High Copper in Oil

Tom-D said:
I gleaned this from your posts, you have 1300+- hours, and show oil pressure dropping.
typical symptoms of an old engine.
I'd do what every one else has told you, and then watch the oil pressure until it drops below normal pressure.
Click to expand...
Nope, I am not the OP. I have a C150F with 800 hours, no known issues (other than the slow start of a push tube oil leak), old pull starter, use a single bottle of Camguard in the winter when the plane is not flying as much, have an oil screen, and change the oil every 25 hours with X/C 20w50.

So does that bottle of Camguard in the winter cause more harm than good? I use it to prevent any corrosion when we are only flying the plane 1-10 hours a month in the snowy NY winter. It flies 100+ hours in the summer.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
So does that bottle of Camguard in the winter cause more harm than good?
Click to expand...
No--- this is the recommended method.

My opinion is Canguard does prolong the period between engine starts, by allowing lubrication to remain on cams and other parts..
frequently use engines don't need it.
 
Last edited:
455 Bravo Uniform said:
My understanding is that too much of a good thing, the additive in Camguard that is also in Aeroshell W15W50, begins to show a deleterious effect similar to increased wear.
Click to expand...

Per the chemist that created Camguard, it is not the same as what is in Aeroshell plus oils and 15w50. Were the Aeroshell guys claiming it was?

If it is the same, why doesn’t Camguard tout their product as a replacement for LW16702 and the AD compliance that requires it?
 
mondtster said:
Per the chemist that created Camguard, it is not the same as what is in Aeroshell plus oils and 15w50. Were the Aeroshell guys claiming it was?

If it is the same, why doesn’t Camguard tout their product as a replacement for LW16702 and the AD compliance that requires it?
Click to expand...

My impression was that the ingredient responsible for the protection of wear surfaces in both formulations is the same chemical.
 
LW-16702, which is included in the Aeroshell "plus" and Phillips Victory oils, is an anti-wear additive intended to reduce wear mainly when the engine is first started. From Lycoming service bulletin 446E:
Laboratory tests indicate that occasionally when the engine is first started, for a very brief interval there is
insufficient residual oil between the rubbing parts which affects the service life of components. Lycoming
has evaluated an agent which, when added to the normal oil supply, deters scuffing under these conditions.
The oil additive LW16702, which Lycoming considered essential for good engine operation, can be
purchased through Lycoming Engines and authorized Lycoming distributors...
Click to expand...

Camguard (which is not a component of any engine oil I'm aware of), OTOH, claims some anti-scuffing ability (though note it's not certified to meet LW-16702) as well as deposit reduction and prolonging seal life, but most use it for its corrosion protection, which isn't a claimed benefit of LW-16702.

Flying behind a Lycoming, I don't know about Continental starter clutches, but I do know that in cars, limited slip differentials can be seriously messed up by using the wrong oil with inappropriate friction modifiers.

I use Phillips Victory to get the LW additive, and Camguard at the fall oil change since I don't fly much in the winter.
 
My understanding is LW 16702 is a Wetting Agent that allows your oil

to “Wet” the surfaces and stay in place for next start.

An AD requirement for “H” Engines.
 
Tom-D said:
I thought I answered that in post 14.?
Your minimum oil pressure is 5 PSI at idle
Camguard is a polishing agent it will produce copper in solution.
Click to expand...
Tom- I asked about a mechanism earlier of action earlier in the thread-
Apparently, Camguard contains a "Benzotriazole derivative" (link below). Benzotriazole passivates the copper by forming a passivation layer by forming a coordination polymer with copper. One use for benzotriazol is to preserve archeological artifacts containing copper. The passivating layer may not be very tough, so may wear off from moving parts in contact with one another consistent with your observation that the parts appear "polished".

https://p11.secure.hostingprod.com/...raft-specialties-lubricants-camguard-pint.pdf
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Tom- I asked about a mechanism earlier of action earlier in the thread-
Apparently, Camguard contains a "Benzotriazole derivative" (link below). Benzotriazole passivates the copper by forming a passivation layer by forming a coordination polymer with copper. One use for benzotriazol is to preserve archeological artifacts containing copper. The passivating layer may not be very tough, so may wear off from moving parts in contact with one another consistent with your observation that the parts appear "polished".

https://p11.secure.hostingprod.com/...raft-specialties-lubricants-camguard-pint.pdf
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is Camguard actually forms a mild abrasive on copper? That doesn't sound too good.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
So what you're saying is Camguard actually forms a mild abrasive on copper? That doesn't sound too good.
Click to expand...
No, assuming the passivating layer is softer than the metal part, it gets rubbed off by whatever it is in contact with. If the rod and main bearing are copper alloys, as mentioned in post #7, they are rubbing against other parts as the engine runs. The passivation layer gets rubbed off because it is soft, exposing more metal underneath; this reacts with more benzotriazole to make a new layer, which gets rubbed off. Rinse and repeat.

