Particle Counts on three filters & one car

427Z06 · Oct 3, 2006

Well, I made a typo in that last post, I meant to say "Silicon level SHOULD increase" after a filter change, but apparently you couldn't deduce that from what I've said so far. Are you taking your Centrum for Seniors Vitamins?

Quote:

And it should be retested. But you would never admit the lab would need to resample would you? No you'd rather argue.

Here we go again, just like a dozens other times. You can't win the debate so you start putting words into my mouth.

Quote:

You have a lot of knowledge about various things but you are the most argumentative person on this forum. So much so, I think you'd rather argue to prove something to yourself.

No, it's more like you believe that when it comes to anything associated with filters, you're the last word on the subject. However, I've seen enough stupid stuff posted by you to take what you say with a grain of salt.

Quote:

And your full of beans on this subject.

We'll get back to this later.

Quote:

Regardless of driving condition a new air filter WILL let through more contaminant. Fact.

No, it is not fact. Are we even sure that both air filters in question are identical?

Quote:

SWHeats numbers show no leaks or anomalies that would indicate any problem with to much contaminant getting through from his three samples. Fact.

Well then, you're contradicting yourself.

Quote:

But when he changed air filters his silicon should have went up. Fact.

But they didn't, so some mechanism introduced less silicon, possibly the environment changed, less air volume ingested, or there was lab variation. There's also the possibility that air is ingested through the dipstick tube due to the PCV system, and the evironment plays a bigger role than you envision.

Quote:

I have driven in dusty conditions myself. You make it sound as if that is the be all end all.

I didn't make it sound like anything but what it is. Ever live next to or in a desert for an extended period of time?

Quote:

I have driven freeways and city driving. Made not one iota difference in a new air filter showing increased silicon levels. Never..i'll repeat never..did the silicon level ever go down after change of air filter. But I never had any leak or problem. I did use different oils, petroleum based, then switched to semi-synthetic in my 1996 Taurus. Switched to Mobil 1 in my 2003 Taurus.

Good for you. Now, why are YOUR silicon levels so high? Explain that one for us.

Quote:

I have looked at loads of oil anylsis reports because we used to sell that service. I have seen fleet after fleet of heavy duty engine analysis reports. And the same held true for them. When they changed the air filter(s) the silicon went up.

Now who's full of beans on this subject. Never seen one anomaly, heh? Yeah, right, get off the crack pipe. And there's worlds of differences in the quality of filtration systems in commercial heavy duty engines and passenger cars.

Quote:

Any lab who does analysis and sees thousand of samples per year can determine when silicon goes up to much because of some problem in air induction as opposed to just changing the air filter.

Interesting that they didn't spot mine. SWHeat, did they spot yours? Maybe we should take a walk over to the UOA section and see how many they spot there.

Quote:

And I am willing to state --for the record- that any lab will say it is not normal for silicon to go down after changing the air filter, when there was no problem in the previous sample ( as with the one of 10 at 30,000 miles) regardless of the "air quality" conditions of where the car was driven.

Well that's very weasle worded and open to interpretation. After you asked them if it's not normal, asked them if they've ever seen it happen.

Quote:

So there you go..anyone want to call their lab and ask instead of 427Z06 bleating on and prove me wrong.

Go for it..

Post what lab you called and what the "experts" say.

My data and SWHeats data says you're wrong. And I'm sure we can find a few others in the UOA section. I believe the burden of proof is on you. Get three labs to sign and notarize a statement that they've NEVER seen a decrease in silicon after an air filter has been replaced. No if, ands, or buts.

And here's a few more points. Were talking about a couple ppm at the low end of the scale. You believe were not going to see any lab variation in a $20 UOA? And if this couple ppm of silicon is so significant, we should see certain wear metals follow the silicon levels, but we don't.

427Z06 · Oct 3, 2006

Quote:

While I've got some ya'lls attention [see the use of ya'll...I'm getting localized].

Usual Yankee mistake...it's y'all.

...to the south.

