OK...that should read..."ASK the experts"...not...as the experts. LOL How do you edit?
427Z06, you made me laugh outloud. My kids think I'm nuts.
427Z06, you made me laugh outloud. My kids think I'm nuts.
Particle Counts on three filters & one car
- Thread starter SWHeat
- Start date
- Status
Well...it's kinda' like the sign in my guest bathroom that reads, "We aim to please, so you aim too please."
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Can you reword this for me? I don't get how taking any particle count, disolving them ..mearsuring them, can say that they were or were not composed of 2um+/- particles unless you also did a post insoluble test on the sample oil. If you did, as I'm sure some probably have done (at some time/by somebody), you would then know if htey came for particle sized particles, >10um particles ...etc...etc.
Now, as I said, someone who had, at some point in time, done a pre/post PC after an insolubles test, might be able to state that insolubles that come from solid particulate origin, tend to dwell in the lower particle size realm.
Quote:
And that one other poster turned out to be correct.
Pat yourself on the back.
But at no time did you ever explain the varience in lab testing equipment could be the reason that the expert did from the lab.
You just wanted to be contrary and say a lab might say it is possible. Well done.
I also said it was possible...but I guess you wont be patting me on the back..
However, I still maintain that his silicon levels did go up and apparently this was masked by the equipment that didn't test silicon for particles over 10 micron as evidence that his particle counts were way higher from sample 1 to sample 2 which was explained by the other lab...
What? Or more clearly (I hope)...what are you asking? I don't understand your question. But, I'll give it a shot anyway.
You did read the entire post re: how the insolubles % in the oil is tested? I know you did. So, insoluable % is just a number quantifying the particulates in a given oil sample. It comes as part of the regular UOA test.
So, in the three oil samples used in this example, the insoluable % were: K&N: insolubles% 0.2; Baldwin: insolubles% 0.3; PureONE: insolubles% 0.4. So, my question has been all along....how the heck can there by MORE insoluables with the PureONE...yet it has a cleaner ISO code? The answer that I surmised is: Becuase the particle count test (separate test....pay extra bucks for this) ONLY starts measuring particles greater than 2 microns. So, from 2 microns higher...the pure one oil sample is the Winner. But from an overall engine condition, that oil sample had more insoluable %. But, how? From where? I surmise that due the fact that the particle count is only sensative to 2 microns and above....that the other (smaller than 2 microns) particulates add up to a higher insoluble % of 0.4. Whew. Clear as mud?
Another way of saying it. Two completely different tests. Insoluble test = tests all of the particulates in the oil as a "quantifiable" percent. Particle count test = tests particles that may damage the engine. Conventionally, those that are greater than 2 microns. The particle count test is just not sensative enough to go below 2 microns....most likely by design (but I don't know). I'm sure someone here who knows could chime in if there is such a thing as particle counts down to 0.5 microns or the like.
I didn't get into the details, but I did mention lab variance more than once.
Now you sound like a sore looser. You've could of redeemed your dignity by admitting you were wrong in light of the additional information you provided.
Yes but you acted like ONLY YOU could make such a claim. Anybody else that made that claim, you belittled.
It's possible, and maybe even likely, but it is still conjecture until we know of the equipment involved and if the samples were subjected to additional testing. I was once told by a respected Tribologist that silicon levels vary in different types of airborne dust/dirt.
One other point. Your theory falls apart when one considers that the third sample's >2µ, 2µ, 2µ,
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
That would tend to make sense. It also appears that insolubles are typically composed, mostly, of 2um or lower particles.
I propose a pre and post insoluble test to determine just what particles get digested for the measurement!!
SWHeat, what you said makes sense to me.
As a side note, Gary can sometimes be hard to understand. It's the cerebration of a brilliant mind.
As a side note, Gary can sometimes be hard to understand. It's the cerebration of a brilliant mind.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
SWHeat, what you said makes sense to me.
As a side note, Gary can sometimes be hard to understand. It's the cerebration of a brilliant mind.
427Z06..
You do have fun.
Nothing has changed in this thread which has proven that air filters let in less contaminant when new versus one used for 30,000 miles. Even you agreed to that.
It's not about being a sore loser..it's about being right. My above paragraph is true.
The answer from the independent lab tech shed light on my statement. Shed light on what.. I went on record as stating is a fact. And you agreed with.
Only you can come out with a sore loser line.
And then try to constantly niggle at someone.
"Yes but you acted like ONLY YOU could make such a claim. Anybody else that made that claim, you belittled."
Do you drink heavily? If you would go back and peruse what I said--I agreed with you, three times-- that it is possible. Never anywhere did I intimate that only I could make that claim.
What I wanted was information on how and why it could. I gave a few examples. So did you. But where I drew the line was on a new air filter oil sample having less silicon than a sample from one with 30,000---where there were no leaks or problems with that previous sample.
I guess you don't read my "theory". Or as always you'd rather be argumentative.
I used my multiple oil samples to show how when you change to a new air filter, silicon levels go up. Then the next few subsequent samples silicon goes down. It then plateaus and my samples then varied up and down by a couple PPM's. Until I changed the air filter again.
Oil sample testing is comparing the previous sample to the current. That is all.
Varying by a few ppm's means little. That is why labs have count levels of changes in ppm's to explain there may be a problem. ( as I said some labs use 20 or 30 with silicon to denote a severe change)
You also use oil analysis, if you continue for every oil change, to develop trends. No individual sample means you tear the motor apart if one comes up bad. That what trend anaylsis is for.
SW heat also changed oil filters in all three tests and his third test had the "premium" filter on. Which should have captured more "silicon" over the 5,000 plus miles he drove and reduce his overall ppm's as well. Which was borne out with his ppm levels.
As the lab tech said in his reply...a change of 2 ppm's isn't anything.
My questioning of sample 2 v sample 3 was based --flatly on the 7ppm v 9ppm scenario. As the lab tech explained about it being possible particle sizes above 10 micron not being counted in all samples, then with sample 2---this means sample 3 would have been lower, as it should be due to the higher overall particle counts in sample 2.
So all three samples are explained.
It has nothing to do with comparing sample 1 with sample 3. That is not how trend analysis works. Due to the changes, as you noted in the area of the country he drove, the changes in oil filter brands, there are other variables to consider from sample 1 to sample 3. And that never was the bone of my contention or "theory". Mine were sample 1 v sample 2 and sample 2 v sample 3. Or you could reread my email to the lab..
You do have fun.
Nothing has changed in this thread which has proven that air filters let in less contaminant when new versus one used for 30,000 miles. Even you agreed to that.
It's not about being a sore loser..it's about being right. My above paragraph is true.
The answer from the independent lab tech shed light on my statement. Shed light on what.. I went on record as stating is a fact. And you agreed with.
Only you can come out with a sore loser line.
And then try to constantly niggle at someone.
"Yes but you acted like ONLY YOU could make such a claim. Anybody else that made that claim, you belittled."
Do you drink heavily? If you would go back and peruse what I said--I agreed with you, three times-- that it is possible. Never anywhere did I intimate that only I could make that claim.
What I wanted was information on how and why it could. I gave a few examples. So did you. But where I drew the line was on a new air filter oil sample having less silicon than a sample from one with 30,000---where there were no leaks or problems with that previous sample.
I guess you don't read my "theory". Or as always you'd rather be argumentative.
I used my multiple oil samples to show how when you change to a new air filter, silicon levels go up. Then the next few subsequent samples silicon goes down. It then plateaus and my samples then varied up and down by a couple PPM's. Until I changed the air filter again.
Oil sample testing is comparing the previous sample to the current. That is all.
Varying by a few ppm's means little. That is why labs have count levels of changes in ppm's to explain there may be a problem. ( as I said some labs use 20 or 30 with silicon to denote a severe change)
You also use oil analysis, if you continue for every oil change, to develop trends. No individual sample means you tear the motor apart if one comes up bad. That what trend anaylsis is for.
SW heat also changed oil filters in all three tests and his third test had the "premium" filter on. Which should have captured more "silicon" over the 5,000 plus miles he drove and reduce his overall ppm's as well. Which was borne out with his ppm levels.
As the lab tech said in his reply...a change of 2 ppm's isn't anything.
My questioning of sample 2 v sample 3 was based --flatly on the 7ppm v 9ppm scenario. As the lab tech explained about it being possible particle sizes above 10 micron not being counted in all samples, then with sample 2---this means sample 3 would have been lower, as it should be due to the higher overall particle counts in sample 2.
So all three samples are explained.
It has nothing to do with comparing sample 1 with sample 3. That is not how trend analysis works. Due to the changes, as you noted in the area of the country he drove, the changes in oil filter brands, there are other variables to consider from sample 1 to sample 3. And that never was the bone of my contention or "theory". Mine were sample 1 v sample 2 and sample 2 v sample 3. Or you could reread my email to the lab..
About to right now, so I'm short for time.
Although, keep in mind, I'll sober up. Stupid is forever.
I'll be back tomorrow to tear you a new one...again. (Like shooting fish in a barrel.)
Well...I'm drunk, but I can still type...shame isn't it:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0811045/quotes
Just remember, you can't fix stupid.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0811045/quotes
Just remember, you can't fix stupid.
