Amsoil 0W-30 Honda S2000 40,700 OCI w/bypass
- Thread starter slalom44
- Start date
- Status
garageman402
$100 Site Donor 2024
Originally Posted By: slalom44
A long time ago a guy on another forum did multiple UOAs with different filters back-to-back with 500 miles between filters. Then he slapped a bypass filter on, ran 500 miles and retested. The difference in wear metal levels between the various full flow filters varied a little as expected, but the UOA with the bypass filter showed a dramatic drop in wear metals. The results were like night and day. That told me that the bypass filter was definitely filtering out significant amounts of wear metals, and that the only conclusion you can make from the wear metal levels in a UOA using a bypass filter is whether the filter is doing its job. Unfortunately the thread I reference above has been stripped of all its charts and graphs, so it's hard to follow.
Interesting, I recall reading that smaller particles cause most engine wear (I don't remember the actual percentage, but I think around 90%). I never thought that the filter that filters out these smaller particles (3-10 microns), would also filter out wear metal particles, making a UOA look spotless!!
A long time ago a guy on another forum did multiple UOAs with different filters back-to-back with 500 miles between filters. Then he slapped a bypass filter on, ran 500 miles and retested. The difference in wear metal levels between the various full flow filters varied a little as expected, but the UOA with the bypass filter showed a dramatic drop in wear metals. The results were like night and day. That told me that the bypass filter was definitely filtering out significant amounts of wear metals, and that the only conclusion you can make from the wear metal levels in a UOA using a bypass filter is whether the filter is doing its job. Unfortunately the thread I reference above has been stripped of all its charts and graphs, so it's hard to follow.
Interesting, I recall reading that smaller particles cause most engine wear (I don't remember the actual percentage, but I think around 90%). I never thought that the filter that filters out these smaller particles (3-10 microns), would also filter out wear metal particles, making a UOA look spotless!!
^this got me thinking...
Lets say for example that you do some base UOAs to establish a trend while using the OEM Honda synth-blend oil, along with the OEM oil filter which is made by Fram to Honda's specs, from what i've seen.
Now lets say for example that all wear metals read 7ppm after 5,000 miles.
If you now switch to say M1 EP along with an M1 oil filter and get 5ppm across the board in the UOA, we automatically assume that the oil protected the engine better, yada, yada, yada. In reality, didn't the better oil filter simply remove more wear metals from the oil due to it filtering better, thus lowering the wear metals and screwing up the ACTUAL UOA results...???
Lets say for example that you do some base UOAs to establish a trend while using the OEM Honda synth-blend oil, along with the OEM oil filter which is made by Fram to Honda's specs, from what i've seen.
Now lets say for example that all wear metals read 7ppm after 5,000 miles.
If you now switch to say M1 EP along with an M1 oil filter and get 5ppm across the board in the UOA, we automatically assume that the oil protected the engine better, yada, yada, yada. In reality, didn't the better oil filter simply remove more wear metals from the oil due to it filtering better, thus lowering the wear metals and screwing up the ACTUAL UOA results...???
You can check with Amsoil and they will tell you that the bypass filter does not remove wear metals. It removes particles that could cause more wear (e.g. soot, carbon, rust, dirt, etc.) which in turn will show a reduction in wear metals. There are several VOAs and UOAs in the archive that shows a significant decrease in particle counts when using a bypass filter.
dnewton3
Staff member
Depending upon the actual ISO cleanliness level, I'd say your statement of Amsoil's position is both right and wrong.
Most bypass filter makers claim some form of the following:
"Can filter down to sub-micron"
"Can filter down to 1um".
"Can filter down to 2um".
Etc.
You get the idea.
They don't discuss the efficiency at those incredibly tight sizes, but I'd be willing concede two things:
1- Nearly any bypass filter from a major market OEM (Amsoil, MotorGuard, Filtration Solutions, GulfCoast, etc) is well more than capable of filtering down to a level that would suffice to greatly extend the OCI
2- Unless we pay for independent ISO testing, we're not going to know which is "best" of all the major brands
However, if a filter element can filter down with reasonably decent efficiency, say to 1-2um in size, then it most certainly has the ability to effect the UOA, because a filter has no idea what the composition is of any particle that it catches. If it can catch a 2um sized particle of soot, it can also catch a 2um particle of Cu or Al or Fe. In short, it most certainly will effect a UOA, because spectral analysis only sees particles from sub-micron up to 5um. Bypass filters have the ability to skews UOAs.