The end result is similar to a mild abrasive, maybe slower.
 
Magman said:
An AD requirement for “H” Engines.
Click to expand...

This requirement became from the increased pressure of the lifter/cam arrangement, and the need to stop galling of the lifter. the "T" modification stopped most of this.

There is an AD on this.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Not really,, abrasive no, more a chemical etching.
Click to expand...
That's not right either.

The benzotriazole forms a passivating layer. Once that layer forms, no further reaction occurs. So long as nothing is moving, nothing bad happens. This is fine for engines that aren't used often. Once the engine is running, assuming the passivating layer is soft, it gets scuffed off and a new layer forms which gets scuffed off again.

Etching is a different process, where the compound reacts and removes the substrate, metal in this case. See post #47 again, where it mentions benzotriazole is used for archeological artifacts- you definitely don't want to use something that etches something you're trying to preserve!
 
Last edited:
FWIW ... I've never considered using camguard and what is being discussed here confirms my decision.
 
Daleandee said:
FWIW ... I've never considered using camguard and what is being discussed here confirms my decision.
Click to expand...
I believe if you don't fly the bird often you need something for corrosion preventive.
 
Tom-D said:
I believe if you don't fly the bird often you need something for corrosion preventive.
Click to expand...

I agree and try to put it in the air at least every week or so ... even if it's just 20-30 minutes blasting around the neighborhood to get the oil temp up. I mean someone has to patrol the local waterways and make sure there are no enemies sneaking up on us! :D
 
No one can offer a mechanism for how Camguard causes Continental starter adapters to slip because there isn’t one. No one can offer a mechanism for how Camguard can cause elevated Copper levels because there isn’t one. Camguard and the Lycoming LW-16702 additives are two completely different substances. They are not interchangeable, neither conceptually nor at any level chemically.

On the other hand, the Lycoming additive can cause Continental starter slippage and can in theory cause the elevated copper levels that the OP reported. The Lycoming additive started off as tri-cresyl phosphate, but this substance was regulated out of existence because it was neurotoxic. Subsequently, new forms of the additive were created to provide the anti-scuffing properties desired in *some* Lycoming engines, but one of the main limitations of the newer versions was less stability. Less thermal stability means that the new molecules are more likely to spontaneously dissociate even at lower temperatures, and the resultant phosphoric acid becomes available to attack copper containing components.

Therefore, consider performing an oil change and NOT using any Aeroshell Plus, Aeroshell 15W-50, or Phillips 66 Victory products.

What you CAN use are:
Aeroshell W100. (**non-plus**!!!)
Phillips 66 20W-50 (not *victory*)
Phillips 66 100AD

Run the engine another 20 hours with the correct oil, and recheck your oil analysis.
Would love for you to report back what you find.

PS If you were running Camguard before, you can continue to do so without hesitation. A lot of what has been stated in this thread about Camguard actually pertains to the Lycoming additive.
 
Last edited:
Aviator305 said:
No one can offer a mechanism for how Camguard causes Continental starter adapters to slip because there isn’t one. No one can offer a mechanism for how Camguard can cause elevated Copper levels because there isn’t one. Camguard and the Lycoming LW-16702 additives are two completely different substances. They are not interchangeable, neither conceptually nor at any level chemically.
Click to expand...
Please tell me what is wrong with the mechanism I posited for Camguard causing elevated copper levels in oil. The only assumption I made was that the passivating layer was softer than the copper it is protecting. The reaction of benzotriazole with copper is known chemistry.

No one here thought Camguard and LW-16702 used the same substances for their respective actions.
 
I cannot and never pretended to know what was on anyone’s mind. I only stated that Camguard was blamed for things that the Lycoming additive are known to do. In reviewing multiple (MULTIPLE) threads about this subject dating back to more than a decade on this forum and others, I have seen this happen time and time again, and it is therefore hard to know what is being talked about, what is truth, and what is unintentionally being disseminated as misinformation. This is especially true about the issue with Continental starter adapters.

