RP 5W30 7500 Miles in Severe Conditions/Particle C

Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Messages
18,449
Location
East of IGO
There is no reason to change anything except it seems there is more life left in the oil and especially considering it is a new car the uoa is even better, change nothing. Seems the oil and engine do not see your use as severe. Dusty conditions? do you not run an air filter?
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,802
Location
Pottstown, PA
 Originally Posted By: Johnny_Law
Thank you for your insight, but do you know of any other labs so I could send the same sample to two labs? Thanks
I believe Herguth does this testing.
 

FZ1

Joined
Feb 7, 2008
Messages
4,862
Location
Texas
Interesting info. How would you rank the filters you tested, excluding cost,say from 1 thru 5? Thanks.
 

Johnny_Law

Thread starter
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
76
Location
Fresno CA
 Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
 Originally Posted By: Johnny_Law
Thank you for your insight, but do you know of any other labs so I could send the same sample to two labs? Thanks
I believe Herguth does this testing.
Below is the particle count information, and they use the ISO 4406:99, but I should get the NAS or SAE test as the ISO is the same testing protocol that BlackStone uses correct? Thanks Particle Count Cleanliness is one of the most important characteristics in proper lubrication. The importance of clean lubricating oil cannot be over emphasized. The most common unit of reporting fluid cleanliness is the ISO Code System 4406:99. However, there are other methods used in classifying the number and size of particle such as NAS-1638 and SAE–AS4059. However, these two methods are generally used by specific clients that have years of data. If you require NAS or SAE classifications for your particle counts contact the laboratory. ISO – (International Organization for Standardization) Code 4406:99 designates a system for reporting the number of particles greater than 4um, 6um and greater than 14um per milliliter of sample. ISO 4406 Code numbers for reporting are separated by a slash Example: 21/ 20/16 In this example the particles counted in the specified fluid are highlighted in the table below. Note: The number of particles counted for code 21 can be 10,001 to 20,000 The number of particles counted for code 20 can be 5,001 to 10,000 The number of particles counted for code 16 can be 321 to 640 ISO Code 4406
 

Johnny_Law

Thread starter
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
76
Location
Fresno CA
 Originally Posted By: FZ1
Interesting info. How would you rank the filters you tested, excluding cost,say from 1 thru 5? Thanks.
The filters were ranked on a weighted scale with 29 separate variables to determine an optimal filter for given conditions and circumstances. The OEM was the winner in over half of the measurable variables. I will be sending a sample to the lab shortly with the OEM filter.
 
Last edited:

Johnny_Law

Thread starter
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
76
Location
Fresno CA
 Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Polaris Labs does the laser optical. If your oil is translucent enough, then they can probably do the laser optical counting method. You should also get a PQ Index. I think with Polaris you would order an Industrial fluid analysis with PQ and PC. I don't know how much it would costs.
Not to add any confusion, but due to the fact that I need to have a translucent fluid, I am guessing I could not travel over 4K before it starts to darken to much, "just a guess I will call them for more verification." A filter will not reach is optimal micron filtering capability until it nears it's holding capacity which takes between 8-12K in my testing and application. So thus the only way to optimally have a true particle count is to run the filter a minimum of 4K, drain the engine oil out of the sump and filter and then add new oil and run an additional 4K. This way the filter would be filtering a larger quantity of particles due to it being closer to is maximum holding capacity (4.0-7.2g in my case depending on filter)while the oil still being transparent enough to accurately determine particle size and number. Do you agree with the above statements in regards to optimal testing conditions? Here is the M1 filter after 7.5K
 
Last edited:

