B50 Particle Count Results!

[SteveD2]

Ohhhhhhhhhh...I thought NP = not possible!!! You can laugh at me...it was a long day...

But as I said, regardless of whether the method specs a particular SOP, the instrument and operator can still have a "bad day"...you cannot base the efficiency on a single sample. I would be interested to see a second and third sample (and I hope they are just as good), but until all human error is removed, one sample doesn't really say much to me.

And just so you understand where I'm coming from, I have personally collected, submitted for analysis, and then scrutinized the results for more than 500,000 samples (and that's a single job).

You would be amazed at the kind of problems a lab can have and the amount of garbage data they will put on paper. And they have a lot higher accreditations to achieve than our UOA labs probably do...just food for thought, it happens.

steved

 

[Gary Allan]

I've never been a lab tech, but submitted enough samples to our own internal environmental dept lab (chemical dye plant). We had 1ppm limits on our effluent discharge to the river for Cu and 1ppm limits for hexavalent chrome in our raw concentrated waste that was dewatered/evaporated and deposited in our on site waste impoundments. So, we maintained a very low noise floor for our needs.

Naturally, this wasn't a situation where someone was continually running 100 samples a day of vastly varied levels. Our well monitoring was conducted by outside contractors ..as was one weekly effluent composite to validate our own daily effluent composite testing (once a month was all that was required).

The only time we had any out of whack issues was when a tech inadvertently "digested" a sample to read total copper when free copper was the desired test.

 

[LuckyDog]

These particle counts for the B50 absolutely show that it is a very efficient, and very cost effective, bypass oil filter. Certainly beats spending over $500 on some of the other bypass filter setups, even if they might prove to be minutely more efficient. Every comparison that I've seen documents a drastic improvement with the B50 over whatever was or was not on their equipment.

 

[okiedokie]

Quote:

---

Every comparison that I've seen documents a drastic improvement with the B50 over whatever was or was not on their equipment.

---

Cite please. I'll believe it when I see it: Before and after B50, same equipment, same operator.

 

[Steve S]

Quote:

---

Show us YOUR numbers from BEFORE installing the Baldwin, or remove it and do a run without it to show YOUR comparison numbers, then we'll talk.

Let's talk science here, not speculation.

---

I have mentioned similar in the Amsoil EAO oil filtering post where George CLs did a run and the method of testing is IMO not the best way. Since we are talking syn, do 10,000 miles with out the bypass draw a sample and test.Then run 2,000 miles draw another sample using the exact as possible way. Then we can talk numbers ,any other way is not really a true test.

 

[md_lucky_13]

If the only way to determine a filter's effectiveness is to take a sample before and after, then why do we have ISO codes?

 

[Gary Allan]

I kinda lean toward 'lucky's notions here. Sure, if you're doing a competition ...you can surely use the before and after method. Clean, however, is clean. You'll see B-S commenting "this is clean for a 40 weight" ...but I haven't see them commenting (yet anyway) "This is clean for 6k miles".

 

[okiedokie]

All engines run a little differently, even the same engines from the same manufacturers run a little differently under different circumstances, environments. Throw in the various oil choices, operator habits, driving conditions, etc. and it is a c,r@p shoot, especially in terms of oil analysis. Even more so when it comes down to particle counts.

Therefore, I tend to lean away from Lucky's notions. His numbers mean nothing unless shown next to the before numbers from the same equipment, under the same conditions.

OWTW c,r@p is not a bad word if you are talking about the game where you shoot craps, just in case the censors are still monitoring me.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, we can disagree here ..at least to some minor degree. Again, in competition of one filtering modality over another, sure. I believe how PC is generally used, you have a standard of cleanliness .typically set forth by the OEM (industrial equipment)..period. Either your filtering system maintains it ..or it doesn't. We're somewhat in a variable environment for contaminant production, but that shouldn't alter what "clean" means. In terms of the filter, there should be a distinct cut off. The smaller the cutoff (particle size-wise) ..the better the filter. Then it's just reduced to holding capacity for sensible length of service.

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I really don't care whether two engines are used or two different filters. It's the cut off level that makes it for me.

When talking particle counts ..read the sticky at the top of the forum.

One filter

.
..
....
.....
...........

another

.
.
.
.
........................

Which one is better? In this situation ..you have no idea what the application was ..and what the duration was. Now there are holes in this view ..but I'd say that, at least at some point, the lower filter was far superior to the upper filter.

---

Hmmm...when would you see the lower PC distribution if your lab uses the pore blockage method with one size membrane and extrapolation, like BlackStone and probably most other labs that are doing $20 UOAs?

 

[Gary Allan]

They would be seeing a lower 10um pore blockage. Now the lower example is unrealistic ..it was just a "what if you saw" ..regardless of the analysis modality. I'd also imagine that B-S would have a hard time using a 10um pore membrane to generate their extrapolated data if there were only

 

[427Z06]

Gary, my question was kinda' rhetorical in nature. My point being that one needs to know the testing procedure beforehand since if a unknown, single size membrane is used to extrapolate data, you won't see the sharp cut-off point in the data as you suggest.

 

[Gary Allan]

Yes, you won't see the "plateau" ..you'll see the peak lowered.

I'd still like to see what the tech does if he/she encounters NO blockage on a 10um membrane. I would imagine that they would have to use the next evolution downward in size ...

 

[427Z06]

Quote:

---

I'd still like to see what the tech does if he/she encounters NO blockage on a 10um membrane. I would imagine that they would have to use the next evolution downward in size ...

---

For a $20 UOA? Hmmm...my guess is that won't put that kind of effort into it. But I surely could be wrong and it might be lab dependent.

 

[Steve S]

We are talking the before and after difference aren't we .

 

[md_lucky_13]

Quote:

---

We are talking the before and after difference aren't we .

---

Well.. No.

At least, some of us are, and some of us are not.

I'm saying that REGARDLESS of engine condition before, after, in China, in Australia, here in the U.S., upside down, right side up, whatever argument that hasn't been made already but may soon be made...

There are ISO codes created to determine if a fluid, either motor oil, hydraulic, gear.. whatever.. is considered clean, average, or dirty. If the fluid is above average on the clean side of the ISO code, the filtration is working. If it is below average, the filtration is failing to work properly..

Here is an explanation of ISO codes from another post:

http://www.machinerylubrication.com/arti...up=Lubrication2


The B50 is going to provide you with an incredibly clean ISO code R-E-G-A-R-D-L-E-S-S OF A-P-P-L-I-C-A-T-I-O-N because it works. I know it works, because I have an ISO code proving it works.

That’s all I'm saying.

 

[okiedokie]

You have an ISO code showing your engine produces certain numbers with your particular combination at this time. Whether it has anything to do with the B50 is anyone's guess.

 

[SteveD2]

Quote:

---

You have an ISO code showing your engine produces certain numbers with your particular combination at this time. Whether it has anything to do with the B50 is anyone's guess.

---

That's sort of what I was initially eluding too...without a before and after, the B50 might be doing absolutely nothing and the engine is just that clean.

steved

 

[md_lucky_13]

So are you really suggesting that a full-flow filter by X brand (I havn't even mentioned which full-flow filter I use....) is filtering to the efficency that the ISO code shows?


Or are you just suggesting that this particular engine is so super clean that no matter what I do, I will always have the same particle counts?



In either case.. I mean, Really?



Can I pull my air filter off and expect the same silicon levels in my analysis because the engine is so super clean too?

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'd still like to see what the tech does if he/she encounters NO blockage on a 10um membrane. I would imagine that they would have to use the next evolution downward in size ...

---

For a $20 UOA? Hmmm...my guess is that won't put that kind of effort into it. But I surely could be wrong and it might be lab dependent.

---

I asked Kristen about this. She referred me to Ryan ..who runs the machine. You may be able to glean something from this email. I can't quite reason the method that this test uses (the plunger and an whatnot). Admittedly, I haven't done my homework on the membrane PC methods (shame on me) ..but ..anyway ....

Gary: Thanks for the e-mail. Kristin passed this on to me because I know the most about our particle count machine. For our machine, as the oil passes through the filter membrane, it pushes up a plunger. The computer reads how high the plunger goes and how fast it moves up. We often run into oils that are so clean the plunger goes all the way to it's stop. In this case, the machine still gives us a particle count reading, and it is almost always clean, giving ISO Cleanliness codes of 11/10/9. That is about the minimum reading you can get for a particle count. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,
Ryan Stark
Blackstone Labs