I see nothing wrong with saying that benzotriole reacts with copper to form a passivation layer. However, unless you have something else to share, that sentence should probably end in a hard stop. I suggest studying the mechanism of Continental starter adapter slippage and determine for yourself if it is plausible that the passivation layer has anything to do with it.
To this end, I can point you to Beechtalk which has a high concentration of pilots flying behind Continentals. You can search for “starter adapter” and “Edward Kollin,” the latter being the creator of Camguard. He is an extremely knowledgeable chemist and is generous with sharing his knowledge.

Regarding the Lycoming LW-16702 additive, another very knowledgeable individual, Paul Milner, published an excellent review last year on Aviation Consumer. In my opinion, this article itself is with the price of a year’s subscription for the truly curious.
 
Aviator305 said:
I cannot and never pretended to know what was on anyone’s mind. I only stated that Camguard was blamed for things that the Lycoming additive are known to do. In reviewing multiple (MULTIPLE) threads about this subject dating back to more than a decade on this forum and others, I have seen this happen time and time again, and it is therefore hard to know what is being talked about, what is truth, and what is unintentionally being disseminated as misinformation. This is especially true about the issue with Continental starter adapters.

I see nothing wrong with saying that benzotriole reacts with copper to form a passivation layer. However, unless you have something else to share, that sentence should probably end in a hard stop. I suggest studying the mechanism of Continental starter adapter slippage and determine for yourself if it is plausible that the passivation layer has anything to do with it.
To this end, I can point you to Beechtalk which has a high concentration of pilots flying behind Continentals. You can search for “starter adapter” and “Edward Kollin,” the latter being the creator of Camguard. He is an extremely knowledgeable chemist and is generous with sharing his knowledge.

Regarding the Lycoming LW-16702 additive, another very knowledgeable individual, Paul Milner, published an excellent review last year on Aviation Consumer. In my opinion, this article itself is with the price of a year’s subscription for the truly curious.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned the starter. I mentioned other parts:
Cap'n Jack said:
No, assuming the passivating layer is softer than the metal part, it gets rubbed off by whatever it is in contact with. If the rod and main bearing are copper alloys, as mentioned in post #7, they are rubbing against other parts as the engine runs. The passivation layer gets rubbed off because it is soft, exposing more metal underneath; this reacts with more benzotriazole to make a new layer, which gets rubbed off. Rinse and repeat.

The end result is similar to a mild abrasive, maybe slower.
Click to expand...

You may consider reading the posts so your replies are pertinent to those posts.
 
They are pertinent. I suggested that you look up the mechanism of the slippage (and pointed you in a particular direction) precisely because of the text that you bolded which I had read previously (as well as the entire thread).

No one has to believe me or you or anyone that has replied to this thread. It is the internet after all. I have pointed out a couple of sources, written by reputable sources, for everyone’s consideration which seriously challenge many of the statements made on this thread.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
You may consider reading the posts so your replies are pertinent to those posts.
Click to expand...
PS I will correct myself in that my reply about the starter adapter mechanism should not be directed to you. I combined you with someone else. I apologize for that, but my initial post was not directed to you to begin with.
 
Aviator305 said:
They are pertinent. I suggested that you look up the mechanism of the slippage (and pointed you in a particular direction) precisely because of the text that you bolded which I had read previously (as well as the entire thread).

No one has to believe me or you or anyone that has replied to this thread. It is the internet after all. I have pointed out a couple of sources, written by reputable sources, for everyone’s consideration which seriously challenge many of the statements made on this thread.
Click to expand...
Again, I didn't mention anything to do with starter slippage. You are free to look through the thread and quote me. As I wasn't talking about starter slippage, your posts weren't pertinent at all to my statements.
You only cited a single source that barely mentioned Camguard at the end, and didn't prove (or disprove) anything I said.

Earlier in the thread, it was stated there are probably two different issues, where we agree Camguard isn't related to the starter:
bflynn said:
It sounds like two problems are being conflated.

Camguard isn't part of the problem with the starter bearing. The copper is not coming from the starter.

There are two issues going on
1) the starter issue described above related to squealing. This is unrelated to camguard
2) A self-inflicted issue of polishing (grinding) the rod and main bearings by camguard, producing copper in the oil.
Click to expand...