Most bypass filter makers claim some form of the following:
"Can filter down to sub-micron"
"Can filter down to 1um".
"Can filter down to 2um".
Etc.
You get the idea.
They don't discuss the efficiency at those incredibly tight sizes, but I'd be willing concede two things:
1- Nearly any bypass filter from a major market OEM (Amsoil, MotorGuard, Filtration Solutions, GulfCoast, etc) is well more than capable of filtering down to a level that would suffice to greatly extend the OCI
2- Unless we pay for independent ISO testing, we're not going to know which is "best" of all the major brands
However, if a filter element can filter down with reasonably decent efficiency, say to 1-2um in size, then it most certainly has the ability to effect the UOA, because a filter has no idea what the composition is of any particle that it catches. If it can catch a 2um sized particle of soot, it can also catch a 2um particle of Cu or Al or Fe. In short, it most certainly will effect a UOA, because spectral analysis only sees particles from sub-micron up to 5um. Bypass filters have the ability to skews UOAs.
Last edited:
See that's the same thing i was thinking...
So how are we to know if the superior filtration a bypass filter provides actually lowers wear due to cleaner oil?
What if the manufacturer, in this case Amsoil, also saw the reduced wear metals in their UOA during testing and concluded that the filter was responsible for reduced wear, when in fact, it's just covering up the actual wear going on inside the engine.
With extended OCIs, the engine is technically sustaining increased wear from the super long OCIs, we'll just never know for sure because the UOA doesn't tell the full story.
If the OP was to remove the bypass filter @ 30k miles into the run (plenty of oil life left) and run a few thousand miles, i'm willing to bet the wear metals would skyrocket in the UOA.
So how are we to know if the superior filtration a bypass filter provides actually lowers wear due to cleaner oil?
What if the manufacturer, in this case Amsoil, also saw the reduced wear metals in their UOA during testing and concluded that the filter was responsible for reduced wear, when in fact, it's just covering up the actual wear going on inside the engine.
With extended OCIs, the engine is technically sustaining increased wear from the super long OCIs, we'll just never know for sure because the UOA doesn't tell the full story.
If the OP was to remove the bypass filter @ 30k miles into the run (plenty of oil life left) and run a few thousand miles, i'm willing to bet the wear metals would skyrocket in the UOA.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
However, if a filter element can filter down is reasonably decent efficiency say to 1-2um in size, then it most certainly has the ability to effect the UOA, because a filter has no idea what the composition is of any particle that is catches. If it can catch a 2um sized particle of soot, it can also catch a 2um particle of Cu or Al or Fe. In short, it most certainly effect a UOA, because spectral analysis only sees particles from sub-micron up to 5um. Bypass filters have the ability to skews UOAs.
If what you are saying is true then what would happen to the additives such as zinc, moly, boron, etc. Would they not be reduced by the same ratio? Why are we not seeing this in the UOAs?
However, if a filter element can filter down is reasonably decent efficiency say to 1-2um in size, then it most certainly has the ability to effect the UOA, because a filter has no idea what the composition is of any particle that is catches. If it can catch a 2um sized particle of soot, it can also catch a 2um particle of Cu or Al or Fe. In short, it most certainly effect a UOA, because spectral analysis only sees particles from sub-micron up to 5um. Bypass filters have the ability to skews UOAs.
If what you are saying is true then what would happen to the additives such as zinc, moly, boron, etc. Would they not be reduced by the same ratio? Why are we not seeing this in the UOAs?
Originally Posted By: Artem
With extended OCIs, the engine is technically sustaining increased wear from the super long OCIs
based on what? the oil is in grade, hasn't oxidized excessively and has plenty of additive left. Why would it be causing more wear?
Originally Posted By: Artem
If the OP was to remove the bypass filter @ 30k miles into the run (plenty of oil life left) and run a few thousand miles, i'm willing to bet the wear metals would skyrocket in the UOA.
Given the condition of the oil and the amount of make-up oil used, I'm willing to bet that you're wrong.
With extended OCIs, the engine is technically sustaining increased wear from the super long OCIs
based on what? the oil is in grade, hasn't oxidized excessively and has plenty of additive left. Why would it be causing more wear?
Originally Posted By: Artem
If the OP was to remove the bypass filter @ 30k miles into the run (plenty of oil life left) and run a few thousand miles, i'm willing to bet the wear metals would skyrocket in the UOA.
Given the condition of the oil and the amount of make-up oil used, I'm willing to bet that you're wrong.
Because the OP's wear metals are reading the same as the universal average, which are based on like 5-6k.