Johnny_Law

Thread starter
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
76
Location
Fresno CA
 Originally Posted By: Steve S
There is no reason to change anything except it seems there is more life left in the oil and especially considering it is a new car the uoa is even better, change nothing. Seems the oil and engine do not see your use as severe. Dusty conditions? do you not run an air filter?
Yes I run an air filter and the vehicle has a second fine mesh air filer after the primary filter. The conditions are determined as sever based on the manufactures specifications of short trip usage, 115 degree operating temperature and dusty conditions.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,802
Location
Pottstown, PA
Here's an email from Polaris Labs about PC/PQ index Gary, Because you were talking about Particle Counting in the end I will assume you are looking for a way to look at particle concentration in reference to filter efficiency on your automotive engine sample? If so Particle count by Pore Blockage would be best. To Clarify PQ(Particle Quantifier) measures only ferrous particles in the oil. The result is just an index number that can be trended and compared to the Iron value in the 24 ICP metal test. This is a test we can do on engine oils, and its not entirely common therefore not part of out standard set test packages. If you are looking for a jump in large fatigue wear that the regular 24 ICP metals (size limit is 10 microns) may not see then this test would be good. If we see this jump in large wear metals it can indicate a possible catastrophic failure where large particles have not had time to break down to large amounts of small wear. We do both optical particle counting and calculated (Pore Blockage). Pore Blockage would be our standard method for engine oils. If I clarified this right and you know which of these tests you need then Michelle [email protected] can help you add this to your testing. If I can help you anymore please let me know. Ryan McCallister, OMA Data Analyst [email protected] 317-808-3750 ext.280 My extended email: Thank you, Ryan. I think you've done well in clearing this up. Basically, PQ gives a mass quotient to the lower size particle reading that the equipment sees/reads. This would tend to allow UOA to be more an indicator of wear. Adding higher validity to the inferential data. One more question, though. Is there some reason that optical particle counting cannot be done on engine oil, assuming it is not opaque? That is, if translucency meets the proper level, can this be done to engine oils? Do you use dilution factors in the counting process? Again, thanks very much for your time. Gary Allan Gary, Yes we could do regular optical PC on the oil if is still fairly translucent. I had assumed that the oil would be from a used engine sample. A new engine oil would be the right translucency, after being used it usually becomes too dark to get accurate results. We do use a dilution factor for darker and thick samples of which I believe is 100:1.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
4,567
Location
NW Ohio
So, Blackstone is redeemed? Pore blockage is the system they use and if the vaunted Polaris Labs would recommend it in most cases, how can Blackstone be condemned for it?
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2004
Messages
6,128
Location
northern Alabama
Blackstone was never condemned for using the pore blockage method. I stated that it is not a true (not real) particle count, which it isn't. I would rather have a real particle count rather than depend upon a model with its associated assumptions.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
4,567
Location
NW Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Pablo
 Originally Posted By: Jim Allen
 Originally Posted By: benjamming
particle count from Blackstone is not real
What is that supposed to mean? Not real, as in "faked?" Not real as in the OP is listing false data? Not real as in Blackstone does it in some slipshod way? If you are making a serious charge against a well-known company, you should make yourself very clear and give a detailed account of what you believe to be true.
I can't pretend to be Ben, and I am not a particle count expert, but in a very short, simplistic nutshell - Blackstone does not do a standardized nor ASTM particle count. Some (including myself) have some serious doubts about the accuracy and precision of their machine method.
 Originally Posted By: benjamming
Anyway, my point was summed up pretty well by Pablo. Ask them to provide you the standard # they follow.
Well, Ben, when I reread the above, it sure sounded like you were singling Blackstone out. Hence my comments. I think Blackstone provides a valuable service that we, the unwashed BITOGer can afford. I think they are worth a little verbal "standing up for" so I wanted to make clear what was really being said and take you to task if I thought you were being unfair. And Pablo, I think you are incorrect also. Pore blockage IS a standard, accepted method. ASTM... I don't know for sure. In a limited search, I could only find an ASTM number for the manual particle count method, but not for the Automatic Optical Method. Both the Automatic Optical and the Pore Blockage have ISO, or [censored] certification, or its pending... per this: Particle Counts The pore blockage method is a common tool that even the "best" labs use. Even with clear oil, the automatic optical counter can be fooled by water and air bubbles, so they aren't 100 percent reliable either. When you have opaque oil, pore blockage may be the only available method, beyond a microscope and a human eye. Even the Mark 1 eyeball and Mark IV human brain can be fooled or make an error. I may have an opportunity to have test samples of the same oil done via both methods and if I do, I will post it. I have some pore tests done by Blackstone and optical tests by another lab, but unfortunately, they are not of the same sample, so I cannot make a direct correlation. They are fairly close, however.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2002
Messages
39,802
Location
Pottstown, PA
It's a good topic for debate. The pore blockage is the most sensible way to cope with opaque fluids. Whether that redeems Blackstone or not .. I'm pretty sure that this equipment isn't cheap. I'm also reasonably sure that it was modeled after optical laser tests that did have verifiable particle distributions ..and that standard particles were mixed and matched in some repeatable manner to configure the profiles of a broad spectrum of contaminant concentration levels. I would like to think so, anyway. If I was forking out the cash for one, I'd surely be calling the company to task to justify the expense. Anyone who has dealt with PID loops knows the inverted view one can draw with watching slopes. That is, change and onset/ rate of change. For example, if I watched throttle response of a cruise control, I can probably determine how steep the incline was that the car encountered, just by how fast the throttle opened ..how far it deviated from SET POINT ..how long the event lasted ..and how far it overshot it ..etc..etc. The same reasoning (my speculation, supposition) could apply here in "modeling".
 