Gary Allan · Oct 3, 2006

Hmmm ....another "hoity-toity Yankee Beeatch"

"Hi! I'm Nebraskan. Bitog's snotty Yankee beeatch"

A salesman is driving through the south during the holidays. He's driving by a church and sees a nativity scene with men dressed in full fire fighting gear. He had cause to stop at a small store and, finding the incident so odd, asked the lady shopkeeper what the fire fighters were doing in a nativity scene. The lady grabbed her bible and said "Don't you Yankees know anythin?! Look right here! It's says three wise men came from afar."

LordAbbett · Oct 4, 2006

Why do these post so often break down to personal attacks?

LordAbbett · Oct 4, 2006

Oh. I don't mean Gary's joke. That was funny.

427Z06 · Oct 4, 2006

Quote:

Why do these post so often break down to personal attacks?

Real simple. Filter guy can't stand to be told he's wrong, even when the data is staring him right in the face. Then he'll start with personal attacks like "you can't comprehend this" or he puts words into you mouth, etc.

I never start a fight...but I don't walk away after someone takes a swing at me. You can take that to the bank.

Nebraskan · Oct 4, 2006

WHAT??!!

How'd my revered name get drug into the midst of this fracas?

Gary Allan · Oct 4, 2006

Quote:

WHAT??!!

How'd my revered name get drug into the midst of this fracas?

SWHeat · Oct 4, 2006

Whew, take an evening off and.......??? Y'all are so worried about......never mind.

Anyway, no takers on why the insoluable levels seem askew to the novice (that would be me)?

K&N: Clean for an engine oil, ISO Code 17/16/14, insolubles% 0.2; Baldwin: fairly clean for an engine oil, ISO Code 20/19/16 insolubles% 0.3; PureONE: very clean, ISO Code 16/15/12, insolubles% 0.4.

Any explanation? Errrr, should I say, any "logical" explanation?

How can the filter with the cleanest oil, have the largest insolubles% number?

Gary Allan · Oct 4, 2006

There's no differentiation as to what the particles are composed of. I don't know the process (haven't bothered to look it up/research it) that a lab determines insolubles with ..but it's obvious, assuming that the method is sound, and that it was correct this time, that the larger number of particles in the Baldwin sample were not composed of insolubles to as high a % as the PureOne.

I agree that one would not normall reason it that way. The PureOne clearly had the best filtration ..and that's the indicator for good filtration (low insolubles).

Then again, you're dealing with the difference of .2-.4. It's a little hard to define it when the resolution means that you're already increasing the reading by a significant %. It's not like you're comparing .249999999999999999 to .250000000000001 to 3.50000000001

OTOH - you very well could be

427Z06 · Oct 4, 2006

Here's Blackstone's take on insolubles:

http://www.blackstone-labs.com/what_are_insolubles.html

Terry would be the guy to answer this question, but my amateur opinion is that the high insolubles in the one UOA is due to blow-by or hot spots overheating the oil. The insolubles reported are probably small enough not to be captured by the oil filter.

Gary Allan · Oct 4, 2006

Well, it surely reasons that the insolubles that we detect are of the smaller variety. Terry did assign my PC-UOA >2um particles as being mostly insolubles.

Filter guy · Oct 5, 2006

427Z06..you do take the cake with arguing..i'll give you that.

For the third time in this thread I have said there are reasons that the silicon level would go down when changing to a new filter..

But not when one starts at 10 and goes to 7 with a new filter. Then the analysis goes back up after 3,000 miles to 9.

A filter is more open when new. Or do you dispute this?

A filter as it loads is more efficient. Or do you dispute this?

SWHeat apparently had no sealing problems or his silicon levels would have been much higher.

As to your claiming you have seen your silicon level go down after changing air filters..where's the beef? Or proof as it were. I have seen no documentation of silicon numbers in this thread of yours from you. Only rhetoric.

I have shown mine. I'l be happy to mail you a full set copy.

As to why my silicon levels seem high--to you. I can only assume it is the testing equipment being used from two different labs. My silicon numbers were generally lower with Champs equipment and went up with Wear Check with their more sophisticated equipment.

The numbers are not a problem. What would be a problem is for silicon ppm's to rise beyond the ppm change levels per the labs guidlines. As I indicated before I believe it to be 20ppm. So with having a 24 reading at my last sample point..if it gets to be 44 or higher the next, I would get a severe rating and need to take steps to determine the problem.

But you knew that all along didn't you, yet you've asked a couple times.

Oil analysis is about determining a base set of numbers--for your engine-- and then being within the norms from sample to sample as each previous sample becomes the new base.

Obviously to a lab, they would know when even a first sample shows something odd or to high whether on a new engine or an old one. But mine have been done since my first oil change and every oil change after.

And i'll be happy to admit i am wrong when and if you'll provide a lab experts opinion on SW heats 10-7-9 scenario and why his silicon went down from 10 to 7 when he switched to a new filter.

I await your independant source.

I'll be back when I see it..

427Z06 · Oct 5, 2006

Quote:

427Z06..you do take the cake with arguing..i'll give you that.

For the third time in this thread I have said there are reasons that the silicon level would go down when changing to a new filter.

Then why do you keep arguing the point?

Quote:

But not when one starts at 10 and goes to 7 with a new filter. Then the analysis goes back up after 3,000 miles to 9.

Funny...yours did:

Here is a sample of my Champ results. First sample taken at 8,125 miles and last 65,953: 32*-21-17-12-10-11-10-13-22*

From 12 down to 10 up to 11 back down to 10 again, then up to 13

Quote:

A filter is more open when new. Or do you dispute this?

No...show me where I did.

Quote:

A filter as it loads is more efficient. Or do you dispute this?

Again...show me where I said otherwise.

Quote:

SWHeat apparently had no sealing problems or his silicon levels would have been much higher.

No way to know that for sure. He could of hit a big bump or pot hole in the road and dislodged something temporarily...or pick one of several other reasons.

Quote:

As to your claiming you have seen your silicon level go down after changing air filters..where's the beef? Or proof as it were. I have seen no documentation of silicon numbers in this thread of yours from you. Only rhetoric.

It's been in the UOA section all along if you cared to look.

Quote:

I have shown mine. I'l be happy to mail you a full set copy.

Don't bother...it won't prove anything.

Quote:

As to why my silicon levels seem high--to you. I can only assume it is the testing equipment being used from two different labs. My silicon numbers were generally lower with Champs equipment and went up with Wear Check with their more sophisticated equipment.

You know what that say about the word assume. In any event, this lab comparison didn't show much of a difference:

http://theoildrop.server101.com/forums/s...e=19#Post248489

Quote:

The numbers are not a problem. What would be a problem is for silicon ppm's to rise beyond the ppm change levels per the labs guidlines. As I indicated before I believe it to be 20ppm. So with having a 24 reading at my last sample point..if it gets to be 44 or higher the next, I would get a severe rating and need to take steps to determine the problem.

I bet many others would disagree that those silicon levels are acceptable.

Quote:

But you knew that all along didn't you, yet you've asked a couple times.

Whine, whine, whine.

Quote:

Oil analysis is about determining a base set of numbers--for your engine-- and then being within the norms from sample to sample as each previous sample becomes the new base.

To a point, yes you want to establish a baseline and go from there. However, there is a level at which a baseline is meaningless.

Quote:

Obviously to a lab, they would know when even a first sample shows something odd or to high whether on a new engine or an old one. But mine have been done since my first oil change and every oil change after.

Blah, blah, blah. You were always good at stating the obvious or the trivial. At least your consistent.

Quote:

And i'll be happy to admit i am wrong when and if you'll provide a lab experts opinion on SW heats 10-7-9 scenario and why his silicon went down from 10 to 7 when he switched to a new filter.

Why do I have to provide anything? SWHeat's data is there for all to see. You claim the data is in error. It's up to you to prove it is.

Quote:

I await your independant source.

You have a long wait amigo, I don't suffer pendejos gladly.

Quote:

I'll be back when I see it..

Don't hurry...you won't be missed.

SWHeat · Oct 5, 2006

Quote:

Don't hurry...you won't be missed.

Hey there 427Z06

, speak for yourself....oh, maybe you just did.

Anyway, I feel soooooo stupid. The particle counts are measuring particles greater than 2 microns. Duh, I think that was what Gary was trying to say, but was being nice about it. So, even though the PureONE has produced "cleaner" oil, there still can be a higher volume of insolubles--a gross number of particles as a whole in the oil as a percent of volume--they are just SUPER small. So, basically, there was/is more junk floating around with the PureONE filter than the other two filters....just smaller than the 2 micron rating that the particle count measures.
Right? Does that make sense? Is it a valid assumption? Could it be a "fact?"

Another way to put it....the PureONE oil is cleaner AND dirtier than the other two oil filter oil samples....a conundrum.

427Z06 · Oct 5, 2006

Quote:

Well, it surely reasons that the insolubles that we detect are of the smaller variety. Terry did assign my PC-UOA >2um particles as being mostly insolubles.

Gary, you used the "greater than symbol". Is that what you meant? I.e., Terry assigned your particle counted material "greater than" 2um particles as being mostly insolubles?

Gary Allan · Oct 5, 2006

Well, that's the smallest particle detected in PC >2um. Greater then 2um but less then 5um.

I guess it would be more proper to have said between 2um and 5um.

Now, naturally, this is a "plucked" comment out of a variety of what's what in the PC ..so take it FWIW.

By "plucked" I mean that it may have had more to do with other evidence in the UOA (fuel, etc.). I'm sure that it's got more to it then "all particles between 2um and 5um are insolubles" (probably).

Filter guy · Oct 6, 2006

I decided to get my own independant information rather than rely on at least one other poster in here.

I sent the following information to a lab:

Sent : Thursday, October 5, 2006 9:45 PM
To : [email protected]
Subject : Silicon levels

Dear sirs:

I am hoping you can help settle a discussion.

I have had oil analysis done for years by a different lab. Someone else had his done as well by yet a different lab. The two of us are "discussing" his silicon levels so I decided to get a neutrals point of view on this.

Here is the information on three samples:

SAMPLE 1:
Silicon: 10 - Driving conditions: Dirt roads in the Arizona desert. STP Air filter had 30,000 miles on it.

***Particle Count***
ISO Code (2) 17/14
ISO Code (3) 17/16/14
2 micron 2146
5 micron 795
10 micron 220
15 micron 85
25 micron 20
50 micron 1
100 micron 0

SAMPLE 2
Change to new STP air filter for this sample. 5,500 miles on air filter, 5,589 on oil and filter.
Silicon: 7 - Driving conditions: One week Arizona, trip to Alabama, remainder city/highway driving in Alabama

***Particle Count***
ISO Code (2) 19/16
ISO Code (3) 20/19/16
2 micron 10150
5 micron 3760
10 micron 1041
15 micron 402
25 micron 96
50 micron 9
100 micron 0

SAMPLE 3
Silicon: 9 - Driving conditions: Dirt roads 2-3 times a week. Air filter now had had 10,750 miles when oil was changed.

***Particle Count***
ISO Code (2) 15/12
ISO Code (3) 16/15/12
2 micron 782
5 micron 290
10 micron 80
15 micron 31
25 micron 7
50 micron 0
100 micron 0

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now my contention is that his silicon level should have went up from 10 on the sample taken after he changed to the new air filter--sample 2. This has always happend when I have changed air filters because a new air filter is as porous as it will be.

The "discussion" revolves around how could the silicon level go down. My contention is that this can happen when the previous sample has a very high reading and then you change the air filter. But not when the silicon level is 10 and go to 7.. He doesn't think there is anything out of order.

Now I suspect the lab that did his sampling test was not aware he changed air filters.

So I was wondering, in your experience, does this seem "normal" to you. Or would you also question the fact that the silicon level went down after a change in air filters?