Keeping in mind that the bypass filters are removing SOME wear metals, if he was to remove them for the last 5-6k of the next OCI after 35,000 miles of oil use, wear rates would increase. That's just my opinion on the subject.
Keeping in mind that the bypass filters are removing SOME wear metals, if he was to remove them for the last 5-6k of the next OCI after 35,000 miles of oil use, wear rates would increase. That's just my opinion on the subject.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
However, if a filter element can filter down is reasonably decent efficiency say to 1-2um in size, then it most certainly has the ability to effect the UOA, because a filter has no idea what the composition is of any particle that is catches. If it can catch a 2um sized particle of soot, it can also catch a 2um particle of Cu or Al or Fe. In short, it most certainly effect a UOA, because spectral analysis only sees particles from sub-micron up to 5um. Bypass filters have the ability to skews UOAs.
If what you are saying is true then what would happen to the additives such as zinc, moly, boron, etc. Would they not be reduced by the same ratio? Why are we not seeing this in the UOAs?
Additives are soluble and cannot be stripped out. They are way too small.
Think about this logically on a size scale, given two alternatives:
1) the additives are soluble and nearly infintessimally small; no filter can strip them, but they will burn in the plasma stream of the spectral analysis
or
2) they are larger and can be stripped out of the host oil.
If #2 were true, there would be no benefit to bypass filters whatsoever. In fact, how "big" would be "too big" as far as the size goes? Could it stand to reason that even some decent full flow filters could catch additives? And if they were even 10um in size, they would have potential to cause damage to the very surfaces they are to protect.
The obvious answer (and proven lab answer) is that the additives are much smaller than any media filter can catch; they ride with the host oil all the way through the system. They are soluble and dissolve into the host oil.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
However, if a filter element can filter down is reasonably decent efficiency say to 1-2um in size, then it most certainly has the ability to effect the UOA, because a filter has no idea what the composition is of any particle that is catches. If it can catch a 2um sized particle of soot, it can also catch a 2um particle of Cu or Al or Fe. In short, it most certainly effect a UOA, because spectral analysis only sees particles from sub-micron up to 5um. Bypass filters have the ability to skews UOAs.
If what you are saying is true then what would happen to the additives such as zinc, moly, boron, etc. Would they not be reduced by the same ratio? Why are we not seeing this in the UOAs?
Additives are soluble and cannot be stripped out. They are way too small.
Think about this logically on a size scale, given two alternatives:
1) the additives are soluble and nearly infintessimally small; no filter can strip them, but they will burn in the plasma stream of the spectral analysis
or
2) they are larger and can be stripped out of the host oil.
If #2 were true, there would be no benefit to bypass filters whatsoever. In fact, how "big" would be "too big" as far as the size goes? Could it stand to reason that even some decent full flow filters could catch additives? And if they were even 10um in size, they would have potential to cause damage to the very surfaces they are to protect.
The obvious answer (and proven lab answer) is that the additives are much smaller than any media filter can catch; they ride with the host oil all the way through the system. They are soluble and dissolve into the host oil.
I told you the obvious answer but you refuse to hear them. AMSOIL said that their bypass do not filter out the wear metals nor the additive metals. Metal additives don't "dissolve" into the host oil because there job is to form a sacrificial layer under extreme pressure. The wear metals should be the same size otherwise the additives are not doing their job. According to ISO 23556 testing, these filters remove 39 percent of soot contaminants less than one micron so the additives and wear metals have to be smaller than that.
Additives are soluble and smaller than sub-micron sizes, AFAIK.
PS: Extended OCIs, generally speaking, give a potential for less spikes in wear.
PS: Extended OCIs, generally speaking, give a potential for less spikes in wear.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
I told you the obvious answer but you refuse to hear them. AMSOIL said that their bypass do not filter out the wear metals nor the additive metals. Metal additives don't "dissolve" into the host oil because there job is to form a sacrificial layer under extreme pressure. The wear metals should be the same size otherwise the additives are not doing their job. According to ISO 23556 testing, these filters remove 39 percent of soot contaminants less than one micron so the additives and wear metals have to be smaller than that.
Additives cannot be stripped out of oil by typical filter media. There are some cases when EPs and/or antifoaming agenst can be stripped out if not fully solublized, but that is a failure of the blending process and not the fault of the filter media. As a generalization, additives cannot be stripped out when the additives are properly mixed, and the media is typical of FF and BP media. Here is some info specific to additives:
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28711/filters-remove-additives
it acknowledges that additives can be stripped, but when you read about the methods used, they do NOT represent the type filtration we are talking about with a traditional bypass filter set up. Like I've said, GENERALLY, (given the methods we're speaking of) the additives are not stripped out when all is working correctly.
