I am noticing high copper on UOA reports on this website, and am just wondering is it just amsoil, or other group 4 oils causing this? In particular, the uoa's were with duramax engines using the 15w40 oil. Could bypass oil catch this copper?
Why the high copper with amsoil??
- Thread starter Ponch
- Start date
- Status
I think it's the oil coolers, you would see it with most any oil, but I know what you mean seems high on some, you know how like mobil seems to have higher iron counts in UOA's. I have theorized it is some reaction that PAO's may have on certain metals. That is totally unsubstantiated conjecture on my part as I am no tribologist or chemist. There are too many variables to pin anything down.
From designing heat powered absorbtion refrigeration systems, I learned that as far as PH goes if you are on one side of neutral iron based metals will be attacked, and if you are on the other side of neutral copper based metals will be attacked.
While we like TBN numbers to be high so acids will be neutrlized, if the high TBN is because of an additive that makes the oil too far away from neutral on the base side, then one can expect to see copper based metal attacked, and more copper in the UOA.
While we like TBN numbers to be high so acids will be neutrlized, if the high TBN is because of an additive that makes the oil too far away from neutral on the base side, then one can expect to see copper based metal attacked, and more copper in the UOA.
dnewton3
Staff member
No, it is not exclusive to Amsoil, although it may be reasonable to say it's predominant with Amsoil. In fact, occasionally, it won't happen at all; it is very accurate to say that this phenomenon is unpredictable in its occurence, and its magnitude. However, due to the occurrence rate of the use of Amsoil, that will make some of these events seem more populated than others, because Amsoil is so widely used overall. (IOW, you'll also see this often with RL and RP and TDT at times, but because those products are not as widely used, the phenomenon is "perceived" to be more predominant with the use of Amsoil). It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. I don't know that we will ever have a true handle on how much, by percentage, this really happens. From the outside looking in, it certainly is predominant. You and I are not the first ones to notice it. Many people have walked away from using Amsoil after experiencing this phenomenon. Other people plow on through and don't give it a second thought.
No, the bypass won't catch all this stuff right away. Two reasons why:
1) bypass filters only see perhaps 10% of the total flow for each "cycle" of the sump. That means 9 out of 10 times, all that residual Cu is going past the bypass filter (not through it, but physically never entering it, staying in the "main" flow stream and not entering the "bypass" stream). IOW, 90% of the time, any particle will evade the bypass filter element completely.
2) bypass filters, while very efficient, are not 100% efficient. The smaller the particle, the more likely it will pass through the bypass element, perhaps one or two times? A particle 4um in size is likely to be caught the first time around; a 1um particle will probably not be initially caught. It does not really matter though, because most particles smaller than 5um really don't do much, if any, damage. However ...
If the concentration is high, there is debate about whether it becomes abrasive; I, for one, believe this is possible. Blackstone has made comments to this very topic about it being abrasive. It is not unheard of to see elevated Fe at times (but not always) in conjunction with the elevated Cu. But to be fair to Amsoil, you have to look at the exposure duration (the OCI) to see how much may be attributed to simple expected wear, and how much might be abrasive. Fe will naturally accumulate with longer OCIs, so who really knows how much is "normal" wear and how much is "chemical" wear. To be blunt, no one, including myself, can pin it down.
I do not agree that high TBN could be a cause; it does not explain why dino oils don't see this phenomenon, and yet essentially they have TBN as high as Amsoil. To this end, I don't think this is a reasonable explanation. Plus, there are still CI-4 and CI-4+ products out there being used, and they have TBN nearing 14 at times. To be generic, this does not happen with the dino oils. Therefore, we can eliminate TBN as the sole cause. High TBN is not unique to Amsoil (or RL, RP, etc). It has always been "normal" to see a bit of Cu shed in a new Dmax engine. Let me quantify that statement; "new" being around 20k miles or less, and "a bit" being 100ppm of Cu or less. And if you use a dino oil, that quickly subsides. But there are times when the use of Amsoil and some other high end PAO products will make the Cu elevate significantly; 300ppm, 450ppm, 600ppm are not unheard of, and I saw one UOA with Cu approaching 1000ppm!
