From:	Jeff Clark
Sent:	Tuesday, August 24, 2004 11:19 AM
To:	Jeff Clark; 'Jim Moritz (E-mail)'; 'John Haegelin (E-mail)'; 'Ken Goshorn (E-mail)'; 'Jim Wells (E-mail)'; 'Pat Fetterman (E-mail)'; 'Jim Matasic (E-mail)'; 'Andy Broff (E-mail)'; 'Ron Buck (E-mail)'; 'Greg Shank (E-mail)'; 'Wim Van Dam (E-mail)'; 'Mark Cooper (E-mail)'; Jim Rutherford (E-mail); Bob Campbell (E-mail)
Cc:	Frank Farber; 'Scott Richards (E-mail)'
Subject:	Notes from the T-10 Pb Conference Call - 8/24
Attendance: Jim Moritz, Ron Buck, Jim Matasic, Jeff Clark, Jim Wells, Greg Shank, Wim van Dam, Bob Campbell

General Consensus for Path Forward:
1. Enlist the assistance of Jim Rutherford to develop correction factors.
2. The PB CF options will also include using bearing weight loss; the PB2 CF options will include delta IR.
3. A CF for 200-300 hour delta PB (Mack Spec) will also be necessary.
4. The data set to be used will be the new bearing tests (3 operationally valid) and all operationally valid references on 820-2.
5. PC-9J is available (over 300 gallons) as a possible confirmation that the new bearings can detect a failing oil.
6. A conference call next week will be held to decide upon the correction factors and review a proprosal to the surveillance panel.

The conference call was tentatively scheduled for 8/31 at 11:00 am EDT.

Mack has asked that if possible, the conference call be moved up a day to 8/30 at 11:00 am EDT. Please let me know if you can make the 8/30 date. I will send out a notice later this week with final confirmation of the date and time of the call.

Regards,

Jeff Clark
Staff Engineer
ASTM Test Monitoring Center
6555 Penn Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
412-365-1032
412-848-8843 (cell)
jac@astmtmc.cmu.edu

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jeff Clark  
Sent:	Friday, August 20, 2004 3:03 PM
To:	Jeff Clark; Jim Moritz (E-mail); John Haegelin (E-mail); Ken Goshorn (E-mail); Jim Wells (E-mail); Bob Campbell (E-mail); Pat Fetterman (E-mail); Jim Matasic (E-mail); Andy Broff (E-mail); Ron Buck (E-mail); Greg Shank (E-mail); Wim Van Dam (E-mail); Mark Cooper (E-mail)
Cc:	Frank Farber; Scott Richards (E-mail)
Subject:	RE: Notes from the T-10 Pb Ad Hoc Meeting

Attached is the spreadsheet, with some correction factors added. In general, PB correction factor doesn't seem too bad (the tranformed units help) except that it is generated with little data. Keep in mind that if we go forward, a bunch (3 to 5) of stands would need to re-reference in short order so hopefully, we could double the dataset prior to setting the CF. The delta 250-300 lead looks more problematic, as does a delta ir.

The dial-in instructions for 8/24, 10:00 am est:

1. 412-380-2000
2. Code: 3000504

Regards,

Jeff Clark
Staff Engineer
ASTM Test Monitoring Center
6555 Penn Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
412-365-1032
412-848-8843 (cell)
jac@astmtmc.cmu.edu

 << File: Bearings.xls >> 

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Jeff Clark  
Sent:	Friday, August 20, 2004 1:05 PM
To:	Jim Moritz (E-mail); John Haegelin (E-mail); Ken Goshorn (E-mail); Jim Wells (E-mail); Bob Campbell (E-mail); Pat Fetterman (E-mail); Jim Matasic (E-mail); Andy Broff (E-mail); Jeff Clark (E-mail); Ron Buck (E-mail); Greg Shank (E-mail); Wim Van Dam (E-mail); Mark Cooper (E-mail)
Cc:	Frank Farber; Scott Richards (E-mail)
Subject:	Notes from the T-10 Pb Ad Hoc Meeting

Attendance:
Jim Moritz, John Haegelin, Ken Goshorn, Jim Wells, Bob Campbell, Pat Fetterman, Jim Matasic, Andy Broff, Jeff Clark, Ron Buck

Review of Operations and Test Results
1. Operational differences were found from test to test, but no one lab was found to be doing anything consistently different.
2. Stage 1 CO2 exhaust levels for the tests on all the experimental bearing batches are lower than levels seen during normal referencing. This produces slightly higher EGR rates. Further examination of this is necessary.
3. Variability of ring and liner wear indicates that the test may be struggling with more than just lead.
4. For lead, the experimental bearing tests appear to break later and harder than the prior references.

Proposed Path Forward
1. Use the batch of bearings that were intended to be made to the original 80/20 Pb/Sn design. This data appears to be better behaved than the other experimental bearing tests. There is the added benefit of having approximately 190 test builds of these bearings remaining.
2. Investigate options to move forward including correction factors for lead, possible switch to bearing weight loss and delta ir, or a combination of both options. These should be derived comparing both the 3 and 5 test data (two tests were invalid) set to all operationally valid tests on 820-2.

Other Actions
1. Look at possible fuel batch effects.
2. Look at possible build oil effect (if Bulldog has changed).
3. Check availibility of PC-9J for confirmation of proposed solution.

General Comments
1. Any proposed solution is likely to meet with disatisfaction; ultimately, however, a choice will need to be made between living with the disatisfaction or killing the test.
2. IR round robin indicates that problems exist with the measurement results between labs. Any solution that uses the full magnitude of the values is not acceptable due to lab bias. A delta IR may be more palatable if it removes the lab bias. The IR measurement problems need to be resolved or a new oxidation measure needs to be found.
3. Any T-12 development should consider all possible options for oxidation, including bearing weight loss (total bearing weight loss and main bearings could possibly be included).

Attached is the spreadsheet, including modifications, used during the meeting.

This group will reconvene via teleconference on Tuesday,  August 24th at 10:00am eastern time.

Regards,

Jeff Clark
Staff Engineer
ASTM Test Monitoring Center
6555 Penn Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15206
412-365-1032
412-848-8843 (cell)
jac@astmtmc.cmu.edu
 << File: MeetingBearings.xls >>