Oil Contamination & Particle Counts

[ekpolk]

The more I've dug into these things, the more I've come to wonder what our UOA numbers mean. One thing I've been wanting to compare is particle size determinations and the wear numbers we're used to seeing. So this time, I ordered Blackstone's optional particle counting service. Forgive me if this is a cross-posting violation, but here's a link to the UOA with particle counts included.

One thing this has got me wondering, on a basic level, is just what does the ISO Cleanliness grade of 15/12 mean?

Also, I've read (but can't vouch for accuracy) that the smallest clearances in a healthy piston engine are around 3 microns. I imagine that varies with models, though. If that's the case, then if my results indicate clean oil, I'm confused, since I clearly have a bunch of particles that exceed 3 microns. Wouldn't those 10 micron particles be causing some trouble when they find themselves being pushed into a 3 micron clearance???

Comments?

 

[buster]

Thanks for doing this ekpolk, I'd like to see what Terry has to say about this.

 

[ekpolk]

Happy to do it. I'm already realizing that I want more than just bare particle counts. I'd also like to know what the particles of each size range are made of. Alas, I think I'm about as far as my little old me budget can go. Blackstone's PC is a good deal, I think, it's $20 over and above the basic test.

 

[Steve S]

The numbers are an amount of a size of particles .ISO is International standard organization " not exactly sure I'm kinda tired " it is like the sae . What is neat about particle counts is they will show how effective the oil filter is . 3 microns is a small gap maybe hydraulic lifters . Crank shaft bearing clearances are around 1.8 to 2.5 thousandths. I have seen conversion charts from microns to inches but I don't remember where to find one.

 

[Shannow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
One thing this has got me wondering, on a basic level, is just what does the ISO Cleanliness grade of 15/12 mean?

---

15/12 is about 10 times better than we can get the turbine oil at work to. Filter is doing it's job.

A 20 micron main filter, and a 1 micron bypass filter and centrifuge is on the turbines.

try this link for an explaination of the rating system
http://www.plant-maintenance.com/articles/hydraulic_fluid_cleanliness.pdf

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekpolk:
One thing this has got me wondering, on a basic level, is just what does the ISO Cleanliness grade of 15/12 mean?

---

15/12 is about 10 times better than we can get the turbine oil at work to. Filter is doing it's job.

A 20 micron main filter, and a 1 micron bypass filter and centrifuge is on the turbines.

try this link for an explaination of the rating system
http://www.plant-maintenance.com/articles/hydraulic_fluid_cleanliness.pdf

---

Wow, I guess I have nothing to complain about. I would sure like to see a few members who use other brands do the same test. That would go a long way in determining whether the M1 filter that generated this result is worth the extra cost. Thanks for the info, great stuff.

 

[Motorbike]

I switched Labs " Cat SOS " to where I could bring particle counts into the mix for my own uses . Anyway for example here's the particle count for a new oil I posted over in the VOA section . In a non BITOG world one usually picks an oil and stays with it every interval if he uses trend analysis and this sure gives a good baseline when three cases or so of the same production run of the oil is used .
My keyboard does not have the symbol to use after the first number so I'll use an "u" here .

Phillips 5w30 API SM new unused engine oil


>5u - 2661
>10u - 202
>15u - 78
>20u - 33
>25u - 20
>50u - 3
>75u - 1
>100u - 0
Ferrous Debris 3
ISO Code 19/13
Particle Volume 1

Quote:
One thing this has got me wondering, on a basic level, is just what does the ISO Cleanliness grade of 15/12 mean?

There is an excellent overview of this at a couple of lab websites , one is the lab I use but I cannot post the link to the read because each are not a BITOG sponsor

and I've not seen other related articles on the net .

I have analysis's of used oil and the particle counts I have chosen not add to this database @ BITOG but I'd recommend using particle counts for anyone who wants to raise the bar and add an additional tool to use in analysis .

[ January 27, 2005, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]

 

[ekpolk]

My goodness. My German Castrol that's been in hard service for almost 5,000 miles, with a Mobil-1 filter, is cleaner than this virgin oil. I guess I can see how that could be, but it sorta cuts against how I thought it would work. I'd like to think that the oil coming out of the bottle is especially clean. So much for that fantasy. . .

