data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85445/854456c7748fe1b6ac467ecc4e21ec925e6ae48c" alt="Viscosity comparison chart"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/96461/964614372c15144562163cd62cf63a0916b19594" alt="viscosity comparison chart viscosity comparison chart"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/33c1b/33c1b81535dbd8046907916d20cdc2940fd58fd1" alt="viscosity comparison chart viscosity comparison chart"
Therefore, a very careful approach is suggested when choosing these instruments. It was also found that the results obtained with the use of the mid-FTIR spectrophotometer were burdened with a very large measurement error. Consistent outcomes were obtained for the Stabinger viscometer only, whereas the microchannel viscometer and the mid-FTIR spectrophotometer were not as precise as the reference method. The main data analysis tools used in the study were multiple regression, Mahala Nobis distance, post-hoc analysis, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with the Bonferroni correction. The study material comprised 42 fresh engine oils, all of which are commercially available. The following instruments were selected to measure: a mid-FTIR spectrophotometer, a microchannel viscometer, and a Stabinger viscometer. The aim of this paper is to compare the results of kinematic viscosity of lubricating oils measurements at 40 ☌, obtained with three different rapid evaluation devices, and the standardized method using an Ubbelohde Capillary viscometer.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85445/854456c7748fe1b6ac467ecc4e21ec925e6ae48c" alt="Viscosity comparison chart"