About sensitivity, if you do some searching on the web for particle count sensitivity it seems they can go down to 0.1 - 0.2 microns, but there is little to be gained by counting in that size range. The count ranges used are dictated by the cleanliness standards.....
Quote:
Well...I'm drunk, but I can still type...shame isn't it:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0811045/quotes
Just remember, you can't fix stupid.
You know you just keep on don't you. For a couple years now you have made posts personal and it keeps getting worse. So much so that other threads have been closed because of your personal attacks and me asking you to stop which detracted from the thread itself.
I came into this forum because a friend gave me the link. I came here to help the general public. To answer some questions. And if I didn't know the answer , I have friends at all the filter companies and can get specific answers.
I also admit when I am wrong. Such as when I got the construction of the Champ made clicker valve filter wrong. One call later I had it right and said I was wrong previously.
Maybe you remember this PM you sent me Nov 1, 2004:
From: 427Z06
Filter Guy,
Someone mentioned to me that you don't know me well enough to understand that my bark is much worse than my bite. I can come across in a ruff 'n tumble sort of way when I'm stressing at work and I forget how it's perceived sometimes. My apologies.
Welcome to the BITOG forum, and I hope to have that beer with you someday.
----------------------------------
It seems you have forgot how you come across. And you have degenerated from twisting the "he's just a salesman" to worse and now i'm just stupid.
I don't have to put up with this. Or to be more precise, I won't put up with this.
Get your jollies off all you want. If being a windup merchant is what makes you happy, so be it. It is boring to me in a technical forum like this where people are searching for answers.
I do this on my own spare time. I don't do this at work or for work.
I also don't need to be personally hassled with in any semi-serious thread.
So you can have the last laugh.
I'm gone from this forum...
Bye.
Enjoy your beer..
fILTERgUY-
"I'm gone from this forum...
Bye.
Enjoy your beer.. "
We can only hope this is sincere, it has been a long time coming. FilterGuys's history of insuferable responses are finally finished. Maybe now some actual tech can now be discussed.
It's been a while, but i'm back
zr2rANDO
"I'm gone from this forum...
Bye.
Enjoy your beer.. "
We can only hope this is sincere, it has been a long time coming. FilterGuys's history of insuferable responses are finally finished. Maybe now some actual tech can now be discussed.
It's been a while, but i'm back
zr2rANDO
zr2rando or rANODOzr2, or whatever you want to call yourself....nice first post back.
Hopefully FilterGuy will reconsider...and I'm sure when 427Z06 sobers up he will miss FilterGuy more than anyone. Kinda' like one of those love/hate kinda things they had going.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
I hope so. Mel and 427 just don't speak in the same language. 427 is highly critical of any poster where alleged "facts" are concerned ..and insists that opinion be expressed as such and qualified ..as in "why you feel the way you do?" ..or "what are you calling proof?". All that it takes is a couple of key words and you're off the hook. "I get the feeling" .."I'm under the notion" .."I'm unsure, but it seems to me". You can then dismantle or reinforce those impressions from that point on.
If you only knew how many times I've gotten spanked on "opinion creep" (the act of evolving an opinion into something that resembles facts with supporting evidence when the fundamentals are on shaky ground) you would understand that it is done more with the concern for the unaware observer in mind. There's a lot of stuff that you see on the internet that is often taken for gospel when, as we've seen often enough, it ends up not quite being right ..at least to the extent that it appears authoritative in content.
Luckily, I'm always up for a spanking
..even though I've been known to reflex from time to time.
If you only knew how many times I've gotten spanked on "opinion creep" (the act of evolving an opinion into something that resembles facts with supporting evidence when the fundamentals are on shaky ground) you would understand that it is done more with the concern for the unaware observer in mind. There's a lot of stuff that you see on the internet that is often taken for gospel when, as we've seen often enough, it ends up not quite being right ..at least to the extent that it appears authoritative in content.
Luckily, I'm always up for a spanking
I invite all to see who got personal first in this thread, and in others.
No, you did this with your faulty conclusions. You had a chance to redeem yourself after you contacted your lab, but instead you chose to use twisted logic to prove somehow you were correct all along.
So...you want to be able to dish it out, but as soon as someone reponds in kind, you can't handle it.
Sorry, I didn't know your time is more valuable than anyone elses.
Arrivederci!
Quote:
Enjoy your beer..
Grazias.
[quote...and I'm sure when 427Z06 sobers up
I imbibe on average about a 6-pack of beer a week. If that's heavy drinking, I'm guilty.
I imbibe on average about a 6-pack of beer a week. If that's heavy drinking, I'm guilty.
- Status