 

[rugerman1]

Lube Control in ekpolk's GC UOA is the reason for the clean oil.

 

[rugerman1]

BTW,Now that we have 2 threads discussing the UOA,I'm sure that there will be some overlapping discussions going on.I hate that more than warm beer.

 

[Motorbike]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugerman1:
Lube Control in ekpolk's GC UOA is the reason for the clean oil.

---

So your telling us that LC dissolves metals / ferrous debris ?

 

[rugerman1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Motorbike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugerman1:
Lube Control in ekpolk's GC UOA is the reason for the clean oil.

---

So your telling us that LC dissolves metals / ferrous debris ?

---

It's my OPINION that LC helps the add pack do it's job.I know very little about tribology.I'm just stating an OPINION.

 

[ekpolk]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rugerman1:
BTW,Now that we have 2 threads discussing the UOA,I'm sure that there will be some overlapping discussions going on.I hate that more than warm beer.

---

That's my fault, I apologize. I considered this, and thought that this particle count issue warranted discussion beyond the single UOA I posted, so I opened this thread. I'll think about you when I consume a cold beer tonight

.

As to the LC, that's a reasonable conclusion, I think. I did use it as prescribed throughout, six ounces at initial fill, and an oz every 1k miles.

 

[Bio-T]

Quote Motorbike: I have analysis's of used oil and the particle counts I have chosen not add to this database @ BITOG but I'd recommend using particle counts for anyone who wants to raise the bar and add an additional tool to use in analysis. Unquote Motorbike.


This is the problem since you have been on the board since day one. If you can't advertise for the vendors you are schmoozing for freebies, then you choose to play childish games. Please read this post for a better insight on why your actions are not acceptable: Non-Site Sponsors

[ January 27, 2005, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: 59 Vetteman ]

 

[Shannow]

Given how filthy the VOAs posted by Stinky Petersen were, I think the M1 filter deserves praise having cleaned the oil up to a highly acceptable level.

 

[scout]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:
try this link for an explaination of the rating system
http://www.plant-maintenance.com/articles/hydraulic_fluid_cleanliness.pdf

---

Oh, my goodness. Did everyone read that? This quote alone will force me to start paying for particle counts, including on VOAs:

"The most dangerous particles in the long-term are those that are smaller than the component's internal clearances. Particles smaller than 5 microns are highly abrasive. If present in sufficient quantities, these invisible 'silt' particles cause rapid wear, destroying hydraulic components."

I'm pretty sure that I've read more than once on this forum, in the context of filters and long OCIs, some members assuming that particles less than the engine's clearances are somewhat O.K., because they "fit" alright, I suppose.
The above is referring to particles that *do* fit within a given clearance.
The article mentioned a case of wear in a *chromium-steel* cylinder.
Lead is soft, man!
These particles are abrading my lead, just as dust in the air abrades my beautiful wax-job!
Now I'm paranoid! Thanks!

The good news is that the thread-originator's M1 filter is doing a *great* job, according to the information in the above pdf.

I'm not moving from my M1 filters until I or this group collects more particle count data. (Any further comment by me would appear in the filter forum.)

Whoever said that this particle-count jazz should be mind expanding for this forum, was right.

 

[Roger]

If I can throw an opinion into the mix here, and that's all it is, an opinion...I'd advocate that the low particle count is more a function of a good running engine and clean combustion than the filtering ability of the filter. Adding LC & FP into the equation was probably a big help too for ekpolk.

Where I'm coming from are some particle counts I did on several oil filters (Pure1, Motorcraft, Wix and K&N) a couple of years ago. Here is a the link regarding that old post.

http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000849#000000

Like ekpolk, my particle numbers dropped off significantly at about 15-25 micron. Unlike ek's report my particle count below 15 micron was substantially higher. His results at that level are impressive. I wonder if that difference was due to the fact he used FP/LC.

I also had a particle count performed on a Wix and a K&N filter but never posted those results on this site. Unfortunately I also did not save the reports at home either, so I do not have them to share with you now.

But I do recall that the K&N had the lowest particle count of all 4 filters and the Wix had the poorest. Al, (if you read this post) you may recall that I emailed you the results for the K&N. But then again, after all this time you may not!