I, for one, do not want to experience this phenomenon in my Dmax. I cannot prove that the massive amounts of Cu are destructive, but I don't see the sense in taking a chance. Further, the real issue is that as long as this phenomenon is happening, it will skew and mask the Cu from other potential problems, as seen in a UOA. The volume (quantity) level will be so high that you'll not be able to distinguish other events, should they occur. If one were to use Amsoil, and see elevated Cu and perhaps Fe, then you've experienced an un-natural shift in some of your data; you're experiencing a 50% reduction of credible information in the main wear metals of a UOA (those being Cu, Fe, Al, Pb). Some people would say that as long as the Cu and Fe are not accompanied by Pb or Al, or perhaps Tn, that all is well. But I would counter with this concept; if you're going to ignore Cu and Fe, then why have them in the test at all? If you are saying that I can ignore Cu and Fe as long as Pb and Al and Tn are not present, then why would we EVER look at them? Why not just ONLY track Pb and Al and perhaps Tn? I'll tell you why; because Pb and Al and Tn are not EXCLUSIVE to wear. Cu and Fe are also tell-tale elements to wear, and when you mask or un-naturally alter their occurence rate, you are seeing skewed data that can mask information from other bad events. If this "ignore the Cu and Fe" argument were true, then why do Oil Analyzers, Blackstone, Cat, and all the other analysis services actually test for Cu and Fe? Does the following statement really make sense?: "Well, you can ignore Cu and Fe while this phenomenon is occuring, because Pb and Al and Tn will really tell you if wear is occuring. But after the phenomenon subsides, it's really important to track Cu and Fe." Where is the logic to that statement? Look, at its base, you either are going to trust the WHOLE UOA to tell you that things are are OK or not OK, or you're admitting that you're going to selectivly pick and choose what you want to hear from the UOA. I am not saying that using Amsoil will result in destructive wear that will send the engine to an early grave. I am saying that often (but not always) using these types of products will grossly skew your UOA data, and it is a false pretense to simply ignore some data because it doesn't fall neatly into your expectations of UOA results. I cannot assure you that this will result in true damage, but I CAN assure you that if this phenomenon does occur, you have much lower chance of spotting a possible problem because the data is so greatly skewed that you'll never see it coming. If we could rely SOLELY on Pb and Al and Tn, then we'd NEVER test for Cu and Fe, would we?
Further, let's presume you are willing to experience this phenomenon and progress through it; I don't see any evidence of Dmax engines dying from the use of Amsoil. You will need to cycle a few OCIs through the engine with Amsoil to make the phenomenon go away; it needs time to normalize. You have two choices:
1) use Amsoil to it's full potential; perhaps two 25k mile OCI cycles. That's 50k miles of skewed data. How many years would it take you to let this issue expire? For me, personally, it would take SEVEN years (7k miles annually over 7 years). Even if you drove 25k miles a year, it would be TWO YEARS before the phenomenon would likley diminish to a point where "normal" results were possible.
2) use Amsoil, but do so with "flush" cycles. Perhaps two or three OCIs only 3k miles apart. That is REALLY expensive "normalization" if you ask me.
So, you either have to wait a LONG time for this to go away, or you have to pay through the nose to "flush" this away. I don't see any alternative to these two options. Wow - to me, neither of these are attractive options. But like I said, there are some people that don't flinch at these choices; good for them. It is, afer all, a matter of personal choice.
Now, in all fairness, I have NEVER seen or heard of a Dmax failure due to the use of Amsoil, so this probably is an academic debate and not one that will ever manifest itself in the demise of an engine. I believe Amsoil to be a reputable brand line, and they are capable products that I have recommended to friends at times. I just believe that the specific combination of certain products (Amsoil, RL, RP, etc) and a Dmax engine are not the "best" choice for me. Anyone that chooses to use Amsoil in a Dmax is not making a "bad" decision. But they should make that decision with the full knowledge of what they are gaining, and giving up, when making that choice.
No, the bypass won't catch all this stuff right away. Two reasons why:
1) bypass filters only see perhaps 10% of the total flow for each "cycle" of the sump. That means 9 out of 10 times, all that residual Cu is going past the bypass filter (not through it, but physically never entering it, staying in the "main" flow stream and not entering the "bypass" stream). IOW, 90% of the time, any particle will evade the bypass filter element completely.
2) bypass filters, while very efficient, are not 100% efficient. The smaller the particle, the more likely it will pass through the bypass element, perhaps one or two times? A particle 4um in size is likely to be caught the first time around; a 1um particle will probably not be initially caught. It does not really matter though, because most particles smaller than 5um really don't do much, if any, damage. However ...
If the concentration is high, there is debate about whether it becomes abrasive; I, for one, believe this is possible. Blackstone has made comments to this very topic about it being abrasive. It is not unheard of to see elevated Fe at times (but not always) in conjunction with the elevated Cu. But to be fair to Amsoil, you have to look at the exposure duration (the OCI) to see how much may be attributed to simple expected wear, and how much might be abrasive. Fe will naturally accumulate with longer OCIs, so who really knows how much is "normal" wear and how much is "chemical" wear. To be blunt, no one, including myself, can pin it down.
I do not agree that high TBN could be a cause; it does not explain why dino oils don't see this phenomenon, and yet essentially they have TBN as high as Amsoil. To this end, I don't think this is a reasonable explanation. Plus, there are still CI-4 and CI-4+ products out there being used, and they have TBN nearing 14 at times. To be generic, this does not happen with the dino oils. Therefore, we can eliminate TBN as the sole cause. High TBN is not unique to Amsoil (or RL, RP, etc). It has always been "normal" to see a bit of Cu shed in a new Dmax engine. Let me quantify that statement; "new" being around 20k miles or less, and "a bit" being 100ppm of Cu or less. And if you use a dino oil, that quickly subsides. But there are times when the use of Amsoil and some other high end PAO products will make the Cu elevate significantly; 300ppm, 450ppm, 600ppm are not unheard of, and I saw one UOA with Cu approaching 1000ppm!
I, for one, do not want to experience this phenomenon in my Dmax. I cannot prove that the massive amounts of Cu are destructive, but I don't see the sense in taking a chance. Further, the real issue is that as long as this phenomenon is happening, it will skew and mask the Cu from other potential problems, as seen in a UOA. The volume (quantity) level will be so high that you'll not be able to distinguish other events, should they occur. If one were to use Amsoil, and see elevated Cu and perhaps Fe, then you've experienced an un-natural shift in some of your data; you're experiencing a 50% reduction of credible information in the main wear metals of a UOA (those being Cu, Fe, Al, Pb). Some people would say that as long as the Cu and Fe are not accompanied by Pb or Al, or perhaps Tn, that all is well. But I would counter with this concept; if you're going to ignore Cu and Fe, then why have them in the test at all? If you are saying that I can ignore Cu and Fe as long as Pb and Al and Tn are not present, then why would we EVER look at them? Why not just ONLY track Pb and Al and perhaps Tn? I'll tell you why; because Pb and Al and Tn are not EXCLUSIVE to wear. Cu and Fe are also tell-tale elements to wear, and when you mask or un-naturally alter their occurence rate, you are seeing skewed data that can mask information from other bad events. If this "ignore the Cu and Fe" argument were true, then why do Oil Analyzers, Blackstone, Cat, and all the other analysis services actually test for Cu and Fe? Does the following statement really make sense?: "Well, you can ignore Cu and Fe while this phenomenon is occuring, because Pb and Al and Tn will really tell you if wear is occuring. But after the phenomenon subsides, it's really important to track Cu and Fe." Where is the logic to that statement? Look, at its base, you either are going to trust the WHOLE UOA to tell you that things are are OK or not OK, or you're admitting that you're going to selectivly pick and choose what you want to hear from the UOA. I am not saying that using Amsoil will result in destructive wear that will send the engine to an early grave. I am saying that often (but not always) using these types of products will grossly skew your UOA data, and it is a false pretense to simply ignore some data because it doesn't fall neatly into your expectations of UOA results. I cannot assure you that this will result in true damage, but I CAN assure you that if this phenomenon does occur, you have much lower chance of spotting a possible problem because the data is so greatly skewed that you'll never see it coming. If we could rely SOLELY on Pb and Al and Tn, then we'd NEVER test for Cu and Fe, would we?
Further, let's presume you are willing to experience this phenomenon and progress through it; I don't see any evidence of Dmax engines dying from the use of Amsoil. You will need to cycle a few OCIs through the engine with Amsoil to make the phenomenon go away; it needs time to normalize. You have two choices:
1) use Amsoil to it's full potential; perhaps two 25k mile OCI cycles. That's 50k miles of skewed data. How many years would it take you to let this issue expire? For me, personally, it would take SEVEN years (7k miles annually over 7 years). Even if you drove 25k miles a year, it would be TWO YEARS before the phenomenon would likley diminish to a point where "normal" results were possible.
2) use Amsoil, but do so with "flush" cycles. Perhaps two or three OCIs only 3k miles apart. That is REALLY expensive "normalization" if you ask me.
So, you either have to wait a LONG time for this to go away, or you have to pay through the nose to "flush" this away. I don't see any alternative to these two options. Wow - to me, neither of these are attractive options. But like I said, there are some people that don't flinch at these choices; good for them. It is, afer all, a matter of personal choice.
Now, in all fairness, I have NEVER seen or heard of a Dmax failure due to the use of Amsoil, so this probably is an academic debate and not one that will ever manifest itself in the demise of an engine. I believe Amsoil to be a reputable brand line, and they are capable products that I have recommended to friends at times. I just believe that the specific combination of certain products (Amsoil, RL, RP, etc) and a Dmax engine are not the "best" choice for me. Anyone that chooses to use Amsoil in a Dmax is not making a "bad" decision. But they should make that decision with the full knowledge of what they are gaining, and giving up, when making that choice.
Last edited:
dnewton do you have a favorite oil for that application? Seems pointless to try Amsoil, RL, RP, in that application. To many maybe's, and what ifs for me. My brother is looking at a D-Max equipt PU to haul his boat. Good info thanks!
dnewton3
Staff member
Yes, and no. My personal "favorite" HDEO is the dino that is on sale, because for my application, synthetics don't pay off, and all the quality brand names have shown excellent UOAs in the Dmax. I have been happy to use 10w-30 Rotella many times, because I enjoy the easier starting in winter, and my UOAs show outstanding protection during summer hauling. I've used Delvac 1300, Rotella, and Tection Extra. All have served with aplomb. I would use VPB and LLG with no reservations. Basically, I don't think you can make a bad decision with today's brand name HDEOs.
