Amsoil AME 15w40, 6k miles, 05 Chevy 2500HD

[dnewton3]

Given your demonstration of my position, is it fair to conclude you believe I should retract all things I said about the other Amsoil UOA? Would you insist that I denounce the excellent wear the AME provided, and suggest sticking to OEM OCIs instead of extending them, as I did?

Further, I understand the difference between micro and macro statistical analysis. Under your mantra, there would be no ability whatsoever to have any faith in any statistical modeling. Under your concept, we would not have medical trials (because no two human beings are the same), we would not know now much chlorine/aeration to use in water treatment, because no two gallons of potable water are the same. With your dictum in mind, we have no ability to mass produce any manner of products, because no two sets of stamping dies or machine tools are exactly the same.

In fact, with your condemnation of macro modeling in mind, there's no reason to ever do UOAs because if they were only applicable to an individual engine, we'd have no need for API standards now, would we? Rather, we'd all be on our own to contract with local oil refineries to brew up our own lubes. In your world, we cannot compare/contrast similar vehicles used in similar conditions with similar products?

I'll stick to what I know and do; the rest of the world and I seem to understand how it works.

 

[azsynthetic]

Flaw data will give you flaw results no matter how you process it. UOA is only applicable to an individual engine only, unless the UOAs are traceable and repeatable. What you are doing is neither traceable nor repeatable. Can you verify the usage of the vehicles in all of the UOAs? Can you verify the actual maintenance of the vehicles? Can you verify the exactly amount of oil used? Do you have the VOA of all the oils in question? Can you verify the modification if any that have been done to the vehicles?

I am a CW4 in the Army reserve and I am responsible for the UOAs of the turbine engines in the AH-64 Apache. The Army has a data base of all of the UOAs of all of the Apaches, Blackhawks, etc. plus the M1 tanks. We can predicts when the oil needed replacement due to extremely detailed log books that are kept for all turbine engines. The Apache has a Maintenance Data Recorder that records the engine peformance for every flight. We can tell you exactly how long an engine spend at N1 or N2. All of our data are traceable and repeatable down to the seconds. We can even tell you how long an engine will spin without oils.

Again, I don't think you understand what scientific data means. Anyone can work a spreadsheet, the key is to know which data to input.

 

[dnewton3]

I question how you can be so experienced, and yet not understand the difference between micro and macro analysis. Would you please address the differences as you understand them, if you do at all?

If you can, then please address how macro analysis is not applicabe to the very products you maintain.
Example:
IIRC, the engines you work on are GE units, are they not? I have no direct relationship with GE, but I do have direct knowledge of some of the competitors. Some of the turbine engines in the aircraft market are made by two companies I have very close relationships with; one is P&W (owned by UTC which is the parent company I work for) and the other is Rolls-Royce, which is located here in INDY where I have a several friends that work there in both engineering and production. I can assure you with absolute certainly that two of my former co-workers work at the P&W production facility that makes turbine engines such as the type you maintain. I know with certainty that those engines are produced using macro analysis. I also know, with certainty, that the RR engines also use those very same methods. Also, I have a close franternity brother that works for the Navy as the lead propulsion engineer for the lift fan assembly on the new JSF-35 airframe. I have had long discussions with him about the modeling his team does for production and flight analysis.

They all use statistical process modeling and analysis to produce those engines. That is a world-wide common pratice. The world-wide manufacturing industry uses these methodologies to set tolerances, check production operations and track reproduceability, repeatability, and reliability, among other things. It is used from everything from gage R&R to tracking production parts to maintaining the equipment. That is macro analysis.

Using your stated concept and limiting ourselves to micro analysis, we would not be able to produce more than one engine at one time, from one machine at one time. Your theory would indicate that there is no correlation between different machines within the same operation, etc. You ignore, as I mentioned previously, that macro analysis allows for representative sampling, such as medical trials, potable water, the making of baby food, etc, etc. If your methodology is the ONLY methodology, then please explain how the world is failing at all the things it does, by not using your methodology of single point analysis.

Yes - absolutely you can use UOAs in micro analysis. But you can ALSO use UOAs in macro analysis.

In fact, the very fluids you use in maintaining those aircraft are produced by using macro analysis as well. No matter how lubes are delivered (tanker, bin, drum, gallon, quart), they are made in giant batch processes. When I worked at Ford here in Indy, we bought ATF (generic Mercon licensed equivilant) by the railroad car load; 20,000+ gallons per load. When we sampled those, we did NOT test each and every gallon; we pulled a mid-stream analysis and tested before unloading to our silos. All lube inputs (base stocks, additives, thermal processing) are manipulated with macro analysis tools. You don't believe that Mobil, SOPUS, Chevron, etc, use micro analysis on each quart produced, do you? I would like to believe that you're not that naive.

My data is not flawed; your view is limited. It's a matter of perspective. The world is a big place. Just because we don't all do what you do in the manner that you do it, does not mean we do it wrong.

 

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I question how you can be so experienced, and yet not understand the difference between micro and macro analysis. Would you please address the differences as you understand them, if you do at all?


What part of flawed data due to untraceable and unrepeatable do you not understand? What part of bad data will give you bad results do you not understand?

