I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT OUR
OIL SAMPLE RESULTS, THE TWO
REPORTS BELOW ARE FROM THE
SAME PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AND
TAKEN ONE MONTH APART FROM HYD.
UNITS WITH EXXONMOBIL
NUTO 46 HYD. FLUID. WE USE
SUPER CLEAN BOTTLES THAT ARE
KEPT IN A ZIP-LOCK BAGGIE, USE
MINIMESS VALVES TO DRAW THEM
AND TAKE GREAT CARE TO
TAKE A CLEAN SAMPLE.


1ST REPORT
CONTAMINATION RATING -
NORMAL
OIL RATING - NORMAL
VIS. - 47.4
WATER - 0.005
WEAR ELEMENTS - ALL '0' EXCEPT
FOR THE TIN WHICH IS AT '1'
CONTAMINANT ELEMENTS - 0
ADDITIVE ELEMENTS -
CA - 61
MG - 1
P - 327
ZN - 420
I.S.O. - 16/13/11
4u - 419
6u - 79
14u - 13



2ND REPORT
CONTAMINATION RATING -
NORMAL
OIL RATING - NORMAL
VIS. - 47.5
WATER - 0.003
WEAR ELEMENTS - 0
CONTAMINANTELEMENTS - 0
ADDITIVE ELEMENTS -
CA - 62
MG - 1
P - 323
ZN - 410
I.S.O. - 19/17/13
4u - 4526
6u - 733
14u - 52

AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE
VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCES IN THE
TWO REPORTS YET THE PARTICAL
COUNT AND I.S.O. CODE IS MUCH
HIGHER ON THE SECOND ONE
THAT THE FIRST YET THE FIRST
REPORT SHOWS A HIGHER LEVEL
OF WEAR AND ADDITIVE
ELEMENTS, WHY IS THIS AND
WHAT COULD THE PARTICALS BE
THAT ARE SHOWING UP ?
THANK's

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rowan,

What is this a sample of and out of what?

Hello, Rowan.

The sample... was taken from???

It seems to me that those Zn and P levels fit those of a hydraulic fluid... also viscosity... am i right?

Silicium, perhaps? Do you have the silicium levels?

The way samples were taken, and how much, has everything to do with particle count analysis. If you filled bottle up to the cork, it will be impossible for analyst to properly homogenize sample before analysis. In addition, if bottles and sample port was not flushed consistently for both sample; difference in results is a given. However, all said would not affect measurement of viscosity, acid #, and additive levels.