Timken Machine Testing
- Thread starter mikeytown2
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: mikeytown2
If i was trying to be more scientific i would have a motorized crank/pulley system hooked up to a digital force meter
http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/product_view.asp?sku=9395600
That way, the force applied will be gradual and i would measure the sound level. Once the bearing has a spike in sound output, the oil has given up IMHO (the damage has already been done). What do you guys think?
That's sorta like they did with the Prolong test. The thing was, you could tell that they wired the ammeter backwards (or reversed polarity) for Prolong. The amps went down the more he yanked on the arm (center weighted meter). Admittedly, it didn't seize ..but
If i was trying to be more scientific i would have a motorized crank/pulley system hooked up to a digital force meter
http://www.coleparmer.com/catalog/product_view.asp?sku=9395600
That way, the force applied will be gradual and i would measure the sound level. Once the bearing has a spike in sound output, the oil has given up IMHO (the damage has already been done). What do you guys think?
That's sorta like they did with the Prolong test. The thing was, you could tell that they wired the ammeter backwards (or reversed polarity) for Prolong. The amps went down the more he yanked on the arm (center weighted meter). Admittedly, it didn't seize ..but
Royal Purple and AMSOIL preformed above average on this test. I want to retest Valvoline, i didn't place the weight on it nicely, after reviewing the 3rd tape ( i have 22 hrs of tape to edit, so there might be more that need to be looked at again ).
Kestas
Staff member
Mike, for the sake of a BITOG study, if you need the services of optical equipment, I could complement your work gratis. I operate all kinds of calibrated optical equipment, including a scanning electron microscope. I sometimes help out a colleague with his 4-ball wear scars.
Even if your results don't coincide with our UOA database, that in itself would be useful information. We'd know that the Timken test is limited for its effectiveness in evaluating motor oil.
Even if your results don't coincide with our UOA database, that in itself would be useful information. We'd know that the Timken test is limited for its effectiveness in evaluating motor oil.
Limited? at A X-1R they could make it walk & talk for the visitors to trade shows you can teach a 10 year old to manipulate the results. Falex Machines are for the uninitated in the hocus-pocus of oil & oil additives plus that grand product classified as friction reducers.
You know, I had a guy that made that very same statement to me one day. He felt the test was also just smoke and mirrors and easily manipulated. Well, it is easy for folks to rear back and say that. But in that instance, I just happened to have a machine right there handy. I offered the guy to show me just how he would manipulate the results of the testing.
He look like a real goon to all present when he realized that the test is what it is, and there are no magic manipulation tricks...or magic words for that matter. Oh sure, a man can manipulate a failure real easy, but let him try to manipulate a film that carries load for minutes into the test, when all other samples fail in seconds, no matter how hard you try to manipulate their success.
The test has value. It is not a magic act. One needs to realize just what the test is showing them though.
He look like a real goon to all present when he realized that the test is what it is, and there are no magic manipulation tricks...or magic words for that matter. Oh sure, a man can manipulate a failure real easy, but let him try to manipulate a film that carries load for minutes into the test, when all other samples fail in seconds, no matter how hard you try to manipulate their success.
The test has value. It is not a magic act. One needs to realize just what the test is showing them though.
I have no idea how to manipulate ours to do anthing but heat the oil (friction) and see what it does with respect to boiling off or how much pressure it can take before stalling. It isn't rocket science
The manipulation I witnessed used beach in the oil, and another using corn syrup mixed in the oil.
How about a test with a small pump-reservoir set up for a constant flow of oil? you know, kind like inside an engine?
How about a test with a small pump-reservoir set up for a constant flow of oil? you know, kind like inside an engine?
How does bleach or corn syrup help/hurt?
In terms of manipulation, the initial temperature of the bearing and or oil could be important. Another factor is how clean the main bearing is, and the grit size (i used 180) of the emery paper (bearing finish). The most obvious is how quickly the load is applied. Any other ideas on how these tests can be manipulated (things to look out for)?
@wileyE
IMHO a small pump-reservoir will not change the results of the test as long as you measure out the same amount of oil. I used 5 Milliliter of oil.
@Jaybird
You are right, the oil works or it doesn't for this test. With my testing, everything failed (just some not as bad).
@Kestas
Thank you for the offer! If i come across some interesting results I'll contact you. You are right, this test is limited, but i still find it quite interesting. A ILSAC GF-4 test would be fairly thorough but quite costly.
In terms of manipulation, the initial temperature of the bearing and or oil could be important. Another factor is how clean the main bearing is, and the grit size (i used 180) of the emery paper (bearing finish). The most obvious is how quickly the load is applied. Any other ideas on how these tests can be manipulated (things to look out for)?
@wileyE
IMHO a small pump-reservoir will not change the results of the test as long as you measure out the same amount of oil. I used 5 Milliliter of oil.
@Jaybird
You are right, the oil works or it doesn't for this test. With my testing, everything failed (just some not as bad).
@Kestas
Thank you for the offer! If i come across some interesting results I'll contact you. You are right, this test is limited, but i still find it quite interesting. A ILSAC GF-4 test would be fairly thorough but quite costly.
Last edited:
Mike, get a small knife sharpening stone and use it before the emery cloth. It will make life much easier, and prepare the surface much faster.
And yes, heat could be an issue at initial contact, so you could always use a hand-held thermo to verify test wheel temps.
Invite the skeptics to provide their own samples, and run the tests themselves.
Try comparing re-build pastes and fluids, or greases. Much more interesting than motor oils. Just paint it on the wheel, No need for a bath. I don't use a bath for fluids either. It is not needed, as there is no way to refortify the film once it has been violated past it's failure point. Try it both ways with oil..just put a few drops on to form a film on the wheel...and then repeat the test using the bath. Numbers will be essentially the same.
And yes, heat could be an issue at initial contact, so you could always use a hand-held thermo to verify test wheel temps.
Invite the skeptics to provide their own samples, and run the tests themselves.
Try comparing re-build pastes and fluids, or greases. Much more interesting than motor oils. Just paint it on the wheel, No need for a bath. I don't use a bath for fluids either. It is not needed, as there is no way to refortify the film once it has been violated past it's failure point. Try it both ways with oil..just put a few drops on to form a film on the wheel...and then repeat the test using the bath. Numbers will be essentially the same.
Originally Posted By: Jaybird
Mike, get a small knife sharpening stone and use it before the emery cloth. It will make life much easier, and prepare the surface much faster.
And yes, heat could be an issue at initial contact, so you could always use a hand-held thermo to verify test wheel temps.
Invite the skeptics to provide their own samples, and run the tests themselves.
Try comparing re-build pastes and fluids, or greases. Much more interesting than motor oils. Just paint it on the wheel, No need for a bath. I don't use a bath for fluids either. It is not needed, as there is no way to refortify the film once it has been violated past it's failure point. Try it both ways with oil..just put a few drops on to form a film on the wheel...and then repeat the test using the bath. Numbers will be essentially the same.
Thanks for the tips!
I finally found a good place to host my videos... Google Pages
http://mikeytown2.googlepages.com/flvplayer.html This has the same vid (mobile 1, 2 & 3/4 lb).
Hopefully by early next year i will have all of them up
.
Mike, get a small knife sharpening stone and use it before the emery cloth. It will make life much easier, and prepare the surface much faster.
And yes, heat could be an issue at initial contact, so you could always use a hand-held thermo to verify test wheel temps.
Invite the skeptics to provide their own samples, and run the tests themselves.
Try comparing re-build pastes and fluids, or greases. Much more interesting than motor oils. Just paint it on the wheel, No need for a bath. I don't use a bath for fluids either. It is not needed, as there is no way to refortify the film once it has been violated past it's failure point. Try it both ways with oil..just put a few drops on to form a film on the wheel...and then repeat the test using the bath. Numbers will be essentially the same.
Thanks for the tips!
I finally found a good place to host my videos... Google Pages
http://mikeytown2.googlepages.com/flvplayer.html This has the same vid (mobile 1, 2 & 3/4 lb).
