From:	Fetterman, Pat [Glen.Fetterman@Infineum.com]
Sent:	Thursday, October 23, 2008 3:07 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 Miiller; 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); Norbert Nann (E-mail); Riccardo Conti; Ron Buck; Scott Harold; Scott Richards (E-mail); Steve Kennedy; Tom Wingfield; Victor Kersey; Wim Van Dam
Subject:	Unconfirmed minutes of our October 23, 2008 teleconference.
Participants -
Ron Buck; Bob Campbell; Kevin Carabell; Mark Cooper; Jeff Clark; Riccardo Conti; Pat Fetterman; Ken Goshorn; Jim Gutzwiller; Jesse Hamilton; Ryan Johnson; Jim Matasic; Jim Moritz; Scott Richards; Jim Rutherford; Greg Shank

Minutes -
Mark Cooper started by noting that we now have five T-12 reference data points with the batch R rings, and we need to decide how to handle one or more correction factors to allow the test to continue running.
Scott Richards asked if we need to outlier screen the five data sets which lead to a lengthy discussion. Following the discussions of several differing views of how to proceeed, group consensus was that all five tests should be used.
Mark C. asked if the group could agree that only liner wear needed to be addressed, and this again sparked an active discussion with differing views. Although liner wear was clearly seen as the biggest change, several members felt that at least ring weight loss also needed to be addressed.
Bob Campbell asked what data set should be used to calculate any correction factors, and he suggested that the current targets (which were recently set) should be the data set used. He noted that this would change the multiplicative correction factor from around 0.5 to around 0.6. One more time, this sparked an active debate regarding which data set to use. Jeff Clark noted that we had set the current targets using 25 tests with reference oil TMC821, and these targets were used to bring TMC821-1 into the system. Jim Rutherford further noted that the original T-12 targets were set using 19 tests with bacth N rings, but only six of these tests were run with oil PC-10E/TMC821. When the 25 test update was made, the data base consisted of 13 runs with batch N and 12 batch P ring sets, so the targets were based on an evenly matched array of the two ring batches.
Bob C. made a motion with a second from Scott R. to correct parameters to the current reference oil targets and to address all pass/fail parameters. The motion passed with (8) yes /  (0) no / (2) waive.
Jim Rutherford indicated that he would calculate targets/correction factors for all parameters and circulate them to the group today (Already done!!), and the Panel will re-convene at 2:00 pm EDT on Monday, October 27, 2008 to finalize any correction factors.
Mark C. then suggested we use our available time to address the issue of rings for T-11 rebuilds. In response to a question, Ken Goshorn stated that the ring supplier has indicated that a batch of about 700 rings could be available in 8 weeks from order date. These rings would be treated like a "sample" and followed through the production process with a target to reduce surface porosity.   
Following a discussion of Lubrizol's experience with batch R rings in the T-11, two motions were passed without dissent.
1) Motion by Scott R. w/second by Jim Moritz - Mack should proceed to order a batch of aproximately 700 new T-11 rings - to be processed with the target of reducing surface porosity - ASAP.
2) Motion by Scott R. w/second by Jim Matasic - To allow the use of "older" (non-batch R) rings in T-11 rebuilds, with the available "older" rings to be distributed equitably among any labs that need them. Ron Buck is to supply ring availability at Monday's telecon.
Jim R. noted that the Panel still needs to address the issue of potentially changed wear profiles, and Mark C. agreed to again approach the ACC with a request to share coded data to assist in understanding any changes.
Scott R. noted that the Panel must develop a plan to manage hardware transitions to minimize any future issues such as we are currently dealing with. Mark C. agreed that we have that responsibility, and once we're through the current crisis, we will address it.
Finally, the need for a face to face meeting was discussed, and it was agreed to address it again on Monday. 
Respectfully submitted,
Pat