OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: mbacfp
Thanks Irv. Appreciate your experiences. Would be cool if we could get some Blackstone UOA data and isolate brand and get some universal wear numbers on a per motor basis. Sure there would be plenty of data points to analyze.
Except given the limit of Spectroscopy with respect to resolution: It only sees a narrow range of particles below 10 microns, and the fact that it does not differentiate between chemical chelation and physical wear, that would be of limited utility. Each oil will, in a given application, have its own "wear signature". That is, a somewhat standard UOA result that will remain relatively consistent when trended. Looking for deviations in that trend can prove useful, as it may indicate a change in the health of the equipment, but you cannot, with any confidence, use UOA's on a properly wearing piece of machinery to divine which oil is "better". That's the purpose of tear-down testing which actually directly measures wear and is, as far as I'm aware, the only accepted testing methodology for doing so. Now of course that isn't overly practical for the average end user but generally in field testing, where UOA's are used to track lubricant health, serviceability and machine health, random tear-downs to measure wear are performed. The article I linked you to earlier touches on that.
Thanks Irv. Appreciate your experiences. Would be cool if we could get some Blackstone UOA data and isolate brand and get some universal wear numbers on a per motor basis. Sure there would be plenty of data points to analyze.
Except given the limit of Spectroscopy with respect to resolution: It only sees a narrow range of particles below 10 microns, and the fact that it does not differentiate between chemical chelation and physical wear, that would be of limited utility. Each oil will, in a given application, have its own "wear signature". That is, a somewhat standard UOA result that will remain relatively consistent when trended. Looking for deviations in that trend can prove useful, as it may indicate a change in the health of the equipment, but you cannot, with any confidence, use UOA's on a properly wearing piece of machinery to divine which oil is "better". That's the purpose of tear-down testing which actually directly measures wear and is, as far as I'm aware, the only accepted testing methodology for doing so. Now of course that isn't overly practical for the average end user but generally in field testing, where UOA's are used to track lubricant health, serviceability and machine health, random tear-downs to measure wear are performed. The article I linked you to earlier touches on that.