OTOH, if I were to greatly and significantly extend my OCI (via high annual mileage), I would have interest in the use of synthetics and probably bypass filtration, and Amsoil would be very worthy of consideration. But I would struggle how to get through that "normalization" period and not drive myself nuts (which, depending upon who you ask, may not be a long trip ...
) I would not call it "pointless" to try sythetics. But there are both risks and rewards to nearly every endeavor in life. I simply see the Amsoil/Dmax match-up hard to justify; some people don't.
It's a matter of matching up your useage factors, your maintenance plan, and your lube choice. If your brother is going to do no more than 10k mile OCIs (or follow the OLM, or once-a-year OCI, whichever comes first), I suspect he'd never make synthetics pay off, and endure some difficult UOAs along the way.
OTOH, if I were to greatly and significantly extend my OCI (via high annual mileage), I would have interest in the use of synthetics and probably bypass filtration, and Amsoil would be very worthy of consideration. But I would struggle how to get through that "normalization" period and not drive myself nuts (which, depending upon who you ask, may not be a long trip ...
It's a matter of matching up your useage factors, your maintenance plan, and your lube choice. If your brother is going to do no more than 10k mile OCIs (or follow the OLM, or once-a-year OCI, whichever comes first), I suspect he'd never make synthetics pay off, and endure some difficult UOAs along the way.
Last edited:
Thanks for the info. My brother likes getting his hands dirty, and saving money. For the amount of driving he'd be doing dino would be the way to go. Just knowing about the potential/possible copper issue would probably drive him nuts.
dnewton3
Staff member
Right on topic of this thread, but in the opposite direction, is this post over at dieselplace.com:
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=377833&page=2
This is a stellar example of how good Amsoil AME can be. This guy has run 40k miles on one load of AME (and continues on that load currently) with only EaO filter changes. The wear and other numbers are simply outstanding. He UOAs every 10k miles or so for confirmation. One significant contributing factor to this particular success story is the high annual mileage accumlation; this guys drives a lot!
This is proof that at times Amsoil is an excellent choice, even in a Dmax. But the problem for many (including me) is the complete unpredictability and severity of the Dmax/Amsoil relationship. We cannot tell you why this engine didn't react adversely, when so many do.
This is why I say the topic of conventional oils versus syn's is not about which is "best", but which lasts longer. If you cannot, or will not, keep your hands off the wrenches, then no synthetic is going to pay off. And it is only confounded if the oil/engine relationship is marred by heavily skewed data!
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/showthread.php?t=377833&page=2
This is a stellar example of how good Amsoil AME can be. This guy has run 40k miles on one load of AME (and continues on that load currently) with only EaO filter changes. The wear and other numbers are simply outstanding. He UOAs every 10k miles or so for confirmation. One significant contributing factor to this particular success story is the high annual mileage accumlation; this guys drives a lot!
This is proof that at times Amsoil is an excellent choice, even in a Dmax. But the problem for many (including me) is the complete unpredictability and severity of the Dmax/Amsoil relationship. We cannot tell you why this engine didn't react adversely, when so many do.
This is why I say the topic of conventional oils versus syn's is not about which is "best", but which lasts longer. If you cannot, or will not, keep your hands off the wrenches, then no synthetic is going to pay off. And it is only confounded if the oil/engine relationship is marred by heavily skewed data!
Last edited:
The reason one oil with high TBN will attack copper, and another oil with high TBN will not attack copper is that there is more going on. If an oil with high TBN has other additives that prevent the copper form being attacked then the copper will not react.
When heat powered refrigeration systems that have problems with copper require protection, additives are used to protect the copper. In the past chromium was used, but it is toxic, and not used much today. Molybdenum in the form of a molybdate, such as lithium molybdate is one of the additives used today.
Again, the base PH of a high TBN is what will attack copper, but that reaction may be blocked by other things that are going on, such as other additives.
When heat powered refrigeration systems that have problems with copper require protection, additives are used to protect the copper. In the past chromium was used, but it is toxic, and not used much today. Molybdenum in the form of a molybdate, such as lithium molybdate is one of the additives used today.
Again, the base PH of a high TBN is what will attack copper, but that reaction may be blocked by other things that are going on, such as other additives.
dnewton3
Staff member
OK - I'm not a chemist, so I'll take your word and experience as good for now. Please believe that I'm not trying to stir the pot; I'm trying to understand.
However, regarding your above post, would that not fundementally mean that one of two things (or both) is occuring:
1) dino oils have some "extra" additive that the PAOs don't use, negating this high Cu reaction
2) Amsoil (and others) are not adding in some component that would avert this reaction
Seems to me to be counter-intuative that the lesser expenseive dino oils acutally use an additive that the more expense products do not, will not, or cannot use.
