I would like to ask your personal opinion regarding having an In-house Oil Analysis Laboratory againts having your samples taken out by third party or Offsite Analysis.

Which one do you prefer and do you think is most advantageous. My personal preference would be an in-house, I'll send you my remarks later.

I just would like to hear your point of view on this.

Cheers,

Rolly Angeles

After many years going "off-site", when the modern group of in-house Mini-lab systems came on the market, we went with them, thereby saving a huge amount of money. We still obviously used the dedicated labs for more detailed analysis, ferrography for example, when we observed a potential problem.

For quick and timely checks on lube oil conditions/properties, I'd say in-house mini-labs are the way to go.
For failure/detailed analysis, industrial labs are better choices.
I've used both in the past and they have their own merits. However, when it comes to diagnosing/analyzing machine condition based on test results, this need to be done by in-house trained personnel; not 3rd party lab Analyst. Unless, the Analyst has a sound background in varied machine application in different Plants.

Regards...Rajan

What system are you using and are you happy with results?
How much training is required to operate, Would you happen to know apprx cost of unit?

Greatly Appreciated
Glenn Roach

I've used Pricon Mini-Lab many many years ago which required basic knowledge in chemistry and titration tests. CSI has oil testing mini-labs, which I have used in the past. But do not have any idea what they would cost now...probably under $20K would be my guess for any mini-lab system.
Training provided by the Mini-Lab supplier and some hands-on with the manuals and software should suffice to operate. But interpreting test results and diagnosing machine conditions require both classroom training and field experience.

Cheers...Rajan

Hello,

Although I'm a third party guy, I beileve that in-house is the best option. As long as the people performing the sampling and analysis know what they are doing. If it is a virgin plant, it would be ideal to have professionals come in to properly install ports, set the targets and draw a baseline.

Just my opinion...

Regards,

In-house oil analysis is preferred rather than offsite, I would just want to make things clear that I am "NOT" in anyway a vendor of these oil lab instruments. Here's why :

If you sample your oil outside (offsite) your oil would be tested on a first come, first serve basis since all the samples are being paid for by companies who needed the test results. Company A might be testing for viscosity and sooth, while company b might be testing for metals present, company C for particle count, Company D for moisture and so on. hence, if there are around 100 samples in line then your sample will be line up for 101.

What we need to understand is that their is a tier or importance in these sequence of sampling, and when your lab is in-house, the analysist must understand that this is not a first come-first serve basis, if one person from your facilities would like to check their lub for viscosity and he come in first and one guy have a sample to check for its particle count and his sample come in second, then the particle count must be tested first, why ?because particle count is the most sensitive test of all, I often tell that it must be sample when the oil is still hot as particles tend to settle at the bottom part, the next sensitive test will be moisture and so on. The viscosity check can be tested after these test as this is a less sensitive test.

Cheers,

Rolly Angeles

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rolly12,

How about considering online oil analysis? I have raised this point before.

Josh,

Online would be the best approach as it takes the reading real time. In a power plant I use to teach, there are online particle counter which looks like a digital quartz 16/15.

It is also much cheaper as compared to a particle counter in the lab, the only disadvantage is that once you place it online then it will be only good for that machine .

Rgds,

Rolly Angeles

This issue has been visited many times on this board and elsewhere in the industry. Depending on your sample population and work load it is my feeling in these days of cost reduction and streamlining it might be easier to write a check to a lab than to setup and support an in house program. Personnel costs, training and equipment costs can get out of hand very quickly. As far as getting quality service from a commercial lab this is where you develope a relationship with the lab guys and most will treat you very well. rgf

Given situation vary. The $ rules. I go with off-site as in-house is a huge investment plus personnel. If an in-house program cost $300,000.00/yr and you're only doing $100K out sourcing then contracting out is the best choice. Like IR; do you do enough to justify internal expertise and the expense to go along with it? If you can't justify it in-house, natually the out-house is best and gives you a chance to catch-up on some reading.

Ok here's the trade secret, this applies in our country, everything will depend on your consumption of lubricants,

First golden rule, it is smarter to select a single supplier, why ? you can demand the most basic instruments for free, that is if you are a heavy supplier from them.

Try to justify by preparing a feasibility study and ROI on those instruments. If you are a heavy consumer on lubricants in-house will be the best option.

I dont want to say more on this, I have stated my point well.

Cheers,

Rolly Angeles

I've always thought a combination of the two was a cost effective solution. Use lower cost in-house analysis tools to accept incoming lube, and screen samples for more specific lab analysis. Have the lab perform tests appropriate to the equipment type you are monitoring, not just a generic lab test for all machines.

Several in-house instruments may be viewed at our website.

[quote]Try to justify by preparing a feasibility study and ROI on those instruments. If you are a heavy consumer on lubricants in-house will be the best option.[/quote}

A rather dogmatic statement: why ask?

A heavy user generally gets free basic analysis! More in-depth analyses typically will only constitute ~10-15%. Free may not have an ROI but it is cheaper. Take the 20% of sample numbers and cost justify that! I think you'll find outsourcing keeps the larger amount of money in the purse.

SAM,

I am not trying to be assertive, or one sided. the opinion of all who answer this thread including yours are highly appreciated.

Why ask ? So I can balance my understanding.

Both in-house and offsite have their pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages. But in my own perspective I'll go for in-house, although there will be an investment in these instruments and this will be one of the disadvantages. Perhaps another one, and the most difficult part will be convincing your Top Management to invest on these instruments.

I have a client that purchase some offline filtration that they regularly perform on their hydraulic oil but they don't have a particle count to determine the oil's health and cleanliness and to measure the ISO reading. They send their analysis offsite and get the results in a weeks time, I just thought if they purchase these offline filtration why didn't they purchase the particle count in the first place ?

My last employment was on a mining firm that is a very heavy consumer on oil, and they were sending samples offsite and get the results in a weeks time (the fastest), and oftentimes the machine had already failed before the analysis comes. Through education, I convince them the benefits of in-house oil lab, and they set-up their own lab inhouse, of course some of the instuments were provided by the Oil vendor, including the analyst. I have prepared a feasibility study for an in-house lab together with the cost of instruments and ROI, should anyone be interested I am happy to share my report for free. Just send me an offline message at rolaa12@yahoo.com, the file is quite large.

Once again, if I sound dogmatic, that is not what I meant and I apologize most specially to you.

My Warm Regards,

Rolly Angeles

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Rolly12,

No apology needed. We are miles apart and an opinion is an opinion but sometimes I may not be sensitive to cultural differences due to language barriers - or, maybe you're better at English than I.

Regardless, there may have been better advise than mine but your approach seem to justify what you were wanting rather than taking an objective view. But, I could be wrong.