Someone help me read this particle count...

[LateArrivalforLSU]

Alright, the oil used was Delo 400 15w40 in an '06 Cummins Turbo Diesel. The sample had 5,122 miles on it. A Frantz bypass filter is being used, and sample was taken from the bypass filter return line.

Here is the particle count info from Blackstone:

ISO Code (2) 16/13
NAS 1638 Class 2
ISO Code (3) 17/16/13
>= 2 micron 1565
>= 5 micron 580
>= 10 micron 160
>= 15 micron 62
>= 25 micron 14
>= 50 micron 1
>= 100 micron 0

What's everyone's thoughts?

 

[Gary Allan]

My thoughts are that you're leaking through your frantz. You've got a particle distribution that's not uncommon for a regular ff filter over a greater number of miles.

There was some discussion about B-S's PC being calculated based on the >15um reading ..but I didn't quite follow it since I seem to recall a drift of anywhere fro 2.X to 4.x progression as you go smaller. Yours, if you plot it out, follows, roughly, a 3-4:1 progression as you go smaller.

Starting at the >25um

4:1 to >15um
3:1 to >10um
3:1 to >5um
3:1 to >2um
again ..that's "roughly". There's a +/- drift there. So I can't see any "estimate" being employed here using a template

 

[LateArrivalforLSU]

Quote:

---

My thoughts are that you're leaking through your frantz. You've got a particle distribution that's not uncommon for a regular ff filter over a greater number of miles.

There was some discussion about B-S's PC being calculated based on the >15um reading ..but I didn't quite follow it since I seem to recall a drift of anywhere fro 2.X to 4.x progression as you go smaller. Yours, if you plot it out, follows, roughly, a 3-4:1 progression as you go smaller.

Starting at the >25um

4:1 to >15um
3:1 to >10um
3:1 to >5um
3:1 to >2um
again ..that's "roughly". There's a +/- drift there. So I can't see any "estimate" being employed here using a template

---

Gary,

I too looked at the PC and was thoroughly UNimpressed by what I saw. When you say "leaking" though, are you referring to channeling? It's definitely NOT channeling, but I do notice when I pull the used TP roll out that it's definetely not snug. If most of the oil is skirting around the outside of the roll of TP, then that's a problem.

 

[widman]

That is a surprising amount from a by-psss filter. Either it doesn't seal or too much pressure built up and the oil went around it. I'm not familiar with TP filters, but a by-pass filter should let 10, 15, or 25 micron particles through like that. I would even expect a by-pass filter to take out all of the 5 micron particles, but I've never tested for it. Maybe I will see how long my Luber Finer by-pass has been in my Mitsubishi and test it.

 

[The Critic]

I wouldn't be so quick to condemn the bypass filter. A diesel engine may emit higher levels of particulates during wear-in, so I'd change out all of the oil and filters and do a retest after 5k miles or so...

Better yet, do this when the truck has more than 10k miles on it.

 

[SWHeat]

This is not an accurate ISO 4406:99 (or ISO 4406:MTD, new standard) particle count IMHO. It "may" be accepted and OK for an ISO 4406:86 (or ISO 4406:ACFTD old standard). Blackstone uses the "pore blockage" method of testing. It is unclear if it is a 10 micron or 15 micron screen. The rest is mathmatical extrapolation for a "normal" particle distribution. A bypass filter should produce anything but a "normal particle distribution" IMHO.

See this thread re: the particle count discussion Gary mentioned.

Oildrop discussion thread re: particle counts.

Here is an article from "Practicing Oil Analysis" Magazine Nov. 2005. Particle Count article with descriptions of each method.
It explains very well the different kinds of particle counting available. I have found a lab that will do particle counting with the ISO 11171 method and will be using them in the future for particle counts to get an authentic ISO 4406:99 cleanliness code count of 4,6, 14 microns. I will leave the "pore blockage" and "mathmatical" conjecture to others.

On a side note, the particle count cost that I will be getting is less than what Blackstone charges. It pays to be informed and to shop around.

Other articles of interest:
"The importance of ISO Cleanliness Codes" in Machinery Lubrication Magazine

"Lubricant Cleanliness" article of NTS, Inc.

 

[LateArrivalforLSU]

SWHeat,

That is very interesting reading. I wish that I would have known that before the "computations" were done on my particle count.

I went to Butler Cat Labs and AV Lube's website but it didn't go into detail as to the methods used on their particle counts.

When doing your research, which lab used the ISO 11171 method? I will use them from now on when getting my used oil analysis and particle counts done. If you don't want to answer on this thread, feel free to PM me.

Thanks

 

[SWHeat]

Butler Cat Labs does it...but they send their particle counts "to another lab down the street for the particle count part."

Terry Dyson's lab does this method and would be a good option when you need an expert tibologist to decipher your report.

AV Lube's I have not contacted, but they were on my list to call.

For everyone, since it is not a BITOG sponsor....I'll just say you can Google the words "oil analysis lab" and it will be one of the results on the first page.

Best bet, call and ask. If the salesperson does not know and they are a good company, they should send you to the lab person who does know.

I will continue to use Blackstone when I don't need a particle count or when they change to the optical scanner (they cost around $15K, so I've read).

PM sent.

 

[lindermant]

SWHeat,

excellent research - thanks for the links!

 

[SWHeat]

You are welcome lindermant.

Maybe those links should be "stickies" in the bypass filter section. It would be nice to have more particle counts....errr....ISO 11171 particle counts on a variety of filters. Especially bypass filters.

 

[LateArrivalforLSU]

Quote:

---

You are welcome lindermant.

Maybe those links should be "stickies" in the bypass filter section. It would be nice to have more particle counts....errr....ISO 11171 particle counts on a variety of filters. Especially bypass filters.

---

Once again, good job SW Heat. Stickied topic in BP section: Particle count stickied thread

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My thoughts are that you're leaking through your frantz. You've got a particle distribution that's not uncommon for a regular ff filter over a greater number of miles.

There was some discussion about B-S's PC being calculated based on the >15um reading ..but I didn't quite follow it since I seem to recall a drift of anywhere fro 2.X to 4.x progression as you go smaller. Yours, if you plot it out, follows, roughly, a 3-4:1 progression as you go smaller.

Starting at the >25um

4:1 to >15um
3:1 to >10um
3:1 to >5um
3:1 to >2um
again ..that's "roughly". There's a +/- drift there. So I can't see any "estimate" being employed here using a template

---

Gary,

I too looked at the PC and was thoroughly UNimpressed by what I saw. When you say "leaking" though, are you referring to channeling? It's definitely NOT channeling, but I do notice when I pull the used TP roll out that it's definetely not snug. If most of the oil is skirting around the outside of the roll of TP, then that's a problem.

---

I'd say that you've got some issue there somewhere. You should have a distinct cutoff for the >10um, imo. Maybe wrapping a few turns from another roll???

Critic: I would discount anything to do with the production end of the soot/particle equation. He drew the sample from the outlet of the filter. It's letting all those particles trough in one manner or another. I could see a pan sample having "some" of the larger particles ..but it should still have the distinct cut off where the larger ones are in the single digit range with a much broader (relatively speaking) smaller particle count.

You move the pyramid way down the size scale and form a spire of single digit big boyZ.