In fact, your very statement " ... one oil with high TBN will attack copper, and another oil with high TBN will not attack copper ..." would seem to indicate that TBN would cause ALL oils to react to Cu, and ONLY the presence of some outside influence will intervene to stop this reaction, would it not? However, TBN is present in nearly ALL lubes. So, why do gasser engines that have Cu-brazed oil coolers using PCMOs not experience this phenomenon? PCMOs still have TBN; some of them quite high. Mobil's Clean 5000 has a TBN around 9.0, and today's CJ-4 HDEOs have TBN around 10.0; that simply is not near enough difference to account for the HUGE disparity we see at times in Amsoil/Dmax Cu reactions. Are you saying that the lowly dino PCMO has more ability to avert the Cu reaction than does a high end HDEO PAO? That just does not make sense in my book. But like I said, I'm not a chemist, so perhaps you can educate me.
I do understand when you say TBN will attack Cu. What I find hard to fathom is that low dollar conventional oils have more ability to fight this reaction than do some high end PAOs. If Amsoil could make this go away, I would think that they'd do it already. Perhaps the chemistry is such that the lubes simply cannot be all things at once; they cannot have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps Amsoil is preferring other traits, requireing different additives, and simply acquiesces to the Cu reaction, choosing it as the lesser of some list of evils?
However, regarding your above post, would that not fundementally mean that one of two things (or both) is occuring:
1) dino oils have some "extra" additive that the PAOs don't use, negating this high Cu reaction
2) Amsoil (and others) are not adding in some component that would avert this reaction
Seems to me to be counter-intuative that the lesser expenseive dino oils acutally use an additive that the more expense products do not, will not, or cannot use.
In fact, your very statement " ... one oil with high TBN will attack copper, and another oil with high TBN will not attack copper ..." would seem to indicate that TBN would cause ALL oils to react to Cu, and ONLY the presence of some outside influence will intervene to stop this reaction, would it not? However, TBN is present in nearly ALL lubes. So, why do gasser engines that have Cu-brazed oil coolers using PCMOs not experience this phenomenon? PCMOs still have TBN; some of them quite high. Mobil's Clean 5000 has a TBN around 9.0, and today's CJ-4 HDEOs have TBN around 10.0; that simply is not near enough difference to account for the HUGE disparity we see at times in Amsoil/Dmax Cu reactions. Are you saying that the lowly dino PCMO has more ability to avert the Cu reaction than does a high end HDEO PAO? That just does not make sense in my book. But like I said, I'm not a chemist, so perhaps you can educate me.
I do understand when you say TBN will attack Cu. What I find hard to fathom is that low dollar conventional oils have more ability to fight this reaction than do some high end PAOs. If Amsoil could make this go away, I would think that they'd do it already. Perhaps the chemistry is such that the lubes simply cannot be all things at once; they cannot have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps Amsoil is preferring other traits, requireing different additives, and simply acquiesces to the Cu reaction, choosing it as the lesser of some list of evils?
Last edited:
My semi-educated guess is that amines in the more expensive oil additive packages chelate copper. I have mentioned this before when telling folks the copper is in solution (not hunks of copper) , but received little discussion. These amines are in the oil for oxidation resistance/cleaning/detergents/TBN retention. Amsoil does have the magic blocker, just in lower doses - and/so it takes longer (or several oil changes) to build a protective layer. This fits the UOA observations.
Originally Posted By: JimPghPA
The reason one oil with high TBN will attack copper, and another oil with high TBN will not attack copper is that there is more going on. If an oil with high TBN has other additives that prevent the copper form being attacked then the copper will not react.
When heat powered refrigeration systems that have problems with copper require protection, additives are used to protect the copper. In the past chromium was used, but it is toxic, and not used much today. Molybdenum in the form of a molybdate, such as lithium molybdate is one of the additives used today.
Again, the base PH of a high TBN is what will attack copper, but that reaction may be blocked by other things that are going on, such as other additives.
I'm also trying to understand this, so these my questions and thoughts and nothing more. If a chemical like Molybdenum in the form of molubdate was added then the copper levels should in theory drop? Instantly not over a period of time? I'd be afraid tracking cu levels over several OCI's and thousands of miles "hoping" the level drop, and "hoping" I'm not causing damage to any copper components inside my expensive diesel engine. JMO
The reason one oil with high TBN will attack copper, and another oil with high TBN will not attack copper is that there is more going on. If an oil with high TBN has other additives that prevent the copper form being attacked then the copper will not react.
When heat powered refrigeration systems that have problems with copper require protection, additives are used to protect the copper. In the past chromium was used, but it is toxic, and not used much today. Molybdenum in the form of a molybdate, such as lithium molybdate is one of the additives used today.
Again, the base PH of a high TBN is what will attack copper, but that reaction may be blocked by other things that are going on, such as other additives.
I'm also trying to understand this, so these my questions and thoughts and nothing more. If a chemical like Molybdenum in the form of molubdate was added then the copper levels should in theory drop? Instantly not over a period of time? I'd be afraid tracking cu levels over several OCI's and thousands of miles "hoping" the level drop, and "hoping" I'm not causing damage to any copper components inside my expensive diesel engine. JMO
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Pablo
My semi-educated guess is that amines in the more expensive oil additive packages chelate copper. I have mentioned this before when telling folks the copper is in solution (not hunks of copper) , but received little discussion. These amines are in the oil for oxidation resistance/cleaning/detergents/TBN retention. Amsoil does have the magic blocker, just in lower doses - and/so it takes longer (or several oil changes) to build a protective layer. This fits the UOA observations.
Plausible, and likely credible. Makes some sense to me, but I still have questions.
I wonder (not poking at you, Pablo, but simply curious) how much "solution" we could ever see, though, in a UOA. Are you contending that the Cu solution is small enough that it's sub-micron? Spectral analysis is typically limited to around 1-5um visible range; anything smaller or larger isn't picked up. So while I can certainly see merit in your explanation, it doesn't speak to the whole story. There is at least some Cu that is of a statistically viable size, and when the concentration approaches some really high magnitudes in the UOA (300ppm, 500ppm and on up), it makes me wonder what else is floating around that the UOA can't see.
If your explantion is that the Cu is "solution", what size are you inferring? If your explanation of "solution" is based upon sub-micron particles, then we can't accept that as the "whole" explanation because the UOA only sees 1-5um in size. If the amines cause the sub-micron solution, what causes the 1-5um stuff? Simply put, your explanation might tell of part of the circumstances, but not the ones we're able to see via UOA results.
All we know is what we see in the UOA, and that is 1-5um in size. I agree that there could be more, both larger and smaller that what the UOA picks up. But that would only add to the Cu count, not detract from it. I think what you're trying to suggest is that the concentration is high in magnitude, but small in size, is it not? That's what I find plausible, at least at this point. But for the UOA to see it at all, it must be 1-5um in size. That leaves a pretty big "unknown" out there for larger chunks. Smaller stuff, admittedly, probably has little impact, if even in high quantity.
We know two things for sure:
1) we know the existence of what we can see ("xxx" ppm in the 1-5um range)
2) we know that we can't see anything larger or smaller, and there is great likelyhood that other particles exist, but as the size ranges grow, our confidence of "known" statment shrinks at roughly the same rate ("we know that we don't know what we can't know ...
") >>> (forgive me for going knee deep into the philosophical manure).
I want to be sure to state that I'm not aggitating you Pab's; you likely have at least part of the explanation formulated. I'm just not convinced it's the whole explanation.
My semi-educated guess is that amines in the more expensive oil additive packages chelate copper. I have mentioned this before when telling folks the copper is in solution (not hunks of copper) , but received little discussion. These amines are in the oil for oxidation resistance/cleaning/detergents/TBN retention. Amsoil does have the magic blocker, just in lower doses - and/so it takes longer (or several oil changes) to build a protective layer. This fits the UOA observations.
Plausible, and likely credible. Makes some sense to me, but I still have questions.
I wonder (not poking at you, Pablo, but simply curious) how much "solution" we could ever see, though, in a UOA. Are you contending that the Cu solution is small enough that it's sub-micron? Spectral analysis is typically limited to around 1-5um visible range; anything smaller or larger isn't picked up. So while I can certainly see merit in your explanation, it doesn't speak to the whole story. There is at least some Cu that is of a statistically viable size, and when the concentration approaches some really high magnitudes in the UOA (300ppm, 500ppm and on up), it makes me wonder what else is floating around that the UOA can't see.
If your explantion is that the Cu is "solution", what size are you inferring? If your explanation of "solution" is based upon sub-micron particles, then we can't accept that as the "whole" explanation because the UOA only sees 1-5um in size. If the amines cause the sub-micron solution, what causes the 1-5um stuff? Simply put, your explanation might tell of part of the circumstances, but not the ones we're able to see via UOA results.
All we know is what we see in the UOA, and that is 1-5um in size. I agree that there could be more, both larger and smaller that what the UOA picks up. But that would only add to the Cu count, not detract from it. I think what you're trying to suggest is that the concentration is high in magnitude, but small in size, is it not? That's what I find plausible, at least at this point. But for the UOA to see it at all, it must be 1-5um in size. That leaves a pretty big "unknown" out there for larger chunks. Smaller stuff, admittedly, probably has little impact, if even in high quantity.
We know two things for sure:
1) we know the existence of what we can see ("xxx" ppm in the 1-5um range)
2) we know that we can't see anything larger or smaller, and there is great likelyhood that other particles exist, but as the size ranges grow, our confidence of "known" statment shrinks at roughly the same rate ("we know that we don't know what we can't know ...
I want to be sure to state that I'm not aggitating you Pab's; you likely have at least part of the explanation formulated. I'm just not convinced it's the whole explanation.
Last edited:
Well I might as well throw my horseshoe into the ring on this one, and I am not poking at any product or poster.
While I agree with most of what dnewton has posted, lets just focus on what a UOA can see and not what may or may not be in the oil at the time of the sample. I use UOA's as a preventitive maintainence tool in several different engines, I am by no means trying to extend oci's.
Now if one of my UOA's came back with elevated numbers in copper, lead or any other metal after I made a switch in lube, knowing what I know, there is no way I would "wait it out" for numbers to come down.
