From:	Fetterman, Pat [Glen.Fetterman@Infineum.com]
Sent:	Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:10 PM
To:	a.budd@isp-institute.com; Bill Buscher (E-mail); Bill Larch; Campbell, Bob; Cathy Devlin; charlie.passut@aftonchemical.com; Dan Pridemore; Dick Patrick (E-mail); Glen Fetterman; greg.shank@volvo.com; Hind Abi-Akar; James Gutzwiller; James Matasic (E-mail); Jeff Clark; Jesse Hamilton; Jim McGeehan; jim.moritz@intertek.com; Jim Rutherford; joe.franklin@intertek.com; John Haegelin; Keith Selby; kenneth.goshorn@volvo.com; Mark Cooper; Matt Urbanak (E-mail); Melissa Lovesky; Michael Minotti; Norbert Nann (E-mail); Riccardo Conti; Ron Buck; scott cobbs; Scott Harold; Scott Richards (E-mail); Steve Kennedy; Victor Kersey; Wim Van Dam
Subject:	Un-confirmed minutes of our July 17, 2008 Surveillance Panel  teleconference.

Attachments:	284oiltest.pdf
Meeting participants -
Ron Buck; Bob Campbell; Jeff Clark; Riccardo Conti; Mark Cooper (Chairman); Pat Fetterman (Secretary); Ken Goshorn; Jim Gutzwiller; Jim Matasic; Scott Richards; Jim Rutherford; Greg Shank.

Mark called the conference to order at 10:36 am, and Pat called the role with the responses shown above.
Mark reviewed the issue as an apparent increase in liner wear step in the T-12 test when using "batch R" rins versus the previous "batch P" rings. He suggested that we have two options to move forward -
1) Start reference oil testing with batch R rings and develop a correction factor to adjust liner wear to that seen with batch P rings.
2) Rush a new, smaller size ring batch with the goal of better matching batch P ring performance and do testing to bring the new rings into the test.
There was an extensive discussion regarding the ring supplier report (attached) which shows some quantifiable differences in porosity between ring batches, but does not conclusively state that these differences are driving any change in test performance.

In response to a question, Ken Goshorn stated the supplier had indicated a lead time of 8 1/2 weeks to supply a new batch of  rings for evaluation. Once again, following significant discussion, group consensus seemed to focus on option one above; and discussion moved to "how to proceed?". We have two results with the "new" rings in hand, one valid, and one invalid, and they both indicate increased liner wear. Jim Rutherford indicated that "perhaps five" results might be enough to begin developing a correction factor, and there was significant discussion around running either "split" ring sets (using both batch P and batch R rings in a single test), or simply bringing in the bacth R rings and running the tests.
Two labs (XOM and LZ) indicated that they "might" be willing to run an early calibration test using batch R rings, and they will both confirm plans within a week. Jeff Clark and Greg Shank will contact ISP to see if they would also be willing to move up their calibration test timing. (As usual, all labs will have their calibration periods adjusted so they are not penalized by running early.)
Ken Goshorn agreed to follow up with the ring supplier regarding additional inspection data he had requested.
Final group consensus closed on moving forward with three additional calibration tests using the test reference oil (TMC-821-1) and batch R rings to, hopefully, develop sufficient data to develop a correction factor for liner wear using batch R rings.
Greg Shank asked all labs to please report the total count of batch P rings left to Ron Buck over the next few days.
Our next teleconference os planned for Friday, July 25, 2008 at 10:00 am EDT. By cc to Jeff, please confirm that we may once again use the TMC teleconferencing facility. Thanks!
The meeting was adjourned at 11:39 am.
Respectfully submitted,
Pat