2010FX4 and I had a chance to collaborate in an experiment that highlights the differences in two types of contamination analysis, namely an optical particle count and pore blockage, which is sometimes called a "particle count" but really isn't. Both methods are valid and have a place, so the idea here is not to diss one and praise the other but to show that they can't be easily or accurately compared. Perhaps this comparison will allow us to contrast them a little better, giving us some "offsets" to keep in mind when we look at these the results of two methods.
2010FX4 recently posted virgin “particle counts” of two oils he was analyzing for possible future use; Pennzoil Ultra 5W20 SM and Mobil 500 Super 5W20 SN. He had them tested at Blackstone, who use a Rockwell Automation Digital Contam-Alert tester, which is a pore blockage tester. Basically, the oil is filtered thru a screen and the restriction measured against a perfectly clean screen calibrated with a test fluid. The tester is attached to a computer and it interpolates the restriction and produces an ISO code and averaged particle count ranges. The pore blockage method is widely used and with very dark oil that makes optical counts impossible, it a very viable method. It’s useful for comparison purposes… before and after... or for maintenance. The pore screens used are often 10um in size so they are most accurate above 10 microns.
I convinced 2010FX4 to send me more samples of oil from the same bottles he had used for the pore blockage test samples. I sent them to a place that uses a SpectroLNS Q-200 Particle Counter, optical type. This tester counts the particles optically, even photographs them for a map of particle types, and delivers both an ISO code and a particle count. A computer then takes the results and presents them in ISO 4406, NAS 1630 and NAVAIR 01-1A-17 formats. We use the ISO 4406, which is commonly used in the automotive realms. I'll let you research ISO 4406 codes and how to interpret them There's plenty on the net.
As you will see below, the differences are stark. The optical numbers for the virgin oils are more in line with other virgin particle count tests I've found of new oil and when I saw 2010FX4's pore blockage tests, they really jumped out at me. Either I was using the world's dirtiest oil, the oils he tested were significantly cleaner than anything I had records on, or something was being lost in the translation between the two methods. Turns out to be the latter
As I said, I see value in the pore tests in that you can do before and after tests. It doesn't necessarily give you universally accurate numbers, but it will give you numbers you can work with and percentages with which to analyze what's going on. When you have really opaque oil, the optical testers are your only choice, really.
Below are the comparisons in counts per ml:
Code:
Mobil 5000 Super 5W20 SN (virgin)
Pore Blockage Optical
ISO 14/13/12 ISO 20/18/14
> 2um- 232 > 4um- 6076
> 5um- 86 > 6um- 1983
> 10um- 24 > 14um- 138
> 15um- 9
> 25um- 2
> 50um- 0
> 100um- 0
Pennzoil Ultra 5W20 SM (virgin)
Pore Blockage Optical
ISO 16/15/12 ISO 22/20/16
> 2um- 736 > 4um- 27,880
> 5um- 272 > 6um- 9270
>10um- 76 > 14um- 446
>15um- 29
> 25um- 6
> 50um- 0
> 100um- 0
2010FX4 recently posted virgin “particle counts” of two oils he was analyzing for possible future use; Pennzoil Ultra 5W20 SM and Mobil 500 Super 5W20 SN. He had them tested at Blackstone, who use a Rockwell Automation Digital Contam-Alert tester, which is a pore blockage tester. Basically, the oil is filtered thru a screen and the restriction measured against a perfectly clean screen calibrated with a test fluid. The tester is attached to a computer and it interpolates the restriction and produces an ISO code and averaged particle count ranges. The pore blockage method is widely used and with very dark oil that makes optical counts impossible, it a very viable method. It’s useful for comparison purposes… before and after... or for maintenance. The pore screens used are often 10um in size so they are most accurate above 10 microns.
I convinced 2010FX4 to send me more samples of oil from the same bottles he had used for the pore blockage test samples. I sent them to a place that uses a SpectroLNS Q-200 Particle Counter, optical type. This tester counts the particles optically, even photographs them for a map of particle types, and delivers both an ISO code and a particle count. A computer then takes the results and presents them in ISO 4406, NAS 1630 and NAVAIR 01-1A-17 formats. We use the ISO 4406, which is commonly used in the automotive realms. I'll let you research ISO 4406 codes and how to interpret them There's plenty on the net.
As you will see below, the differences are stark. The optical numbers for the virgin oils are more in line with other virgin particle count tests I've found of new oil and when I saw 2010FX4's pore blockage tests, they really jumped out at me. Either I was using the world's dirtiest oil, the oils he tested were significantly cleaner than anything I had records on, or something was being lost in the translation between the two methods. Turns out to be the latter
As I said, I see value in the pore tests in that you can do before and after tests. It doesn't necessarily give you universally accurate numbers, but it will give you numbers you can work with and percentages with which to analyze what's going on. When you have really opaque oil, the optical testers are your only choice, really.
Below are the comparisons in counts per ml:
Code:
Mobil 5000 Super 5W20 SN (virgin)
Pore Blockage Optical
ISO 14/13/12 ISO 20/18/14
> 2um- 232 > 4um- 6076
> 5um- 86 > 6um- 1983
> 10um- 24 > 14um- 138
> 15um- 9
> 25um- 2
> 50um- 0
> 100um- 0
Pennzoil Ultra 5W20 SM (virgin)
Pore Blockage Optical
ISO 16/15/12 ISO 22/20/16
> 2um- 736 > 4um- 27,880
> 5um- 272 > 6um- 9270
>10um- 76 > 14um- 446
>15um- 29
> 25um- 6
> 50um- 0
> 100um- 0