The whole purpose of a UOA, atleast in my situation, is to trend results. If numbers have risen and, hopefully, they are lube related and not engine component failure, how is one to know?
After over 20 years of submittimg and reading UOA's I am not buying into the "its not doing any damage" line from anyone
While I agree with most of what dnewton has posted, lets just focus on what a UOA can see and not what may or may not be in the oil at the time of the sample. I use UOA's as a preventitive maintainence tool in several different engines, I am by no means trying to extend oci's.
Now if one of my UOA's came back with elevated numbers in copper, lead or any other metal after I made a switch in lube, knowing what I know, there is no way I would "wait it out" for numbers to come down.
The whole purpose of a UOA, atleast in my situation, is to trend results. If numbers have risen and, hopefully, they are lube related and not engine component failure, how is one to know?
After over 20 years of submittimg and reading UOA's I am not buying into the "its not doing any damage" line from anyone
Originally Posted By: roadrunner1
Now if one of my UOA's came back with elevated numbers in copper, lead or any other metal after I made a switch in lube, knowing what I know, there is no way I would "wait it out" for numbers to come down.
The whole purpose of a UOA, atleast in my situation, is to trend results. If numbers have risen and, hopefully, they are lube related and not engine component failure, how is one to know?
After over 20 years of submittimg and reading UOA's I am not buying into the "its not doing any damage" line from anyone
I have to agree, engines are expensive, tearing into one to confirm or deny a UOA report is costly too. I'd stick with the oil that was working best before the change and not wait it out hoping. JMO
Now if one of my UOA's came back with elevated numbers in copper, lead or any other metal after I made a switch in lube, knowing what I know, there is no way I would "wait it out" for numbers to come down.
The whole purpose of a UOA, atleast in my situation, is to trend results. If numbers have risen and, hopefully, they are lube related and not engine component failure, how is one to know?
After over 20 years of submittimg and reading UOA's I am not buying into the "its not doing any damage" line from anyone
I have to agree, engines are expensive, tearing into one to confirm or deny a UOA report is costly too. I'd stick with the oil that was working best before the change and not wait it out hoping. JMO
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Plausible, and likely credible. Makes some sense to me, but I still have questions.
I wonder (not poking at you, Pablo, but simply curious) how much "solution" we could ever see, though, in a UOA. Are you contending that the Cu solution is small enough that it's sub-micron? Spectral analysis is typically limited to around 1-5um visible range; anything smaller or larger isn't picked up. So while I can certainly see merit in your explanation, it doesn't speak to the whole story. There is at least some Cu that is of a statistically viable size, and when the concentration approaches some really high magnitudes in the UOA (300ppm, 500ppm and on up), it makes me wonder what else is floating around that the UOA can't see.
If your explantion is that the Cu is "solution", what size are you inferring? If your explanation of "solution" is based upon sub-micron particles, then we can't accept that as the "whole" explanation because the UOA only sees 1-5um in size. If the amines cause the sub-micron solution, what causes the 1-5um stuff? Simply put, your explanation might tell of part of the circumstances, but not the ones we're able to see via UOA results.
All we know is what we see in the UOA, and that is 1-5um in size. I agree that there could be more, both larger and smaller that what the UOA picks up. But that would only add to the Cu count, not detract from it. I think what you're trying to suggest is that the concentration is high in magnitude, but small in size, is it not? That's what I find plausible, at least at this point. But for the UOA to see it at all, it must be 1-5um in size. That leaves a pretty big "unknown" out there for larger chunks. Smaller stuff, admittedly, probably has little impact, if even in high quantity.
We know two things for sure:
1) we know the existence of what we can see ("xxx" ppm in the 1-5um range)
2) we know that we can't see anything larger or smaller, and there is great likelyhood that other particles exist, but as the size ranges grow, our confidence of "known" statment shrinks at roughly the same rate ("we know that we don't know what we can't know ...
") >>> (forgive me for going knee deep into the philosophical manure).
I want to be sure to state that I'm not aggitating you Pab's; you likely have at least part of the explanation formulated. I'm just not convinced it's the whole explanation.
Ummmm.....I think there is a little error. Look up the definition of chelate, solution, and spectral analysis.
Absolutely it's submicron. I've been saying the metal is in solution many times. I've suggested chelation many times. Spectral analysis of metals in solution is not size dependent on the small side. A metal or rather a organo metal complex in true solution will be detected. Why would it not? Why limited to 1 um? Is not ZDDP detected in a UOA?
You aren't agitating me in the least, but the name IS Pablo or Paul.
Plausible, and likely credible. Makes some sense to me, but I still have questions.
I wonder (not poking at you, Pablo, but simply curious) how much "solution" we could ever see, though, in a UOA. Are you contending that the Cu solution is small enough that it's sub-micron? Spectral analysis is typically limited to around 1-5um visible range; anything smaller or larger isn't picked up. So while I can certainly see merit in your explanation, it doesn't speak to the whole story. There is at least some Cu that is of a statistically viable size, and when the concentration approaches some really high magnitudes in the UOA (300ppm, 500ppm and on up), it makes me wonder what else is floating around that the UOA can't see.
