I was going to post this as a replay to a post by oceandeep but I'd really like to hear from others in regard to this subject. http://maintenanceforums.com/e...3451/m/51420123373an
This past Friday we received the results from a reputable lab chosen by our lube vendor to address a viscosity variance in an ISO 320 fluid that negatively impacted our over-all lube health KPI as well as the trend for a rather large and specific lube analysis route. The KPI is the % of total samples taken marked as acceptable, alarm, or alert. The variance caused a 20% swing from acceptable to alarm; all driven by a change in viscosity only. That's a huge and long term damaging effect to this KPI that will take some effort to repair.
We did the work, spent the money, and have taken steps considered by many to be exemplary to deliver, as the saying goes, the right lube in the right amount at the right time as diligently as possible
Some of you reading this may be familiar with our Lubrication Center as seen here: http://maintenanceforums.com/e...20728073#22520728073
Back to the point of this discussion.
The reputable lab was given multiple samples that were drawn from a 65 gal bulk storage container and a point of use container. The results were ALL over the chart. The lowest of 4 blind samples was 304 while the highest was 319 all @ 40c. According at ASTM D445 this much variance in repeatability and reproducibility is unacceptable. Now I have a another layer of potential culpability adding to my anguish as I strive for "acceptable" conditions, not perfection, simply acceptable conditions. How can we as end users of critical lab services trust the data we receive when it appears inconsistency is the norm. A big statement but in the end a true statement.
This past Friday we received the results from a reputable lab chosen by our lube vendor to address a viscosity variance in an ISO 320 fluid that negatively impacted our over-all lube health KPI as well as the trend for a rather large and specific lube analysis route. The KPI is the % of total samples taken marked as acceptable, alarm, or alert. The variance caused a 20% swing from acceptable to alarm; all driven by a change in viscosity only. That's a huge and long term damaging effect to this KPI that will take some effort to repair.
We did the work, spent the money, and have taken steps considered by many to be exemplary to deliver, as the saying goes, the right lube in the right amount at the right time as diligently as possible
Some of you reading this may be familiar with our Lubrication Center as seen here: http://maintenanceforums.com/e...20728073#22520728073
Back to the point of this discussion.
The reputable lab was given multiple samples that were drawn from a 65 gal bulk storage container and a point of use container. The results were ALL over the chart. The lowest of 4 blind samples was 304 while the highest was 319 all @ 40c. According at ASTM D445 this much variance in repeatability and reproducibility is unacceptable. Now I have a another layer of potential culpability adding to my anguish as I strive for "acceptable" conditions, not perfection, simply acceptable conditions. How can we as end users of critical lab services trust the data we receive when it appears inconsistency is the norm. A big statement but in the end a true statement.