Edit:
Our posts crossed-
Aviator305 said:
PS I will correct myself in that my reply about the starter adapter mechanism should not be directed to you. I combined you with someone else. I apologize for that, but my initial post was not directed to you to begin with.
Click to expand...
I do say we posited a mechanism for Camguard raising the copper level in oil.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
Again, I didn't mention anything to do with starter slippage. You are free to look through the thread and quote me.
Click to expand...

I apologized as above. Again, my initial post was not directed to you to begin with.

I included two sources of information. One is what can be considered a chronicle on the topic of starter adapters on Beechtalk.

The second source is the article on the Lycoming additive which I never said had anything insightful about Camguard.

I do not have to disprove anything you said. The burden of proof is on you, if you would be so interested to do so, to show that the passivation layer has anything to do with anything being discussed here.

For example, do you have any data that shows that Camguard is associated with increased copper levels? Do you know of anyone that has conclusively determine or at least convincingly shown that Camguard damages copper or brass components?

I have had interesting conversations over email with the good folks at Blackstone Labs which obviously have a huge repository of data. To be completely fair, in what may seem contradictory to my initial post, they have no evidence that either Camguard-
or LW-16702 containing samples are associated with increased copper levels. However, the OP already is presenting with increased copper levels, and I in turn as presenting direct pathway by which those copper levels may be coming about. Hence, my interest in what he finds on his next oil change assuming he performs one without the Lycoming additive. He may have a completely different problem altogether, and the oil may not be causative, but why not exclude simple things first?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
No one here thought Camguard and LW-16702 used the same substances for their respective actions.
Click to expand...

A lot of people seem to think that:
455 Bravo Uniform said:
My impression was that the ingredient responsible for the protection of wear surfaces in both formulations is the same chemical.
Click to expand...

Aviator305 said:
The Lycoming additive started off as tri-cresyl phosphate, but this substance was regulated out of existence because it was neurotoxic.
Click to expand...

TCP is still available as a fuel additive to reduce lead fouling and is still readily available, and it's also an ingredient in MMO.
 
Last edited:
Aviator305 said:
I apologized as above. Again, my initial post was not directed to you to begin with.

I included two sources of information. One is what can be considered a chronicle on the topic of starter adapters on Beechtalk.

The second source is the article on the Lycoming additive which I never said had anything insightful about Camguard.

I do not have to disprove anything you said. The burden of proof is on you, if you would be so interested to do so, to show that the passivation layer has anything to do with anything being discussed here.

For example, do you have any data that shows that Camguard is associated with increased copper levels? Do you know of anyone that has conclusively determine or at least convincingly shown that Camguard damages copper or brass components?

I have had interesting conversations over email with the good folks at Blackstone Labs which obviously have a huge repository of data. To be completely fair, in what may seem contradictory to my initial post, they have no evidence that either Camguard-
or LW-16702 containing samples are associated with increased copper levels. However, the OP already is presenting with increased copper levels, and I in turn as presenting direct pathway by which those copper levels may be coming about. Hence, my interest in what he finds on his next oil change assuming he performs one without the Lycoming additive. He may have a completely different problem altogether, and the oil may not be causative, but why not exclude simple things first?
Click to expand...
Here is the "citation" on Beechtalk:
Aviator305 said:
To this end, I can point you to Beechtalk which has a high concentration of pilots flying behind Continentals. You can search for “starter adapter” and “Edward Kollin,” the latter being the creator of Camguard. He is an extremely knowledgeable chemist and is generous with sharing his knowledge.
Click to expand...
It is far better if you provide the links. I'm not going to do your search for you. While Ed is undoubtedly a great chemist, his responses are necessarily biased- he is also a great business person, too.

I remember a product called "slick 50" that was supposed to reduce friction by putting a teflon coating on engine parts- that turned out to be all rubbish. Marvel mystery oil has been around a long time, and the most that can be said is that it does no harm. Based on past history of additives, people are gong to be skeptical other additives. Camguard may be good for engines run infrequently, but it doesn't seem to help much or hurt otherwise.

As for the comment about the oil change without the Lycoming additive, the OP is already using Philips 20w50 XC, which doesn't contain the Lycoming additive, so any change in oil product won't help him.
 
Last edited:
My only contribution here is to suggest an experiment with a base line.

Flush your old oil out. Refill with just oil. Circulate it for a few minutes. Take an oil sample. That is your new base line. Your baseline will now contain the fresh oil combined with whatever copper causing additive (if any) left over.

Run it for XX hours that you normally do, and when it's time for an oil change test again.

IF copper goes up, you know it is something besides your additive.
 
