There's 1.7% fuel contamination, which is pretty good for this engine, so it's difficult to know if the viscosity loss is due to shearing.Only 8747 mi on vehicle. It's still breaking in, so the copper at 30ppm gets a pass. The oil is shearing though, probably could've taken it 2500 miles before it went out of grade. For short OCI you might want to save a few bucks and not get the EP oil.
I am using the word "shearing" to mean "losing viscosity."There's 1.7% fuel contamination, which is pretty good for this engine, so it's difficult to know if the viscosity loss is due to shearing.
It's technically a critical distinction especially when attempting to determine "how well an oil did" using a UOA.I am using the word "shearing" to mean "losing viscosity."
You can't though.I am using the word "shearing" to mean "losing viscosity."
I think to most anyone who read my post, the intent was clear. But I will try harder to be more precise with my verbiage from now on.You can't though.
Shearing is a physical action that happens to the VII polymers that results in both temporary and permanent viscosity loss. Fuel dilution is another mechanism that causes viscosity loss.
Worded differently: Shear can cause viscosity loss, but it is not the only mechanism through which that is achieved, ergo, shear cannot be universally used to describe an unexpected reduction in viscosity, it should be referred to as simply viscosity loss, and, if you suspect shear as the primary mechanism, call that out separately.
Maybe, unfortunately, since most of the discussion around UOA's on this board revolves around those from Blackstone, shear has become synonymous with viscosity loss. Basically, if you saw it in a UOA, because Blackstone doesn't properly measure fuel, the oil was referred to, incorrectly, as having sheared. Myself and a few others who noticed this trend have been working to correct it by pointing out fuel as a contributor, or even primary driver, of viscosity loss, and NOT shear, where appropriate. It takes a while to change something that has become so entrenched, so I appreciate your acknowledgement and comment on future efforts to improve language used, it will aide in these efforts.I think to most anyone who read my post, the intent was clear. But I will try harder to be more precise with my verbiage from now on.
Or I will comment less often, or stop posting completely. When the oil gods swoop in pedantically to correct every verbal miscue, even if the intent is clear, it's a lot less interesting to keep coming back and contributing. Going back to read-only mode now.Maybe, unfortunately, since most of the discussion around UOA's on this board revolves around those from Blackstone, shear has become synonymous with viscosity loss. Basically, if you saw it in a UOA, because Blackstone doesn't properly measure fuel, the oil was referred to, incorrectly, as having sheared. Myself and a few others who noticed this trend have been working to correct it by pointing out fuel as a contributor, or even primary driver, of viscosity loss, and NOT shear, where appropriate. It takes a while to change something that has become so entrenched, so I appreciate your acknowledgement and comment on future efforts to improve language used, it will aide in these efforts.
Well, it is oil forum after all. One would think basic verbiage would be correct.Or I will comment less often, or stop posting completely. When the oil gods swoop in pedantically to correct every verbal miscue, even if the intent is clear, it's a lot less interesting to keep coming back and contributing. Going back to read-only mode now.
So using the word "shear" to describe an oil losing viscosity is not using basic verbiage? Think about that for a second.Well, it is oil forum after all. One would think basic verbiage would be correct.
I probably told you that without TBN and TAN UOA is useless. I mean, what do you want me to tell you? You didn’t get two basic measurements of use oil to see how it did. That is fact. There is not alternative to it.So using the word "shear" to describe an oil losing viscosity is not using basic verbiage? Think about that for a second.
If this was an isolated situation, it wouldn't be a big deal, BUT:
-I've been corrected for using the word "weight" instead of "grade."
-I've been corrected for using "shearing" instead of "losing viscosity."
-I was corrected for disagreeing with someone that a UOA is "useless" (his words) unless you get both a TBN and a TAN.
-when Blackstone was getting bashed unfairly and I spoke up, I was accused of getting paid by Blackstone. I agree that their Fuel% method is not as accurate as GC, but this is not what I'm talking about. M1 EP 0W20 oils were widely showing low Ph and Zn levels on VOAs from multiple labs, but somehow Blackstone was still being singled out as being "inaccurate" with their spectral analysis. I showed results from other labs of the same oil (Mobil 1's own VOA of their oil showed low Ph and Zn!), and I showed posts like this: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-by-three-different-test-laboratories.344857/
yet no one accepted my correction.
This "correcting" culture that has developed here is starting to border on Big Brother-ish and feels like there's always someone standing over your shoulder ready to swoop in, wag their finger at you and "tsk tsk". What's interesting is with the old timers (people with thousands of posts), I don't see this happening as much. I have seen many what would be considered inaccurate posts by old timers and you just don't see the oil gods swooping in and correcting them. Specifically, I see a lot of old timers using "weight" when they're describing an oil's grade. No big deal, I know what they mean and so do you, right? But when I did it, someone had to swoop in and correct me. All of these incidents in isolation are not a big deal to me. I'm capable of learning and growing, even if the ones doing the correcting aren't being respectful about how they correct. But when it happens over and over, I unfortunately have a breaking point. I reached it.
No it is not. It's a potential cause but not definitive.So using the word "shear" to describe an oil losing viscosity is not using basic verbiage? Think about that for a second.
I can definitely see your pointSo using the word "shear" to describe an oil losing viscosity is not using basic verbiage? Think about that for a second.
If this was an isolated situation, it wouldn't be a big deal, BUT:
-I've been corrected for using the word "weight" instead of "grade."
-I've been corrected for using "shearing" instead of "losing viscosity."
-I was corrected for disagreeing with someone that a UOA is "useless" (his words) unless you get both a TBN and a TAN.
-when Blackstone was getting bashed unfairly and I spoke up, I was accused of getting paid by Blackstone. I agree that their Fuel% method is not as accurate as GC, but this is not what I'm talking about. M1 EP 0W20 oils were widely showing low Ph and Zn levels on VOAs from multiple labs, but somehow Blackstone was still being singled out as being "inaccurate" with their spectral analysis. I showed results from other labs of the same oil (Mobil 1's own VOA of their oil showed low Ph and Zn!), and I showed posts like this: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/t...-by-three-different-test-laboratories.344857/
yet no one accepted my correction.
This "correcting" culture that has developed here is starting to border on Big Brother-ish and feels like there's always someone standing over your shoulder ready to swoop in, wag their finger at you and "tsk tsk". What's interesting is with the old timers (people with thousands of posts), I don't see this happening as much. I have seen many what would be considered inaccurate posts by old timers and you just don't see the oil gods swooping in and correcting them. Specifically, I see a lot of old timers using "weight" when they're describing an oil's grade. No big deal, I know what they mean and so do you, right? But when I did it, someone had to swoop in and correct me. All of these incidents in isolation are not a big deal to me. I'm capable of learning and growing, even if the ones doing the correcting aren't being respectful about how they correct. But when it happens over and over, I unfortunately have a breaking point. I reached it.
Thanks. I appreciate it.I can definitely see your point
I'll bet you're a real hoot at parties.You can't though.
Shearing is a physical action that happens to the VII polymers that results in both temporary and permanent viscosity loss. Fuel dilution is another mechanism that causes viscosity loss.
Worded differently: Shear can cause viscosity loss, but it is not the only mechanism through which that is achieved, ergo, shear cannot be universally used to describe an unexpected reduction in viscosity, it should be referred to as simply viscosity loss, and, if you suspect shear as the primary mechanism, call that out separately.
It's wrong but it can be done, yes.Yes, he can do exactly what he described. And the majority of people will get it. It's a generalization that, while not technically correct, is understood by most people in casual conversation.
And that's way more than can be said for much of internet content.
To put it differently, relax man, we get it.