= average elements over average mileage.

Enhance your calm ..and ..be well

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, according to your post, you didn't use that much oil. If you stayed in the operating range of the dipstick ..those numbers need very little adjustment.

I'm surprised that the comments from Blackstone didn't mention the mileage that the UA were based on. This is their typical format.

I would email them and ask what mileage the UA is.

Then again, your readings (just type them out) may be way out of whack and have no relationship to the UA

Here. Simply tape and paste this into your post:

Aluminum 3
Chromium 1
Iron 24
Copper 4
Lead 23
Tin 0
Moly 82
Nickel 0
Managanese 0
Silver 0
Titanium 0
Potassium 2
Boron 35
Silicon 18
Sodium 10
Calcium 1588
Magnesium 14
Phosphorus 649
Zinc 747
Barium 0
Viscosity 58.8
Flashpoint 380
Fuel Antifreeze 0
Water 0
Insolubles .5
TBN 0.9

Put in your numbers. Put a "/" for the UA.

 

[LS1-CAMARO]

Go ahead and defend them, but you just don't get it. What good is a number without a reference. other people are GETTING TOLD this information. I was told "universal average"..period! I was given no definition of what my numbers means. They derived the number somewhere, right. Why is it an EXTRA service to ask for an explination of what the number means.

Seems to me that the numbers, without a reference point are completely useless. Are other's paying an extra fee for the lab to define average ware per X number of miles. A reasonable person would assume that the average numbers given are from the 3,000 general rule. Or is it for 100,000 miles, or is it for the life of the motor? Are the concentrations assuming full sump volume, are they corrected for burned oil. Why should this information be a service. Without this information, oil analysis is useless and I feel like I was just completely ripped off! Man, the 30 dollars does not bug me nearly as much as getting raped.

 

[LS1-CAMARO]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Well, according to your post, you didn't use that much oil.
Put in your numbers. Put a "/" for the UA.

---

No, I burned 2 quarts out of a 6 quart sump. That is 33.5%, which is signifigant.

 

[jmacmaster]

For me, the Comments section of a Blackstone Report is more important than the list of (and my interpretation of the list of) elements in parts per million. Its the comments that tell you what you need to worry about and do something about, and don't need to worry about, and that makes suggestions for the future.

That said, it seems to me that Blackstone could easily use a computer to break down, for each engine currently being manufactured or manufactured in, say, the past 20 years, the miles run on the oil by, for example, 1,000 mile units, so that they could give you the universal averages based on 1,000 mile oil changes, 2,000 mile oil changes, 3,000 mile oil changes, etc., for the type of engine that you have. That would make the comparison of your "elements in parts per million chart" to the universal average much more valuable. However, you'd still have interpretation problems. How do you know when the number for a given element is too high in the absolute sense or when compared to the universal average? For a given element, how much is too much for a given engine? For a given element, if your reading is twice, or three times, or whatever, more than the universal average for a given engine, is that bad or something that you don't have to worry about? Most of us don't know enough to answer these questions. But Blackstone does, and that's where the value of the Comments section comes into play.

 

[Winston]

quote:

---

elemental wear rates in a highly variable operating unit such as the automotive engine are not purely linear so there is no scientifically accurate way to add a statistically constant correction factor for top up oil or any of the other hundreds of variables

---

This is a key point of Terry's post. Wear element concentrations do not increase linearly. There is no accepted "correction" factor for oil consumption.