From:	Jeff Clark
Sent:	Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:27 PM
To:	Andrew Ritchie (E-mail); Bill Larch (E-mail); Bob Campbell (E-mail); Charlie Passut (E-mail) (E-mail); Dan Pridemore (E-mail); Floyd Albert (E-mail); Greg Shank (E-mail); Jeff Clark; Jim Gutzwiller (E-mail); Jim Matasic (E-mail); Jim Moritz (E-mail); Jim Rutherford (E-mail); Joe Franklin (E-mail); John Haegelin (E-mail); John Knight (E-mail); Ken Goshorn (E-mail); Mark Cooper (E-mail); Mark Rees (E-mail); Michael Minotti (E-mail); Ms. Gita Krishnaswamy (E-mail); Pat Fetterman (E-mail); Riccardo Conti (E-mail); Ron Buck (E-mail); Scott Richards (E-mail); Stacy Bond (E-mail); Steve Gearhart (E-mail); Steve Kennedy (E-mail); Tom Franklin (E-mail); Wim Van Dam (E-mail)
Subject:	Minutes of T-11 Task Force Teleconference of June 11, 2003
Participants:
Jeff Clark - TMC; Steve Kennedy - ExxonMobil; Jim Matasic, Gita Krishnaswamy, Mark Rees, Herman George, Lew Williams - Lubrizol; Jim Rutherford, Wim van Dam - Oronite; Greg Shank - Mack Trucks; Bob Campbell - Ethyl; Scott Richards - SwRI; Pat Fetterman, Mike Minotti - Infineum; Joe Franklin, John Haegelin - PerkinElmer

Rotational Viscosity Workshop:
Herman George volunteered to organize a workshop on the rotational viscosity measurement method. Labs are to inform Jeff Clark who their contacts are for rotational viscosity. Herman and Jeff will then start organizing a workshop.

Data Review:
Both Jim Rutherford and Gita Krishnaswamy submitted data analysis, and those presentations are attached. Greg Shank indicated that Mack is interested in the 6% soot range but the p/f limit and method of measuring viscosity have not been determined. Jim indicated that delta vis and relative vis pretty much tell the same story. Jim tried a cubic curve fit on all data points above 5% soot. Gita indicated that her analysis showed some differences from Jim's, but the overall picture was quite similar. Jim and Gita agreed to work on the data analysis together to find the causes of the differences. Vis increase at 6% soot and Soot at specified vis levels will be examined for both KV and rotational vis. The group also discussed outlier screening the data. After discussion concerning rotational vis vs. kinematic vis, Greg stated that both will be required for reporting purposes, regardless of which one initially gets choosen for a p/f parameter. Rotational vis may be the better long term solution, but many feel that it may not yet be sufficiently developed at this point. After discussion, it was decided that rotational viscosity will be taken at 24 hour intervals until 120 hours and then it will be taken at 12 hour intervals (Richards, Matasic). Motion approved unanimously with two abstentions. 

We still need to determine the following: soot or viscosity as a p/f; kinematic or rotational vis; curve fit vs interpolation. The discussion returned to outlier screening. It was agreed that anything indentified as an outlier be examined to determine in what analyses (if any) it is appropriate to use that outlier data.

Greg indicated that for the time being, relative vis is off the table for p/f. Greg wants the group to consider the choices available and then make a decision based upon feedback. The data set will be updated as best can be before Monday's meeting.

Regards,

Jeff Clark
Staff Engineer
ASTM Test Monitoring Center
6555 Penn Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
Ph: 412-365-1032
Fx: 412-365-1047
Email: jac@astmtmc.cmu.edu
or       jaclark@cmu.edu