You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter 1911
- Start date

- Status
- Not open for further replies.

quote:You may not be a Dude but you surealy are stinky!!! Seriously, if you are right (and I believe you are), then the vast majority of members on this board are grossly misusing and over-interpreting the data they get from basic UOA's. They commonly use these to refine oil choices based on alledged concentrations of wear particles. If you are right, then they need a reality check and I hope you just delivered it. Have you explained this before here? You are also perfectly correct in that exponential growth does not mean fast (at infinite times it would of course)if you generate very little initial debris to kick off the process at a slow rate. However, I think you see what I meant in terms of the UOAs Stinky. IF the UOA's were literally clearly describing all the wear debris, then you would clearly see a change bigger change in the counts going from 6k to 7 k miles versus 1k to 2k miles. In other words if the PPM typically went up by 8 points between 1 and 2k, then it should go up a lot (maybe 70 to 100 points) more between 6k and 7k (based on the joint asssumptions that debris causes most wear and the UOA are actually quantifying it). The latter is probably not true (as you say) and even if the prior is true, the wear rates may still be low enough that it all doesn't really matter too too much. Regardless, for the picky amongst us, it is still an argument for limiting OCIs to less than this new Mobil 1 15k stuff.

Originally posted by Stinky Peterson:

quote:1911, that's like the old saying, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Much of oil analysis interpretation I see here sounds like fortune tellers reading tea leaves. I think oil analysis can be a valuable tool, but it's only one tool. Much too much is read into the results.

Originally posted by 1911:. Seriously, if you are right (and I believe you are), then the vast majority of members on this board are grossly misusing and over-interpreting the data they get from basic UOA's. They commonly use these to refine oil choices based on alledged concentrations of wear particles. If you are right, then they need a reality check and I hope you just delivered it. Have you explained this before here?

quote:Jay......I don't have an exponential wear theory. It should be obvious mathematically that if Fitch's statements are correct,(and I never said they were) then the wear rate would have to go up exponentially. In a logic class Jay, it would sound like this......... A) If particles cause wear, then the more of them there are, the higher your wear rate should be. B) There should be more wear particles at higher operating times than lower operating times. If A and B then C: Therefore, more wear would occur at higher hour intervals than similar length intervals at lower time when the oil was cleaner. This is due to increases amounts of wear causal agents being present. Interest in the bank is a similar function too Jay. Interest leads to more capital which leads to increasing interest. These are cases mathematically where an action (interest, wear, nuclear fission) leads to an increased amount of the action. These are exponential functions bro. This example may help. Do you know how nuclear fission works? Basically Jay, a neutron splits a uranium atom which releases more neutrons. The rate of the reaction occurs increases exponentially with time because the initial action helps to allow/create increasing amounts of the action. If wear particles create more wear, then their amount will continue to increase at an increasing rate as there are more of them to help make more of them. Jay, this probably does go on and is actually one of the reasons you change your oil. Mathematically speaking, the exponent will depend on the probability of newly released neutrons to fissure more atoms. At the bank, it depends on the interest rate, and with our wear scenario here, it depends on the probability of fresh wear particles to do damage creating more wear particles and as Stinky pointed out, some of them do not. Now if the amount of wear is low adn many of the particles are not likekly to do damage, then all of this may go unseen as Stinky alludeed to. You would need a technique that's more sensitive than what we use to see it or it would not show up until very high OCI's beyond what a sensible folk would ever run. (exponential growth is always very significant given long enough times, look at 5% interest over 1000 years at the bank.) Now Jay, is this all really some crazy rocket science theory (hypothesis, guess, etc) or plain common sense? You're scaring me Jay. You give me way to much credit by referring to 9th grade math as "my theory". Now did you read what Stinky wrote? My comments were based on basic and indisputable math (basically, an if A then B scenario), yours are based on the assumption that your UOA really accounts for all the wear (and corrosion) metals released in the engine. Take your beef up with Stinky, you're too math illiterate to see that you don't even actually have a disagreement with me here.

Originally posted by Jay:I think the answer to your questions are obvious, 1911. If yourtheorythat wear should increase exponentially as miles accumulate were true, and if UOAs (without undue Si contamination) show that the relationship is not exponential. And if actual, real-life engine wear follows UOA results infinitely more closely than the your exponential-weartheory--and they do--then UOAs trump speculative theories (or at least your understanding of them). Thanks for helping me make my point again.

quote:These are all great points. Mark gave some excellent information on this topic.

Seriously, if you are right (and I believe you are), then the vast majority of members on this board are grossly misusing and over-interpreting the data they get from basic UOA's.

quote:Thanks Ugly3, You may be right or it may be possible that as Stinky alluded to, that the differences may actually be there but are too insignificant to see and too insignificant to cause your engine to need replacement noticibly earlier than normal. It may even be true that (and I'm not saying this happens but just for theory here)if you had 5 times the wear rate from running really long intervals that you'd may still get hundreds of thousands of miles out of the motor and not notice much on UOA's. It also may be possible that the damaging effects of these small particles are overrated. The point of my post was to simply state the obvious mathematical implications of the Fitch paper. I'll post more on this in a minute since it's clear that at least one person here cannot understand very basic mathematical concepts.

Originally posted by Ugly3:There are way too many engines running 10,000+ mile OCIs and lasting 100,000 of thousands of miles for the long OCI more wear theory to be accurate .

- Status
- Not open for further replies.

- Replies
- 24

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 127

- Views
- 6K