Hopefully by early next year i will have all of them up
Last edited:
Almost all the video's are up, here are all but redline.
http://mikeytown2.googlepages.com/
To view video or pics, flash is required. The videos are highly compressed, so a fast computer is needed as well. There are 2 pictures of each bearing; one with a flash, one without.
http://mikeytown2.googlepages.com/
To view video or pics, flash is required. The videos are highly compressed, so a fast computer is needed as well. There are 2 pictures of each bearing; one with a flash, one without.
Enjoying these vid's,
but that sound makes my skin crawl! Appreciate you doing this, and so professionally at that. Very similar results, but the RP's Delta measurement stands out, at least to some degree. How are you obtaining your oil samples? Could you give me some "schooling" on the measurements you're taking, and what they mean? Finally,
what's motivating you to do this testing? Is it school, personal curiosity, the betterment of mankind,...?
The sound is very loud, I'm counting the entire test time (10 second) but you can't hear me in a lot of the tests. Speaking of sound, the left channel is coming from the cam above, right channel is from the main cam with microphone. The one thing i don't like is that RP s not ILSAC GF-4 Certified. Other then that, it looks very good. I got my oil samples by going to the local auto shop's and buying what i thought was the best oil i could get for that brand.
I'm taking a depth measurement using a Micrometer. I could measure the scar width or length but depth is the fastest and easiest since the scar creates a Parabola. The amp reading i put up is my judgment. I'm looking at the amp meter during the test and kinda guessing its average value. If someone thinks one reading should be something different, please speak up. (The 2 ticks that it usually goes between are 4 and 6 amps)
Motivating factor: A lot of the videos i see on the Internet are of low quality and/or low standards. I was given an opportunity to use this testing machine so i jumped on it. Personal curiosity is the main driving force. It's nice to know that i spent almost no money doing this test, and the other people probably blew at least 10k. All software used is Freeware.
BTW there is a full screen button for the videos, looks good.
I'm taking a depth measurement using a Micrometer. I could measure the scar width or length but depth is the fastest and easiest since the scar creates a Parabola. The amp reading i put up is my judgment. I'm looking at the amp meter during the test and kinda guessing its average value. If someone thinks one reading should be something different, please speak up. (The 2 ticks that it usually goes between are 4 and 6 amps)
Motivating factor: A lot of the videos i see on the Internet are of low quality and/or low standards. I was given an opportunity to use this testing machine so i jumped on it. Personal curiosity is the main driving force. It's nice to know that i spent almost no money doing this test, and the other people probably blew at least 10k. All software used is Freeware.
BTW there is a full screen button for the videos, looks good.
Last edited:
The videos are nice. You did a lot of work! Fast too! As you know, this type of single human "open" semi-controlled test is not statistically meaningful. Please don't take this the wrong way, it's GREAT that you are doing this, but the results should not be taken to prove superiority in any direction.
My usual problems with the Falex/Timken machine apply. Seems like if you one could rig a better force application method, the test would be more consistent. And for motor oils - I'm pretty sure an oil could be formulated to do really well here, but not be the best oil in an engine.
On the amps, maybe a DVM with capture mode would be best, along with an o-scope. Also, measuring the scar with a caliper is not very accurate. (even the sharpest contact surface on a caliper is a flat)
Good fun work, nonetheless!!
My usual problems with the Falex/Timken machine apply. Seems like if you one could rig a better force application method, the test would be more consistent. And for motor oils - I'm pretty sure an oil could be formulated to do really well here, but not be the best oil in an engine.
On the amps, maybe a DVM with capture mode would be best, along with an o-scope. Also, measuring the scar with a caliper is not very accurate. (even the sharpest contact surface on a caliper is a flat)
Good fun work, nonetheless!!
Originally Posted By: Pablo
The videos are nice. You did a lot of work! Fast too! As you know, this type of single human "open" semi-controlled test is not statistically meaningful. Please don't take this the wrong way, it's GREAT that you are doing this, but the results should not be taken to prove superiority in any direction.
My usual problems with the Falex/Timken machine apply. Seems like if you one could rig a better force application method, the test would be more consistent. And for motor oils - I'm pretty sure an oil could be formulated to do really well here, but not be the best oil in an engine.
On the amps, maybe a DVM with capture mode would be best, along with an o-scope. Also, measuring the scar with a caliper is not very accurate. (even the sharpest contact surface on a caliper is a flat)
Good fun work, nonetheless!!