One more time I asked, can you verify the usage of the vehicles in all of your anecdotal UOAs? Can you verify the actual maintenance of the vehicles? Can you verify the exactly amount of oil used? Do you have the VOA of all the oils in question? Can you verify the modification if any that have been done to the vehicles? My answer is yes to those questions for each and everyone of the UOAs in the Army database. Plus, I can order a complete tear down of any engine to confirm my assumptions and have done so on several due to abnormal UOAs. All turbine engines in my unit are accounted for until major overhaul, and when they come back from the manufacturers they get a fresh log book and the journey continue.

This is getting off topic so if you want to discuss further may I suggest you start a new thread.

 

[dnewton3]

I fully understand and comprehend the entirety of your premise when it comes to data logged for individual systems/components/fluids, etc.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that large sample statistical processes are viable, proven, and even necessary to provide consumable data which breeds governace in decision making.


Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
...can you verify the usage of the vehicles in all of your anecdotal UOAs? Can you verify the actual maintenance of the vehicles? Can you verify the exactly amount of oil used? Do you have the VOA of all the oils in question? Can you verify the modification if any that have been done to the vehicles?


Some of them yes, some of them not. Many of the UOAs I have in my database are based upon personal relationships that I trust to be accurate, including my own, those of family members, those of members here at BITOG that I have reasonable human faith in to tell the truth, those whom I work with, etc. I can validate with reasonable faith and accuracy the useage, maintenance and operational conditions. Some of the UOAs I have are gleaned from othe sources such as other internet sites; I veiw those with scrutity, looking for inconsistent data or outright midleading information.


Kind of reminds me of when you said this:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
AMSOIL said that their bypass do not filter out the wear metals ...

and then doubled down by saying this:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
You can check with Amsoil and they will tell you that the bypass filter does not remove wear metals.


in this thread:
http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2634629&page=6

But then I clearly used your own source to refute your claims, and showed the absurdity of your comments, and reveal your ignorance of the concept of elemental bypass filter operation.

I asked this of Amsoil:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
My specific question is this: Can the media distinguish particle composition? In other words, does filter media have the ability to discriminate between a 3um particle of soot and a 3um particle of wear metal, such as Fe or Al or such? Would it, with regularity, catch particles of Si yet pass particles of Pb or Tn, if they were all of the same size (say 4um)?

I believe the media to be non-discriminatory, and it would catch all particles of any stated size with the same efficiency, given reasonable statistical allowances. In short, the media will catch what it can catch, and pass what it cannot, regardless of the analytical make-up of the particle, because the media is a size-based restriction device and not a composition selection device. Is this correct?"


Here is what Amsoil said:
Quote:

David;

The filter will only filter out solid particles (no dissolved additives, for instance) but cannot distinguish between soot and wear metals of the size noted. Silicon can be either a solid like sand that will be removed or a liquid like silicone oil that is part of the formulation and cannot be removed. So your belief is correct. "
Byron Selbrede
Technical Services



Now, how much faith am I suppsed to have in your experiences and information, or understanding of "science", when I cannot even trust your understanding of how a filter works? You claim to be all about "repeatable" science, but you don't even understand how a filter is non-discriminatory in particle retention!

Should I believe that you made a mistake, or that you were purposely skewing information for your own person gain?

Do not call into question my ability to collect, analyze, review and distribute data. Just because I do it in a different manner and for different purposes than you, does not make it wrong or invald. To infer as such is ignorant and/or arrogant on your part. You may have relevant experience in micro analysis, but you clearly know nothing of macro analysis. I would suggest you simply stick to what you know; perhaps you're good at it. But leave what you do not know to others who do.

 

[azsynthetic]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I fully understand and comprehend the entirety of your premise when it comes to data logged for individual systems/components/fluids, etc.

Do not call into question my ability to collect, analyze, review and distribute data. Just because I do it in a different manner and for different purposes than you, does not make it wrong or invald.



What part of flawed data due to untraceable and unrepeatable do you not understand? What part of bad data will give you bad results do you not understand?

You do not understand and comprehend the entirety of my premise when it comes to data logged for individual systems/components/fluids, etc. You do not understand what scientific data means. You seems to think anecdotal internet data is scientific data and you are WRONG!

I can post 1000 perfect UOAs of any oil on the internet and you would think that the oil is perfect using your analysis. The reality is that the data is unworthy because of....wait for it.... "untraceable and unrepeatable". You get the picture now???

You reminded me of all the "global warming experts" that can't prove anything scientifically so they fudge their own data to make themselves look good. Also, try to stay on subject instead of bouncing between threads to make your own irrelevant point.

 

[lt1man]

Way over priced for 6k miles.

 

[bullwinkle]

Why not run it for TWO years and 12-13K? That's what I'm doing with my Cummins (running M1 TDT that I got on sale cheap and a higher capacity Bosch D+ filter)-that way you save a little $, could even pull a UOA at the halfway point to see how the Amsoil is doing. I wish I could type as well as Dave does!

 

[TXHunter]

The two year option sounds really good. Depending on how the OE looks at the end of the year I may give that a shot. I wasn't sure how well the TBN would be at the end of 12 months but obviously it had quite a bit left.