Dana said:
TCP is still available as a fuel additive to reduce lead fouling and is still readily available, and it's also an ingredient in MMO.
Click to expand...
Thanks for adding that. I would be shocked if the TCP being sold for this purpose and the TCP in MMO included the specific neurotoxic isomers. I’m thinking they separate those out and sell isomers that are not harmful.

Cap'n Jack said:
It is far better if you provide the links. I'm not going to do your search for you.
Click to expand...
Of course it would be better if I provided the links, but I provided search strings that work instead.

Cap'n Jack said:
While Ed is undoubtedly a great chemist, his responses are necessarily biased- he is also a great business person, too.
Click to expand...

Granted, he is the creator of CamGuard. However, he is also a good teacher. Everything he has written can be verified.


Cap'n Jack said:
As for the comment about the oil change without the Lycoming additive, the OP is already using Philips 20w50 XC, which doesn't contain the Lycoming additive, so any change in oil product won't help him.
Click to expand...

If the OP is using the non-Victory version of 20W-50 (with attention to the recent renaming of Phillips 66 products this year which can be confusing), then yes changing the oil product by definition won’t help him. As I stated before, Blackstone has no evidence that either substance is associated with increased copper levels, but by all means try it without the CamGuard to put all doubt to rest as suggested in preceding posts. Good luck!
 
The combustion process generates a lot of water in the engine and the oil.

Often this can be seen in the first liquid leaving the quick drain during an oil

change.

On Radial engines the Oil Tank had a Sump with a drain to enable checking

it weekly.

Why not check yours if accessible?

Note that I’m a firm believer in Engine Dryers.

They can be made up for about $100 or purchased.

Either way for a cost of less than 1 cylinder.
 
Magman said:
Often this can be seen in the first liquid leaving the quick drain during an oil

change.
Click to expand...
This only works if the drain is the lowest point in the sump.

tip.. remove the oil filler quickly after the aircraft stops flying, see how much steam comes out. (this only works in a sump type with a big neck)
 
Aviator305 said:
Thanks for adding that. I would be shocked if the TCP being sold for this purpose and the TCP in MMO included the specific neurotoxic isomers. I’m thinking they separate those out and sell isomers that are not harmful.
Click to expand...
If you said "less harmful", you'd be correct.
 
PaulMillner said:
The Alcor "TCP" Safety Data Sheet still shows TCP... every regulation has a loophole...

https://alcorinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TCP-Fuel-Treatment-SDS.pdf
Click to expand...
PaulMillner said:
The Alcor "TCP" Safety Data Sheet still shows TCP... every regulation has a loophole...

https://alcorinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/TCP-Fuel-Treatment-SDS.pdf
Click to expand...
Do you know why these guys can get away with it and not the oil companies? I wonder what loophole was leveraged.
 
I guess it (TCP) wasn't regulated out of existence after all...

A lot of hazardous things can be sold when there's no reasonable alternative. Or they're sold (wink wink nudge nudge) "for professional use only".
 
I hope that the erroneous overgeneralization did not distract from the real point that, according to the cited article, the oils that are commonly purchased by GA pilots of piston aircraft today do not use the original formulation of LW16702, and that the current formulations are less stable (and more likely to dissociate and attack copper containing materials).
 
Last edited:
The amount of TCP in MMO is small (0.1%-1%). Combine that with the recommended dosage of MMO for avgas (4oz/10gal). And how effective a lead scavenger would the result be?

Also the MSDS reported enormous range of TCP in MMO says to me MMO did not intend it to scavenge lead. If they did, the range would be narrower.

What is TCP in MMO doing? I don't know.
 
Domenick said:
The amount of TCP in MMO is small (0.1%-1%). Combine that with the recommended dosage of MMO for avgas (4oz/10gal). And how effective a lead scavenger would the result be?

Also the MSDS reported enormous range of TCP in MMO says to me MMO did not intend it to scavenge lead. If they did, the range would be narrower.

What is TCP in MMO doing? I don't know.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they are disposing of TCP for other companies. :)
 
Aviator305 said:
I hope that the erroneous overgeneralization did not distract from the real point that, according to the cited article, the oils that are commonly purchased by GA pilots of piston aircraft today do not use the original formulation of LW16702, and that the current formulations are less stable (and more likely to dissociate and attack copper containing materials).
Click to expand...
No, they aren't. They caught the issue fairly quickly after the changeover, and reformulated the reformulation to rectify the problem. Your own search strings will tell you that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top