If your explantion is that the Cu is "solution", what size are you inferring? If your explanation of "solution" is based upon sub-micron particles, then we can't accept that as the "whole" explanation because the UOA only sees 1-5um in size. If the amines cause the sub-micron solution, what causes the 1-5um stuff? Simply put, your explanation might tell of part of the circumstances, but not the ones we're able to see via UOA results.
All we know is what we see in the UOA, and that is 1-5um in size. I agree that there could be more, both larger and smaller that what the UOA picks up. But that would only add to the Cu count, not detract from it. I think what you're trying to suggest is that the concentration is high in magnitude, but small in size, is it not? That's what I find plausible, at least at this point. But for the UOA to see it at all, it must be 1-5um in size. That leaves a pretty big "unknown" out there for larger chunks. Smaller stuff, admittedly, probably has little impact, if even in high quantity.
We know two things for sure:
1) we know the existence of what we can see ("xxx" ppm in the 1-5um range)
2) we know that we can't see anything larger or smaller, and there is great likelyhood that other particles exist, but as the size ranges grow, our confidence of "known" statment shrinks at roughly the same rate ("we know that we don't know what we can't know ...
I want to be sure to state that I'm not aggitating you Pab's; you likely have at least part of the explanation formulated. I'm just not convinced it's the whole explanation.
Ummmm.....I think there is a little error. Look up the definition of chelate, solution, and spectral analysis.
Absolutely it's submicron. I've been saying the metal is in solution many times. I've suggested chelation many times. Spectral analysis of metals in solution is not size dependent on the small side. A metal or rather a organo metal complex in true solution will be detected. Why would it not? Why limited to 1 um? Is not ZDDP detected in a UOA?
You aren't agitating me in the least, but the name IS Pablo or Paul.
dnewton3
Staff member
Well - I don't know that I can concur about the spectral analysis. As much research as I've done, it does have both an upper and lower limit in its ability to see things. I've talked with people at other labs, and the lab at my current place of employment. Depending upon the equipment, approximately 1um (give or take a bit) is the lower limit for most commercial spectral analysis. It's not a hard cut off, but it's ability is fading at that point.
As for the "in solution" comment, I had to ask because that is a fairly vague statement. A five pound chunck of granit could be considered "in solution" in a 55 gallon drum of water. There is no clear, definitive answer to the term "solution"; it depends upon the industry referred and people involved. Any element or compound that is immersed into liquid has the ability to be in solution. The key is at what level you want to define the transfer of delineation. Only when one element or compound actually joins with another, to form a different compound or element, can one truly say it has fully disolved into another. That is why I querried about your definition of the term. Sub-micron it is, then.
Still, when 500ppm of Cu "in small solution" is floating around, it still skews the UOA results, and masks other potential undesirable events, does it not? So I still see only two options for getting past this chemical reaction; wait it out for a long time, or pour it out at a great expense.
My apology for not calling you by your desired name. Have a good day, Pablo.
As for the "in solution" comment, I had to ask because that is a fairly vague statement. A five pound chunck of granit could be considered "in solution" in a 55 gallon drum of water. There is no clear, definitive answer to the term "solution"; it depends upon the industry referred and people involved. Any element or compound that is immersed into liquid has the ability to be in solution. The key is at what level you want to define the transfer of delineation. Only when one element or compound actually joins with another, to form a different compound or element, can one truly say it has fully disolved into another. That is why I querried about your definition of the term. Sub-micron it is, then.
Still, when 500ppm of Cu "in small solution" is floating around, it still skews the UOA results, and masks other potential undesirable events, does it not? So I still see only two options for getting past this chemical reaction; wait it out for a long time, or pour it out at a great expense.
My apology for not calling you by your desired name. Have a good day, Pablo.
I think we best get an authoritative answer on spectral analysis! I googled it and found no solid answer. Please cite a source for the 1 um.
Plus - when I say in solution, I mean in the strictest sense of solution and you just nailed it.
Quote:
Only when one element or compound actually joins with another, to form a different compound or element, can one truly say it has fully disolved into another.
That is exactly what I'm saying when I use the word chelate. The amines form an organo-metallic compound. Think of blood carrying Fe, or in some animals, the blood carries copper.
Plus - when I say in solution, I mean in the strictest sense of solution and you just nailed it.
Quote:
Only when one element or compound actually joins with another, to form a different compound or element, can one truly say it has fully disolved into another.
That is exactly what I'm saying when I use the word chelate. The amines form an organo-metallic compound. Think of blood carrying Fe, or in some animals, the blood carries copper.
Almost forgot - when do you want to go hog hunting?
Where exactly is the copper coming from then? Example if with oil A. Copper= 10ppm, and oil B. Copper= 200ppm? What value if any did the UOA reports have with regard to copper? No flaming, I'm trying to learn. IMO less is always better unless there is a scientific factual reason, and not opinion as to why.
- Status
Similar threads