I also would question why his silicon level went up from 7 to 9 after a little over 5,000 miles on his second sampling after changing air filters--sample 3. Again, generally the trend is downward when changing air filters for a number of samples.

So if you could shed some light and help with some expert opinion it would be most appreciated.

Sincerely
------------------------------------------------------

I got this responce.

Subject : Re: FW: Silicon levels

Mr. XXXX -
What unit of measure is being used for the silicon? If PPM is used, there is effectively no difference between 10 ppm and 7 ppm. If the same sample was burned again, it is quite possible the result would be higher than 10. Maybe 12.

Also - What instrument was used to detect the silicone? The the rotrode spectrometer has a particle size detection limitation of between 3µ and 10µ. Between sample 1 and 2, particles greater than 25µ went from 20 p/ml to 96 p/ml. If this this increase was due to silicon, it would not be detected by a rotrode spectrometer.

Microscopic examination would be the best way to determine the makeup of those >20µ particulates.

I hope this helps. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Regards,
--
Troy Goldman
Certified Lubrication Specialist
MRT Laboratories, LLC
713-944-8381
--------------------------------------------

Now things are making more sense to me. Particle counts went up on the second sample by SW heat. Yet his "Silicon" dropped. This may be due to his lab using the method described above where silicon is only tested to 10um.

This could also explain why his silicon number went from 7 to 9 even though his air filter would be getting more efficient--as this only reflects up to 10 micron-- and his entire third sample PPM's were lower than sample 2.

So it now makes more sense.

===============================================

This also explains why my numbers are higher and show more variance because my PPM counts look like they include above 10 micron size particles.

As I mentioned before that my numbers showed changes from Champs equipment to Wear Check USA's. I much prefer a full count of all particle sizes for silicon.

427Z06 · Oct 6, 2006

Quote:

I decided to get my own independant information rather than rely on at least one other poster in here.

And that one other poster turned out to be correct.

SWHeat · Oct 6, 2006

Quote:

Well, that's the smallest particle detected in PC >2um. Greater then 2um but less then 5um.

I guess it would be more proper to have said between 2um and 5um.

Now, naturally, this is a "plucked" comment out of a variety of what's what in the PC ..so take it FWIW.

By "plucked" I mean that it may have had more to do with other evidence in the UOA (fuel, etc.). I'm sure that it's got more to it then "all particles between 2um and 5um are insolubles" (probably).

The Blackstone article that 427Z06 was kind enough to post a link to above, (thank you 427Z06) states in the first line: "The insolubles test measures the total insoluble materials in an oil sample, that is, all solid or liquid materials that are not soluble (won't mix) in oil."

Size is not specified here. Just all of the particles of all sizes that are floating around in the sample taken.

Also, same article, next paragraph: "The insolubles test is a centrifuge method. A measured volume of oil is mixed with a heated solvent, agitated, and spun at high speed. Insoluble materials collect at the bottom of a tapered glass tube and can then be quantified. The insolubles test is a fair measure of how fast the oil is oxidizing and receiving contaminates, and how effectively the system's oil filtration is functioning."

So, I would surmise....the PureONE oil had a higher number of particulates in toto (0.4% per Blackstone). Hence, since the particle count measures particles greater than 2 microns....the rest of the in toto whole MUST be smaller than 2 microns...simple math. Yeah? Nay? I say Yes.

Yes, I have read the article several months ago, a couple of days ago, and again tonight.... finally, it all makes sense.

I can be taught...it just doesn't last.

Filter Guy: Excellent detective work. I guess it paid off to do what you were asking all of us to do....as the experts. What was stated by the lab guy you querried would go in hand with the article I posted re: +/- 7.1 repeatability in the specific test method used by Blackstone. Basically....all three UOA's had "the same" silicon counts due to the "insensitivity" of the test method used for the silicon levels.

May this thread now finally

.....that is....until the next UOA with particle count......

Particle Counts on three filters & one car

Similar threads