Maybe someone more familiar with this test can weigh in... but isn't it a rather simple test? Just weigh a sample, bring it up to temp for a given period of time and then weigh it again afterwards?
PQIA tests ten 5W-20s - one gets an Advisory
- Thread starter Tom NJ
- Start date
- Status
Yes the NOACK test shouldn't be difficult or require expensive equipment to replicate. All that's required is the following:
An accurate scale.
An accurate high temp' thermometer calibrated to 250C.
A clock.
Should be able to do it easily at home. Of course it probably best to perform when the wife's out of the house for a couple of hours.
An accurate scale.
An accurate high temp' thermometer calibrated to 250C.
A clock.
Should be able to do it easily at home. Of course it probably best to perform when the wife's out of the house for a couple of hours.
I'd imagine the barometric pressure of the ambient air would factor in as well? Not sure how big of an effect that would have, but (as of the days of API SL -- could be less now) the standard deviation in the NOACK test of a given sample is about 0.36 so perhaps it could be well within that?
Originally Posted By: CATERHAM
Yes the NOACK test shouldn't be difficult or require expensive equipment to replicate. All that's required is the following:
An accurate scale.
An accurate high temp' thermometer calibrated to 250C.
A clock.
Should be able to do it easily at home. Of course it probably best to perform when the wife's out of the house for a couple of hours.
Are you sure?
BTW, It's Noack.
Quote:
Test Method
A quantity of 65g of a lubricant is placed in an evaporative crucible and heated to 250°C for 60 minutes. The evaporation loss tendencies of the lubricant are determined by passing a constant air stream over the heated sample by means of a vacuum pump.
Yes the NOACK test shouldn't be difficult or require expensive equipment to replicate. All that's required is the following:
An accurate scale.
An accurate high temp' thermometer calibrated to 250C.
A clock.
Should be able to do it easily at home. Of course it probably best to perform when the wife's out of the house for a couple of hours.
Are you sure?
BTW, It's Noack.
Quote:
Test Method
A quantity of 65g of a lubricant is placed in an evaporative crucible and heated to 250°C for 60 minutes. The evaporation loss tendencies of the lubricant are determined by passing a constant air stream over the heated sample by means of a vacuum pump.
There are three separate procedures (A,B,& C) under ASTM D5800 (Noack Volatility), each run in sophisticated specialized equipment designed to control all variables. Each procedure has its own reproducibility, with Procedure B being the industry standard and having a reproducibility of +- 1.0% per ASTM. PQIA utilizes Procedure B for the oils it tests.
Tom NJ
Tom NJ
Repeatability is key to an ASTM test setup as Tom notes. I have a minor in chemistry, and as part of that I took a fuels & lubricants class along with a lab. We performed a bunch of standard ASTM tests in that lab and the equipment is expensive as I'm sure can be guessed.
You could replicate many of the elements of an ASTM setup at home though, but you would need the details of the test from the actual procedure. Your results wouldn't be directly comparable to results obtained using standard test equipment, but depending on the test you might be in the ballpark. It all depends on what aspects of the test you faithfully replicated and which ones you didn't.
You could replicate many of the elements of an ASTM setup at home though, but you would need the details of the test from the actual procedure. Your results wouldn't be directly comparable to results obtained using standard test equipment, but depending on the test you might be in the ballpark. It all depends on what aspects of the test you faithfully replicated and which ones you didn't.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
PQIA continues its series on 5W-20 motor oils. Valvoline NextGen gets an Advisory for a high Noack.
Petroleum Quality Institute of America
Tom NJ
I see PQIA posted Valvoline's reply to the test.
My comment: Seems test was performed on 3 year old stock, would be cool to retest using a more recent vintage.
PQIA continues its series on 5W-20 motor oils. Valvoline NextGen gets an Advisory for a high Noack.
Petroleum Quality Institute of America
Tom NJ
I see PQIA posted Valvoline's reply to the test.
My comment: Seems test was performed on 3 year old stock, would be cool to retest using a more recent vintage.
Truth is, NextGen is getting discontinued/closed out so fast that soon there may not be any more samples to test!
Ashland's reply doesn't speak to me. If PQIA Noack testing was to blame, there would have been more oils in that batch that would have also shown to be out of spec. They're trying to poke holes in a well established methodology instead of trying to address the actual issue.
I guess they are also saying it was a 3 year old sample. Doesn't matter, they blew it. And I like Valvoline.
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I guess they are also saying it was a 3 year old sample. Doesn't matter, they blew it.
Yup. Oil has a much longer shelf life than that, so bringing up the date in his letter probably only served one purpose - to indirectly make people think that even if there was a quality issue problem back then, it's probably not the case today. That whole response letter just stinks. Full of lame excuses.
I guess they are also saying it was a 3 year old sample. Doesn't matter, they blew it.
Yup. Oil has a much longer shelf life than that, so bringing up the date in his letter probably only served one purpose - to indirectly make people think that even if there was a quality issue problem back then, it's probably not the case today. That whole response letter just stinks. Full of lame excuses.
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I guess they are also saying it was a 3 year old sample. Doesn't matter, they blew it.
Yup. Oil has a much longer shelf life than that, so bringing up the date in his letter probably only served one purpose - to indirectly make people think that even if there was a quality issue problem back then, it's probably not the case today. That whole response letter just stinks. Full of lame excuses.
He referenced the manufacture date in saying that they reviewed their test data from that date and the data shows that they met the criteria for an SN rated oil. He was not saying nor was he trying to infer that the age of the sample impacted the test results. You guys obviously gleaned just what you wanted to glean from the Ashland letter!
Originally Posted By: KCJeep
I guess they are also saying it was a 3 year old sample. Doesn't matter, they blew it.
Yup. Oil has a much longer shelf life than that, so bringing up the date in his letter probably only served one purpose - to indirectly make people think that even if there was a quality issue problem back then, it's probably not the case today. That whole response letter just stinks. Full of lame excuses.
He referenced the manufacture date in saying that they reviewed their test data from that date and the data shows that they met the criteria for an SN rated oil. He was not saying nor was he trying to infer that the age of the sample impacted the test results. You guys obviously gleaned just what you wanted to glean from the Ashland letter!
Originally Posted By: 77GrandPrix
He referenced the manufacture date in saying that they reviewed their test data from that date and the data shows that they met the criteria for an SN rated oil.
Obviously the product had an API SN label on the bottle, so why even bring up the date?
He referenced the manufacture date in saying that they reviewed their test data from that date and the data shows that they met the criteria for an SN rated oil.
Obviously the product had an API SN label on the bottle, so why even bring up the date?
For the reason that I stated in my previous post. To indicate that they reviewed the data from the batch that this sample came from and did not see a problem. I don't think that they are trying to use that date to mis-lead the public because Ashland didn't publicize the letter. The letter was written to Tom at PQIA and he is the one who chose to publicize it!
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Obviously the product had an API SN label on the bottle, so why even bring up the date?
I don't remember Ashland letting XOM off the hook about dating and batches, either.
Obviously the product had an API SN label on the bottle, so why even bring up the date?
I don't remember Ashland letting XOM off the hook about dating and batches, either.
What goes around comes around...
BTW Garak, love the name. Just started Netflix marathon of ds9, excellent series.
BTW Garak, love the name. Just started Netflix marathon of ds9, excellent series.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
Valvoline is junk. Their lame excuse was predictable. I don't know why people are surprised by the test results or why people buy their sewer water. It's best to leave it on the shelf for another unsuspecting buyer. No self-respecting BITOG member would buy this swill.
Originally Posted By: 77GrandPrix
For the reason that I stated in my previous post. To indicate that they reviewed the data from the batch that this sample came from and did not see a problem. I don't think that they are trying to use that date to mis-lead the public because Ashland didn't publicize the letter. The letter was written to Tom at PQIA and he is the one who chose to publicize it!
PQIA would never publish a private letter from an oil company without written permission from that company.
Tom NJ
For the reason that I stated in my previous post. To indicate that they reviewed the data from the batch that this sample came from and did not see a problem. I don't think that they are trying to use that date to mis-lead the public because Ashland didn't publicize the letter. The letter was written to Tom at PQIA and he is the one who chose to publicize it!
PQIA would never publish a private letter from an oil company without written permission from that company.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Oil Changer
Valvoline is junk. Their lame excuse was predictable. I don't know why people are surprised by the test results or why people buy their sewer water. It's best to leave it on the shelf for another unsuspecting buyer. No self-respecting BITOG member would buy this swill.
Great contribution to the thread, surprised to see a such a post from a veteran of the site. This post shows how even a long time member can spew misinformation.
What oil do you use? Do you have any evidence that it is better than Valvoline? or is this your conclusion from these noack #'s? Please educate us, save us from ourselves. I will continue to use it, self- respecting or not, lol.
Valvoline is junk. Their lame excuse was predictable. I don't know why people are surprised by the test results or why people buy their sewer water. It's best to leave it on the shelf for another unsuspecting buyer. No self-respecting BITOG member would buy this swill.
Great contribution to the thread, surprised to see a such a post from a veteran of the site. This post shows how even a long time member can spew misinformation.
What oil do you use? Do you have any evidence that it is better than Valvoline? or is this your conclusion from these noack #'s? Please educate us, save us from ourselves. I will continue to use it, self- respecting or not, lol.
Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: 77GrandPrix
For the reason that I stated in my previous post. To indicate that they reviewed the data from the batch that this sample came from and did not see a problem. I don't think that they are trying to use that date to mis-lead the public because Ashland didn't publicize the letter. The letter was written to Tom at PQIA and he is the one who chose to publicize it!
PQIA would never publish a private letter from an oil company without written permission from that company.
Tom NJ
I understand Tom. My point is that Ashland wrote the letter to you and not directly to the public. I don't feel that Thom with Ashland referenced the manufacture date to highlight the fact that the oil is three years old. Do you?
Originally Posted By: 77GrandPrix
For the reason that I stated in my previous post. To indicate that they reviewed the data from the batch that this sample came from and did not see a problem. I don't think that they are trying to use that date to mis-lead the public because Ashland didn't publicize the letter. The letter was written to Tom at PQIA and he is the one who chose to publicize it!
PQIA would never publish a private letter from an oil company without written permission from that company.
Tom NJ
I understand Tom. My point is that Ashland wrote the letter to you and not directly to the public. I don't feel that Thom with Ashland referenced the manufacture date to highlight the fact that the oil is three years old. Do you?
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