But ...
Filters are "dumb"; anything that is large enough to be caught in their pore structure, will be; they cannot discern between a 4um soot particle and a 4um particle of Al, Fe, Cu, etc. So, if a wear metal particle is 4um in size, the bypass filter is likely to catch it. Hence, if the filter can pull out a wear metal particle, it can skew the UOA data.
I would point to this article that supports my position:
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28799/removing-wear-particles
Note that the question in italics is about filtration of oil from an off-engine device (bypass filter) regarding lube additives and small wear particles. Specifically, the question is about the relationship of wear metal evidence being removed from the UOA, and the pre- and post-filter analysis with regard to wear metals in the answer! My position is that when we talk of small wear particles that can been seen in a UOA (sub-um up to 5um) and we talk of BP filters that are extremely efficient somewhere around 2um and on up, the BP filter has an extreme ability to effect the UOA depending upon where you sample, and a lessor (but still very statistically meaningful) effect on the overall sump load when it comes to particles of any composition, even wear metals! That is the EXACT topic of this link I provide here.
And there's this:
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28592/filter-quality-oil-analysis
Note that they talk about how filtration effects cleanliness and the question is specific about contamination and Fe wear. The answer (while not directly stating it, implies it) that ...
"The higher the beta for the same micron pore size will result in a faster cleanup rate. Thus, it is better able to control ingression of solids in the system. The main system ingression sources typically are seals, breathers and oil top-ups, and wear debris." "Solids" means not just soot, but also metals (Fe, Al, Cu, Tn, Pb, etc) and he specifically mentions wear debris. In short, the tighter the filter, the more able to catch anything, and that INCLUDES metals.
And there's this about "The advantages of bypass filters":
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28508/bypass-filters
This speaks to the bypass filter taking out both organic and inorganic particles. Metals are inorganic. It says nothing of bypass filters leaving metals in the system; it speaks to fitlers being indiscriminant and catching anything within their purview.
Please quote your source at Amsoil; I'll call and ask the details, by speaking to the person (or department) that you spoke with. I've spoke with their "techs" at times before, and it wouldn't be the first time they've been wrong or mislead people (not intentionally, but by being mistaken). I've had the same experience with Wix and NewVenture. When I get a chance today, I'll call Amsoil; will you please cite your specific source?
In short, I say fitlers are "dumb" and will catch what they can catch; they cannot discriminate. You say they are selective and can discriminate between particles. It cannot be both ways.
I stand by my comments and challenge yours. I say that bypass fitlers most certaily can filter out smaller wear metal particles and skew UOA data. You specifically stated this:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
You can check with Amsoil and they will tell you that the bypass filter does not remove wear metals.
I have given you several links to prove my point. There are other sources as well that agree with my position. Please leave you typical rhetoric at the door, and bring real information to the debate.
I told you the obvious answer but you refuse to hear them. AMSOIL said that their bypass do not filter out the wear metals nor the additive metals. Metal additives don't "dissolve" into the host oil because there job is to form a sacrificial layer under extreme pressure. The wear metals should be the same size otherwise the additives are not doing their job. According to ISO 23556 testing, these filters remove 39 percent of soot contaminants less than one micron so the additives and wear metals have to be smaller than that.
Additives cannot be stripped out of oil by typical filter media. There are some cases when EPs and/or antifoaming agenst can be stripped out if not fully solublized, but that is a failure of the blending process and not the fault of the filter media. As a generalization, additives cannot be stripped out when the additives are properly mixed, and the media is typical of FF and BP media. Here is some info specific to additives:
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28711/filters-remove-additives
it acknowledges that additives can be stripped, but when you read about the methods used, they do NOT represent the type filtration we are talking about with a traditional bypass filter set up. Like I've said, GENERALLY, (given the methods we're speaking of) the additives are not stripped out when all is working correctly.
But ...
Filters are "dumb"; anything that is large enough to be caught in their pore structure, will be; they cannot discern between a 4um soot particle and a 4um particle of Al, Fe, Cu, etc. So, if a wear metal particle is 4um in size, the bypass filter is likely to catch it. Hence, if the filter can pull out a wear metal particle, it can skew the UOA data.