Joined
Jan 3, 2004
Messages
6,128
Location
northern Alabama
Jim, One thing that folks didn't realize for a while (& many still don't) is that Blackstone doesn't actually count the particles when many thought they did. This was probably ascertained from the name particle count, not particle approximation from a model. Whether this in & of itself is a valuable service is irrelevant to the point I was making. Pore blockage is an accepted method by some; not a standard that I am aware of. The other point, which you mention, is the accuracy of the test. I don't have any data showing how it compares with a true particle counter. So, until then, I wouldn't assume any correlation with confidence.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
12,385
Location
Northern CA
 Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
It's a good topic for debate. The pore blockage is the most sensible way to cope with opaque fluids. Whether that redeems Blackstone or not ..
Not. They sell the service as a particle count. It isn't a particle count. I don't believe it establishes a profile of particle size distribution either. Everyone I have run the numbers on has the same profile multiplied by a constant. For the larger particles with low counts it isn't as obvious, but the ones I have looked at all have the identical profile shape within the limits of rounding error. I've only checked 20 to 30 of them, so they may have more than one profile, but I haven't seen it.
 
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
620
Location
Texas
XS has made the first criticism of the BST method I feel has merit. It really isn't a true particle count, but a particle approximation....so I guess it shouldn't be called a particle count. At the very least, they should explain this fact clearly before you order. That said, and after reading the comments by Polaris, there really isn't a cost effective way to do this with dirty engine oil...so cut BST some slack.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
12,385
Location
Northern CA
I think the BST test has merit and is a good value for the price. I won't cut them slack for selling it as something it isn't and filling in a bunch of data that they don't actually measure which further adds to the appearance that it's a particle count. It's useful test to determine the gross relative particle count in your oil. It's misleading if you are trying to use it to compare different types of media that produce different particle count profiles.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
4,567
Location
NW Ohio
 Originally Posted By: XS650
 Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
It's a good topic for debate. The pore blockage is the most sensible way to cope with opaque fluids. Whether that redeems Blackstone or not ..
Not. They sell the service as a particle count. It isn't a particle count. I don't believe it establishes a profile of particle size distribution either. Everyone I have run the numbers on has the same profile multiplied by a constant. For the larger particles with low counts it isn't as obvious, but the ones I have looked at all have the identical profile shape within the limits of rounding error. I've only checked 20 to 30 of them, so they may have more than one profile, but I haven't seen it.
XS650: Strictly speaking, I suppose you are correct that it's not an actual "particle count." But what does the industry call it? We'd need to survey every lab to see. I'm not sure how important that is to do, but we have a little evidence at hand, the first being the letter to Gary from Polaris Labs. Note the part below in red where he calls Pore Blockage a "particle count." A second second point would be that the equipment Blackstone uses, the Rockwell Automation Digital Contam-Alert/Entek, has literature (see link below) that describes it as a "particle counter." It appears to be a widely used piece of equipment. Maybe even Polaris uses it. Contam-Alert So, if the equipment manufacturer calls it a "particle counter" and other labs as well, perhaps Blackstone can be forgiven for also using the terminology. If it's an industry wide phenomenon, then we can rail against the industry rather than single out just one lab. I would also add that Blackstone Labs doesn't "add" count information, the computer program spits out the estimated particle counts and the two and three digit ISO codes.
 Quote:
Gary, Because you were talking about Particle Counting in the end I will assume you are looking for a way to look at particle concentration in reference to filter efficiency on your automotive engine sample? If so Particle count by Pore Blockage would be best. To Clarify PQ(Particle Quantifier) measures only ferrous particles in the oil. The result is just an index number that can be trended and compared to the Iron value in the 24 ICP metal test. This is a test we can do on engine oils, and its not entirely common therefore not part of out standard set test packages. If you are looking for a jump in large fatigue wear that the regular 24 ICP metals (size limit is 10 microns) may not see then this test would be good. If we see this jump in large wear metals it can indicate a possible catastrophic failure where large particles have not had time to break down to large amounts of small wear. We do both optical particle counting and calculated (Pore Blockage). Pore Blockage would be our standard method for engine oils. If I clarified this right and you know which of these tests you need then Michelle [email protected] can help you add this to your testing. If I can help you anymore please let me know. Ryan McCallister, OMA Data Analyst [email protected] 317-808-3750 ext.280
 
Last edited:
Top