On the same note, the results should not be completely discarded, either.
The videos are nice. You did a lot of work! Fast too! As you know, this type of single human "open" semi-controlled test is not statistically meaningful. Please don't take this the wrong way, it's GREAT that you are doing this, but the results should not be taken to prove superiority in any direction.
My usual problems with the Falex/Timken machine apply. Seems like if you one could rig a better force application method, the test would be more consistent. And for motor oils - I'm pretty sure an oil could be formulated to do really well here, but not be the best oil in an engine.
On the amps, maybe a DVM with capture mode would be best, along with an o-scope. Also, measuring the scar with a caliper is not very accurate. (even the sharpest contact surface on a caliper is a flat)
Good fun work, nonetheless!!
On the same note, the results should not be completely discarded, either.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
the results should not be taken to prove superiority in any direction.
Yep, in my mind all the oil failed; all made a lot of noise. The damage to the bearing has already been done. The only thing that can be taken from this is that RP's additive Synslide is doing something after the fact. Just like in bob's videos, the Schaeffer’s additive package is doing something. Wither or not anything like this could ever happen in a motor is up to debate; and if could, the damage was already done.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I'm pretty sure an oil could be formulated to do really well here, but not be the best oil in an engine.
Exactly my point. RP did the best, but it's not ILSAC GF-4 Certified.
the results should not be taken to prove superiority in any direction.
Yep, in my mind all the oil failed; all made a lot of noise. The damage to the bearing has already been done. The only thing that can be taken from this is that RP's additive Synslide is doing something after the fact. Just like in bob's videos, the Schaeffer’s additive package is doing something. Wither or not anything like this could ever happen in a motor is up to debate; and if could, the damage was already done.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I'm pretty sure an oil could be formulated to do really well here, but not be the best oil in an engine.
Exactly my point. RP did the best, but it's not ILSAC GF-4 Certified.
Mike - ah I see you have Redline done. Amazingly little chat about this.
Did you give any more thought to the measuring technique? Just for reference, you say/write micrometer but you are using a caliper.
Anyway where are you in Washington?
Did you give any more thought to the measuring technique? Just for reference, you say/write micrometer but you are using a caliper.
Anyway where are you in Washington?
to be at all even close to both repetable and accurate you must:
use same lot of bearings
same lot of bearing cup and change it or at least clean down
because previous tested oils aw additives will stick to the ruff surface so after 1 run it must be replaced tho not practicle so scuff it down to NEW each time with a file or stone.
best mesurement is to weight in mg the bearing ad report the wt loss.
Also oil/bearing/cup should be run in for 10 seconds or so with NO load just the wt of the handle on it then run test.
wt should be a static 10LB wt attached to handle NOT manually
pushed down.
do everything that same each test.
So to recap I would add the wt to the handle
clean cup down to bare clean smooth metal each time
run in no load for 10 seconds
I have doen this and get very repeatble numbers and IMHO valid for the work I was doing at the time
bruce
use same lot of bearings
same lot of bearing cup and change it or at least clean down
because previous tested oils aw additives will stick to the ruff surface so after 1 run it must be replaced tho not practicle so scuff it down to NEW each time with a file or stone.
best mesurement is to weight in mg the bearing ad report the wt loss.
Also oil/bearing/cup should be run in for 10 seconds or so with NO load just the wt of the handle on it then run test.
wt should be a static 10LB wt attached to handle NOT manually
pushed down.
do everything that same each test.
So to recap I would add the wt to the handle
clean cup down to bare clean smooth metal each time
run in no load for 10 seconds
I have doen this and get very repeatble numbers and IMHO valid for the work I was doing at the time
bruce
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Mike - ah I see you have Redline done. Amazingly little chat about this.
Did you give any more thought to the measuring technique? Just for reference, you say/write micrometer but you are using a caliper.
Anyway where are you in Washington?
The reason why i didn't bring the redline up is because its kinda a mute point... i ran out of bearing so i can't do a good comparative test.
Caliper/Vernier/Micrometer, in essence it's the same device. It can measure very small changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer_(device)
Seattle/Western Washington.
