Lubricant users are increasingly inquiring about the cleanliness and lubricant quality of new oil deliveries.

This trend is logical and probably unending as the maintenance field becomes more aware of the linkage between contamination and machine reliability. Yet there has been legitimate concerns raised by some lubricant suppliers regarding this trend.

These concerns center on the common disregard for proper storage and handling by distributors, transport companies and, in particular, the end user.

After all, how practical is it to go to the extra expense to deliver a clean, high-quality lubricant when this integrity is subsequently adulterated by careless handling and storage practices. Yet it is also not logical to be less vigilant in delivering clean lubricants of dependable high quality.

From my experience, the answer to this dilemma lies in managing the chain of custody from the lubricant supplier to the end user.

The post Lubricant Quality – How Does the Chain of Custody Affect It? appeared first on Tesibis.

For years Noria has been saying, “The cost of excluding a gram of dirt is probably only about 10 percent of what it will cost you once it gets into your oil.” Recently, a Noria training client asked us to document proof of this statement.

It reminds me of a widely used quote from Benjamin Franklin: “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” Or another familiar one: “Pay me now or a whole lot more later.” Proactively investing in reliability and machine wellness is very often challenged by the need to justify. Management is always asking for financial analysis and to “make the business case.”

Conversely, a financial study rarely is produced to obtain funds to repair a failed machine, especially when plant production has stalled. Sadly, I’ve heard maintenance folks say that they’ve quit trying to propose proactive measures to management. They claim it’s easier to just let the machines fail.

This is like saying it’s easier to just wait until you have a heart attack than to proactively make the lifestyle changes needed to avoid heart disease (diet, fitness, quit smoking, etc.). These differences are often deeply ingrained in management and business culture. Does your organization have the “here and now” folks or those who “plan and prepare?”

On the bright side, an increasing number of companies are led by managers who do “get it.” Much of this has been driven by the growing base of documented success stories from organizations and program leaders who have championed change and happily reported their results. They didn’t need to be beaten over the head but rather took the initiative and captured the benefit.

The post Justifying the Cost of Excluding a Gram of Dirt [the economics of controlling contaminant ingression) appeared first on Tesibis.

Do you really know how your lubricants become contaminated? Have you taken an inventory of the sources of contamination and the primary points of entry? If not, you are in the majority as sadly, few organizations go to the trouble of performing a contaminant ingression study.

For many machines, the exclusion of contamination is the only way to control contamination. This is because these machines either have no filter or the filter in use is coarse, providing no practical protection in the particle size range of critical oil films.

When particles are not removed by filtration or by settling, a lubricant’s contaminant level equals the machine’s service hours multiplied by the number of particles ingressed per hour (ingression rate). For machines exposed to high ambient dust, particle counts can exceed recommended levels in just a few hours. After days of exposure, an oil can turn into more of a honing compound than a lubricating medium.

The post How Dirt can Contaminate a Lubricant appeared first on Tesibis.