Anyway, the main point I want to make is that there wasn't a heck of a lot of difference between the four filters I tested, regardles of best or worse! And above 25 micron all 4 were zero particles, just like ekpolk's report. So I am left wondering if something else here is at work influencing these particle counts rather the filter's ability to filter.

Like I said, just an opinion.

 

[MolaKule]

quote:

---

Wouldn't those 10 micron particles be causing some trouble when they find themselves being pushed into a 3 micron clearance???

---

It depends on whether those particles are hard or soft. In the particle counts, how would one know which particles are abrasive silicon, which are hard abrasive carbon, and which are soft carbon particles or agglomerated sludge?


On a micrscopic scale, if these particles were hard particles, not likely. If they were squishy, softer particles that are compressible, that would be most likely (eventually) pass through.

The insoluble particle count simply says these particles might be hard particles, but what is the ratio of insoluble hard particles to soft particles? I am not sure that can be determined precisely as it may be a statistical thing.

I am sure the LC assisted in breaking down any hard carbon to the softer carbon, as would ARX.

Good question, however.

 

[Terry]

Folks most CAT labs will provide particle counts as that is what we currently use in the Dyson Analysis "in-house kits" if requested.

Blackstone provides a smart package and is actively a ardent supporter of this site and it costs money to support the bandwidth here.

MB is correct that "SOS" is the generic term for CAT sponsored labs and Stinky is a fine operator of one of those labs. Each CAT lab offers differing packages and varying expertise in each geopraphic location. Stinky offers some additional capabilites and is good at it. Problem is Stinky and Tony need to discuss these issues not MB or others as middle men.

I am not going to get into the issues about BITOG sponsorship except to say I welcome Stinky and his lab ( not his real name) as he has always treated Dyson Analysis well!

I want to point out something that has been underlying below the surface on this board and that is when Tony gets pushed too far by anyone he reacts and I appreciate that. It is his board and I do not own or operate this board. I respect his judgement and have had to tone myself back a few times based on his wise counsel.

If you are a person that always seems to end up in the middle of problems and strife maybe YOU need to clean up your act ,and please quit jerking good people around.

Stinky be very careful not to get pulled into something negative. I would love to see you and or your CAT lab be a sponsor here. You really need to talk directly to Tony because he is a honest fellow ,as are most here.

The center of this issue has been a problem for me personally and even when given lots of rope and chances to clean up his act can't get past his jealousy and mean streak when it comes to pushing his will, even when told NO.

Thanks Tony for your leadership and keep up the good work and keep the troublemakers at bay !

Back to important issues.


LC , LPD and motor oil cleanliness.

1) One cause of clean motor oil LPD values being elevated is oil adds that will activate and stick to the internals of the engine, thus use and heat cycling will drop some of those values.

2) LC/FP will solublize carbon to a very widely dispersed level and actually has an effect of using that deposit as a micro lube, thereby lowering levels of soot. The first value in the ISO code is a value defining the level of 5 um particles we can call silt or soot. Auto-RX and CYCLE- RX actually have a dispersing capability in this realm that no other add can do, to safely carry trash to the oil filter without causing wear !

3) LC will not melt or reduce metals ! The second # value in the ISO code is the measure of 15 um abrasive particles. AUTO-RX may be able to carry very small metallic particles as mentioned above about carbon. I have not tested for that capability so I am drawing from my observations.

ISO codes.

The ISO code system was derived to "tame" the unwieldy particle count results.It is geared primarily to hydraulic fluids and turbine fluids and much closer tolerances of cleanliness than NORMALLY required in a IC engine.

Water and oil adds can render the measurement meaningless.


I am more than happy to assist those that purchase our services with particle detection interpretation .

Sincerely, Terry

 

[Stinky Peterson]

Hi Terry

Thanks for the kind words and advice! I have been talking to Tony a bunch tonight and hope our lab will have to opportunity to become a sponsor. I need to sell the idea to my boss but I think when he sees the stats on this site he will be impressed.

I need to study the posts in this thread a little before I reply but I can say that next to coolant analysis particle counts is one of my favorite topics. About 10 years ago I did some fairly significant research, wrote a couple of papers and developed the method used by most labs who use the Hiac Royco the syringe drive sampler. I not trying to brag, I'm just really excited about the particle counter and what we have been able to achieve. When combined with a microscope it is a powerful tool that fills a big gap.

Stinky