Originally Posted By: bruce381
to be at all even close to both repetable and accurate you must:
use same lot of bearings
same lot of bearing cup and change it or at least clean down
because previous tested oils aw additives will stick to the ruff surface so after 1 run it must be replaced tho not practicle so scuff it down to NEW each time with a file or stone.
best mesurement is to weight in mg the bearing ad report the wt loss.
Also oil/bearing/cup should be run in for 10 seconds or so with NO load just the wt of the handle on it then run test.
wt should be a static 10LB wt attached to handle NOT manually
pushed down.
do everything that same each test.
So to recap I would add the wt to the handle
clean cup down to bare clean smooth metal each time
run in no load for 10 seconds
I have doen this and get very repeatble numbers and IMHO valid for the work I was doing at the time
bruce
The eight oils i tested, i used the same bearings; they came out of the same ASTM certified box. I thought i had more in there (opps!). The bearing i used for redline i got out of an actual bearing race from an auto shop.
Did you watch the 3 hrs in 86 seconds video? I took 1 frame for every 100 and made a quick video. It shows my entire process non-stop. I sanded the big bearing down, it's like new then. Next time I'll use a stone because it would sure make life easier. Thanks for the Tip!
I don't have access to a triple beam balance, so i guess if i do this again I'll have to go buy one. Is a triple beam balance what i want? Once again thanks for the Tip!
The no load break-in did happen, i edited the video so it's no longer there. I guess i'll go back to the videos and record the break-in time and post it.
For the weight do you suggest that i cold start with the weight already on? It's not clear what your suggestion is because i didn't push the weight down. I'm not an actor and i did this in one shot by my self so if it does look like i pushed down, i didn't. I'm not trying to prove one oil over another, so for me to do that makes no sense. I'll post the amount of time it took for the weight to be added.
To all, thanks for the critiques! This will help to make future runs better. Keep the comments coming!
Mike - ah I see you have Redline done. Amazingly little chat about this.
Did you give any more thought to the measuring technique? Just for reference, you say/write micrometer but you are using a caliper.
Anyway where are you in Washington?
The reason why i didn't bring the redline up is because its kinda a mute point... i ran out of bearing so i can't do a good comparative test.
Caliper/Vernier/Micrometer, in essence it's the same device. It can measure very small changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer_(device)
Seattle/Western Washington.
Originally Posted By: bruce381
to be at all even close to both repetable and accurate you must:
use same lot of bearings
same lot of bearing cup and change it or at least clean down
because previous tested oils aw additives will stick to the ruff surface so after 1 run it must be replaced tho not practicle so scuff it down to NEW each time with a file or stone.
best mesurement is to weight in mg the bearing ad report the wt loss.
Also oil/bearing/cup should be run in for 10 seconds or so with NO load just the wt of the handle on it then run test.
wt should be a static 10LB wt attached to handle NOT manually
pushed down.
do everything that same each test.
So to recap I would add the wt to the handle
clean cup down to bare clean smooth metal each time
run in no load for 10 seconds
I have doen this and get very repeatble numbers and IMHO valid for the work I was doing at the time
bruce
The eight oils i tested, i used the same bearings; they came out of the same ASTM certified box. I thought i had more in there (opps!). The bearing i used for redline i got out of an actual bearing race from an auto shop.
Did you watch the 3 hrs in 86 seconds video? I took 1 frame for every 100 and made a quick video. It shows my entire process non-stop. I sanded the big bearing down, it's like new then. Next time I'll use a stone because it would sure make life easier. Thanks for the Tip!
I don't have access to a triple beam balance, so i guess if i do this again I'll have to go buy one. Is a triple beam balance what i want? Once again thanks for the Tip!
The no load break-in did happen, i edited the video so it's no longer there. I guess i'll go back to the videos and record the break-in time and post it.
For the weight do you suggest that i cold start with the weight already on? It's not clear what your suggestion is because i didn't push the weight down. I'm not an actor and i did this in one shot by my self so if it does look like i pushed down, i didn't. I'm not trying to prove one oil over another, so for me to do that makes no sense. I'll post the amount of time it took for the weight to be added.
To all, thanks for the critiques! This will help to make future runs better. Keep the comments coming!
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky