![]() ![]() By coding the results all that seems to happen is that one set of numbers is converted into a different set of numbers with less resolution, meaning they are simply grouped into broad ranges but remain difficult to translate to a physical quantity.Īccording to a study performed by Caterpillar, it takes approximately ½ teaspoon of particulate to contaminate a 55-gallon drum of oil to an ISO code of 18/16/13. it is difficult to translate something like 3471 particles ≥4 µm into a physical quantity. The essential problem with interpreting particle counts is that the values do not seem tangible, i.e. For each progressively higher ISO code, both the quantity and range of particles doubles. The original particle count is in the right-hand table, and the ISO codes are in the left-hand table. To convert the particle count into an ISO code, please refer to the example below. As such, the ≥4-micron range is always the highest count, followed by the ≥6-micron range, then the ≥14-micron range. It should be noted that each range is equal to or greater than its designated micron rating, meaning that all particles counted in the ≥14-micron range will be included in the count for the ≥6-micron range, which in turn is included in the ≥4-micron range. The ISO codes, according to the ISO 4406:1999 standard, relate to only three different ranges of particles, ≥4 µm/≥6 µm/≥14 µm. Though particle counting is reported as an actual count of the number of particles (of a given size, per ml of fluid), most specifications and limits simply refer to ISO codes. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |