3 diff. labs with samples taken frm the same bott

Status
Not open for further replies.
So have you contacted the labs with your findings and gotten their answers?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ZZman
So have you contacted the labs with your findings and gotten their answers?


Petro Canada knew of BStone's results as that was my reason for making contact with the company.

I see no reason to contact WearCheck or Petro Canada again. Given that Wearcheck did not know the origin of the virgin sample their #s seem resonable i.e close enough to Petro Canada's results.

I guess BStone could be contacted again now that there are two other VOAs that obviously casts doubt on either Blackstone's equipment or personnel.
21.gif
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jim 5
The closeness of wearcheck to petrocan would make me suspect blackstone got the test/sample mixed up on first instance and fudged the numbers the second time. Just guessing though.


Except the TBN was dead on.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Trust me, Blackstone is messed up. I've been seeing it in the UOA's.


Originally Posted By: Doug Hillary
Trending on a known engine family can produce very meaningful data.


For sure Doug but all I was alluding to in one of my posts was trending #s, even when using the same lab, can be meaningless if the lab is unreliable.
 
Originally Posted By: Jim 5
make me suspect blackstone got the test/sample mixed up on first instance and fudged the numbers the second time. Just guessing though.


When I made contact with BStone to ask for a retest which they easily agreed to, I offered to send along another sample just in case they had disposed of the first one or for any other reason the first one could not be reused. They indicated that all was fine and could retest my originally submitted sample.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: pickled
In general though I've found the performance of accredited labs to be much more reliable than their counterparts.


That makes sense but of course this begs the question as to which labs are certified as ISO 17025?
 
Thanks Pickled. I see their head office is in IN...just like Blackstone. I also see that they have a Canadian office in Edmonton Alberta; maybe to serve the relatively nearby Canadian Oil Sands Development.
 
Last edited:
So Blackstone has no answer as to why their results are so far off? You ever press them about it?
 
I just found this thread. Thanks a lot for your sleuthing, 21Rouge. Job very well done
thumbsup2.gif


Is Blackstone an accreditted lab? ISO 17025?

I'm assuming Blackstone is accredited, and one of the better labs if Terry Dyson contracts with them.
 
Originally Posted By: Built_Well
I just found this thread. Thanks a lot for your sleuthing, 21Rouge. Job very well done
thumbsup2.gif



The thread got a bit lost when it was moved to the VOA section. Glad you found it. It has got to make you take with a grain or two of salt the results of a UOA.

Originally Posted By: Built_Well
Is Blackstone an accreditted lab? ISO 17025?


Don't think so.
 
Last edited:
How important is accreditation? If Blackstone isn't accredited, should I use Polaris, as BITOGer Pickled uses?

I've used Blackstone 3 times so far, and have been happy, but why wouldn't they become accredited? Is it a matter of cost?

I noticed Dr. Haas uses Dyson Analysis, Analysis, Inc., and one or two others, but I've never seen him use Blackstone.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Built_Well
How important is accreditation?

If you read through this whole thread the gist for some was that trending was what one should focus on...not a UOA in isolation. I think this is the same advice you have been given as well BWell re your interesting RLI UOA.
 
Originally Posted By: Built_Well
I just found this thread. Thanks a lot for your sleuthing, 21Rouge. Job very well done
thumbsup2.gif


Is Blackstone an accreditted lab? ISO 17025?

I'm assuming Blackstone is accredited, and one of the better labs if Terry Dyson contracts with them.
 
21rouge,
now for the real test.

send blackstoned another sample from the same bottle.

and see what your results are.

your "trending" theory will be shot full of lead!

and yes, i've done this. same bottle of oil, sent to the stoners 3 weeks apart. not the same results. and the results were varied enough as to conclude "issues" would have occured had it been a uoa.
a difference in flash by 30, susvis diff of 2.4, calcium of 104 and zinc of 52 to name just a few
 
Originally Posted By: sunruh
21rouge,
now for the real test.

send blackstoned another sample from the same bottle.

and see what your results are.


I do still have the same bottle but I am spending no more money on this experiment!

Originally Posted By: sunruh
your "trending" theory will be shot full of lead!


I am not sure who you are referring to with this comment but *I* (unlike others) think there can be no reliable trending if the given lab has widely varying #s on any given sample...as we saw here.
 
Originally Posted By: 21Rouge
Originally Posted By: ZZman
So have you contacted the labs with your findings and gotten their answers?


Petro Canada knew of BStone's results as that was my reason for making contact with the company.

I see no reason to contact WearCheck or Petro Canada again. Given that Wearcheck did not know the origin of the virgin sample their #s seem resonable i.e close enough to Petro Canada's results.

I guess BStone could be contacted again now that there are two other VOAs that obviously casts doubt on either Blackstone's equipment or personnel.
21.gif



Another reason why I haven't gotten in on the UOA bandwagon. If the data is flawed the best person in the world can read it and it is meaningless. After spending a lot of time on the board and keeping an open mind I find UOA's or VOA's not worth it for me. Mind is still open though.

AD
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top