Noack volatility: New test methods

Status
Not open for further replies.
wink.gif
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Onetor
So it begins.


No, it begins to get especially deep here: As if they didn't already do enough...

I think this is one of the most ludicrous statements I've heard lately. MORE advertising?? As oil specifications continue to evolve, upper limits on common compounds seem to eliminate more and more variation. With SN+, there is nearly zero variation between the major companies, both in formulation and in UOA performance.

I know there ARE some differences, but in reality, they all protect really well. The only real thing one needs to worry about is: is the oil certified, and which one takes the least amount of green out of my pocket? After that, any major oil will easily make it to 300k barring some unrelated mechanical failure or plain stupidity. It's almost boring. JMHO
 
The Selby NOACK, I've posted to a few of Selby's papers before.

The variance with whatever technique is used is still significant.

The important words are

Quote:
In an effort to ake D5800 more useful for licencing and auditing engine oils, the D02B0.07 Bench Test Surveillance Panel implemented a new strategy for LTMS monitoring. Using Exponentially weighted moving averages of monthly calibration runs, instrument that exhibit a consistently severe bias receive a severity adjustment, while inconsistent instruments are excluded from the system. While a common approach in engine testing, this marks the first time this monitoring technique has been applied to bench testing.


It's a precision and bias thing...

Machines that repeatedly give the same answer, but at one end of the spectrum will be given a "handicap"...those that produce random variance of sufficient magnitude get excluded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top