auto rx analysis

[johnbottilaw]

iron 3

tin 1

silver 1

tit 3

pot 3

bor 1

sil 2

sod 5

cal 2

phos 4

zinc

insolubles 1.3%

flash 385

48.8
6.91

tbn 0.0

is this useful enough? or did i forget to list the invisible magic ingredient?

 

[pickled]

Thanks for posting this analysis. Now I know that when I go to read my UOA with ARX involved that the additive levels won't get misinterpreted by some odd metal spike. What lab did the analysis?

 

[FusilliJerry82]

Silver? No wonder its so expensive.

 

[postjeeprcr]

Interesting, thanks for posting. Although I am sure you forgot to list the invisible magic ingredient.

 

[johnbottilaw]

Zinc was 3 and the lab was blackstone. If anyone wants to see the pdf, just pm me.

 

[ZZman]

Insolubles at 1.3%?

bug parts?, plant pieces?

**You can't test for the magic ingredient......it's magic.

 

[JAG]

Insolubles are lanolin esters, IMO. They can be seen with the naked eye. When I tried to feel them between my fingers, they seemed to disappear...they are so soft.

 

[addyguy]

Auto-Rx isn't 'meant' to be read with a UOA. Frank has said on here many, mnay times it will show NOTHING. You wasted your time with this, although it is interesting, so yeah, maybe not....

Anyway, I AM suprised the TBN is '0' for it. AFAIK, it's a mix of complex Esters, and Esters have 'natural' TBN to them....I don't understand that - anyone?

 

[JAG]

Esters have natural detergency due to their solubizing ability but they are not a base that can neutralize acid. Detergent additives do both. Esters only do that one thing.

 

[Tempest]

It's an ester mix. Looks about like I expected.

 

[chevrofreak]

Oil analysis is 100% useless on something that contains no metallic additives.

 

[FusilliJerry82]

I see plenty of metallic additives.

 

[pickled]

If it's a product that you are going to put into your engine lubrication sump at any significant quantity (i.e >5%)- I would assume that you would want to know it's viscosity, contaminant profile, ISO cleanliness and whether or not it contributes to overall acidification of your lubricant?!?! You say useless...I say hardly not! Do you perform oil analysis as a conditional maintenance tool on your own equipment? If so it would be a good idea to baseline everything that goes into the sump so you know it's initial contribution to the chemical fingerprint of a UOA.

Heck you wouldn't believe the [censored] that my clients get pitched at them by a myriad of small time additive companies. "This additive will raise your mileage by 5%, increase your engines lifespan between rebuilds and has no detrimental effect on your engine oil!" "it practically pays for itself yadayadayada....". I tell you what in God I trust, all other additive companies better show up with an IR fingerprint, a viscosity assessment and TAN before it even thinks about getting into a client's sump! If they don't provide it we get it via outside testing requests. No offense to autoRX, but any additive without a longstanding pedigree or at least a verifiable large fleet testimonial is HIGHLY suspect to my customers.

 

[postjeeprcr]

Originally Posted By: pickled
If it's a product that you are going to put into your engine lubrication sump at any significant quantity (i.e >5%)- I would assume that you would want to know it's viscosity, contaminant profile, ISO cleanliness and whether or not it contributes to overall acidification of your lubricant?!?! You say useless...I say hardly not! Do you perform oil analysis as a conditional maintenance tool on your own equipment? If so it would be a good idea to baseline everything that goes into the sump so you know it's initial contribution to the chemical fingerprint of a UOA.

Heck you wouldn't believe the [censored] that my clients get pitched at them by a myriad of small time additive companies. "This additive will raise your mileage by 5%, increase your engines lifespan between rebuilds and has no detrimental effect on your engine oil!" "it practically pays for itself yadayadayada....". I tell you what in God I trust, all other additive companies better show up with an IR fingerprint, a viscosity assessment and TAN before it even thinks about getting into a client's sump! If they don't provide it we get it via outside testing requests. No offense to autoRX, but any additive without a longstanding pedigree or at least a verifiable large fleet testimonial is HIGHLY suspect to my customers.


Sounds like good reasoning to me.

 

[lipadj46]

Has anyone not just sent a sample to an analytical lab and have them run it through a GC mass spec, IR spec, NMR etc? I wish I was still in a college research lab and had access to those instruments still.

 

[REDDOG]

Very interesting. John, thanks for posting!

 

[INDYMAC]

The viscosity seems quite low from what I expected. I wonder what the vscosity is at 40C and 15C (standard day). I guess it is the lanolin that makes it so thick at cooler temps?

 

[chevrofreak]

Yes, lanolin is very thick at lower (say, below 60F) temperatures.

This UOA is still 100% useless for determining what's in Auto RX. UOA's do not show what the base oil is, and since Auto RX only has 3 ingredients, all of them esters, they aren't going to show up.

The trace metals could be from a lot of things, from the manufacturing process to Blackstone's testing equipment not being calibrated right. Go look at other VOA's and you'll see pretty similar numbers from virgin oil.

 

[jmac]

Originally Posted By: chevrofreak
Yes, lanolin is very thick at lower (say, below 60F) temperatures.

This UOA is still 100% useless for determining what's in Auto RX. UOA's do not show what the base oil is, and since Auto RX only has 3 ingredients, all of them esters, they aren't going to show up.

The trace metals could be from a lot of things, from the manufacturing process to Blackstone's testing equipment not being calibrated right. Go look at other VOA's and you'll see pretty similar numbers from virgin oil.


Exactly, I couldn't figure out the purpose of this test was, other than seeing if there were any contaminants, which I have no idea why there would be suspected to be any, and so there is confirmation of that, woo-hoo. Any other information in a spectro-analysis of this stuff is a of minimum curiosity and I see no benefit of in the application use that I would possibly care about.

 

[INDYMAC]

I find this VOA useful since I use a maintenance dose (3-4ozs) of ARX, and I do used oil analysis. When you are splitting hairs on single digit wear numbers, it's good to know that some of the results may have come from ARX (contamination). The flash point is low, and the insolubles are high with a low viscosity. I can take all of this into account when I split hairs with the delta between my VOA's of engine oil and the UOA's after some use.