I would point to this article that supports my position:
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28799/removing-wear-particles
Note that the question in italics is about filtration of oil from an off-engine device (bypass filter) regarding lube additives and small wear particles. Specifically, the question is about the relationship of wear metal evidence being removed from the UOA, and the pre- and post-filter analysis with regard to wear metals in the answer! My position is that when we talk of small wear particles that can been seen in a UOA (sub-um up to 5um) and we talk of BP filters that are extremely efficient somewhere around 2um and on up, the BP filter has an extreme ability to effect the UOA depending upon where you sample, and a lessor (but still very statistically meaningful) effect on the overall sump load when it comes to particles of any composition, even wear metals! That is the EXACT topic of this link I provide here.
And there's this:
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28592/filter-quality-oil-analysis
Note that they talk about how filtration effects cleanliness and the question is specific about contamination and Fe wear. The answer (while not directly stating it, implies it) that ...
"The higher the beta for the same micron pore size will result in a faster cleanup rate. Thus, it is better able to control ingression of solids in the system. The main system ingression sources typically are seals, breathers and oil top-ups, and wear debris." "Solids" means not just soot, but also metals (Fe, Al, Cu, Tn, Pb, etc) and he specifically mentions wear debris. In short, the tighter the filter, the more able to catch anything, and that INCLUDES metals.
And there's this about "The advantages of bypass filters":
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28508/bypass-filters
This speaks to the bypass filter taking out both organic and inorganic particles. Metals are inorganic. It says nothing of bypass filters leaving metals in the system; it speaks to fitlers being indiscriminant and catching anything within their purview.
Please quote your source at Amsoil; I'll call and ask the details, by speaking to the person (or department) that you spoke with. I've spoke with their "techs" at times before, and it wouldn't be the first time they've been wrong or mislead people (not intentionally, but by being mistaken). I've had the same experience with Wix and NewVenture. When I get a chance today, I'll call Amsoil; will you please cite your specific source?
In short, I say fitlers are "dumb" and will catch what they can catch; they cannot discriminate. You say they are selective and can discriminate between particles. It cannot be both ways.
I stand by my comments and challenge yours. I say that bypass fitlers most certaily can filter out smaller wear metal particles and skew UOA data. You specifically stated this:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
You can check with Amsoil and they will tell you that the bypass filter does not remove wear metals.
I have given you several links to prove my point. There are other sources as well that agree with my position. Please leave you typical rhetoric at the door, and bring real information to the debate.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I stand by my comments and challenge yours. I say that bypass fitlers most certaily can filter out smaller wear metal particles and skew UOA data. You specifically stated this:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
You can check with Amsoil and they will tell you that the bypass filter does not remove wear metals.
I have given you several links to prove my point. There are other sources as well that agree with my position. Please leave you typical rhetoric at the door, and bring real information to the debate.
You can stand by whatever comments you want to make but I will stick with the maker of the bypass filter since they have facts to backup their statements. Facts are:
1. Bypass filter does not filter additives in any significant amount outside of the noise margin. UOAs prove this.
2. In a broken in engine, wear metal should be the same size or smaller than the additives otherwise the additives do not work.
3. If the filters cannot filter the additives then it cannot filter the engine wear metals.
4. ISO 23556 testing, these filters remove 39 percent of soot contaminants less than one micron so the additives and wear metals have to be smaller than that otherwise there would be at least a 39% reduction of additives in the UOA.
5. Wear debris can be anything and they can be caught by either the full flow or the bypass or not. We are discussing things that can be seen in the UOA that are caught or not caught by the bypass filter. The wear metal typically seen in the UOA are the one not caught by the filter, bypassed or not, since they are the same size or smaller than the additives themselves. Why? see number 2 above.
I stand by my comments and challenge yours. I say that bypass fitlers most certaily can filter out smaller wear metal particles and skew UOA data. You specifically stated this:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
You can check with Amsoil and they will tell you that the bypass filter does not remove wear metals.
I have given you several links to prove my point. There are other sources as well that agree with my position. Please leave you typical rhetoric at the door, and bring real information to the debate.
You can stand by whatever comments you want to make but I will stick with the maker of the bypass filter since they have facts to backup their statements. Facts are:
1. Bypass filter does not filter additives in any significant amount outside of the noise margin. UOAs prove this.
2. In a broken in engine, wear metal should be the same size or smaller than the additives otherwise the additives do not work.
3. If the filters cannot filter the additives then it cannot filter the engine wear metals.
4. ISO 23556 testing, these filters remove 39 percent of soot contaminants less than one micron so the additives and wear metals have to be smaller than that otherwise there would be at least a 39% reduction of additives in the UOA.
5. Wear debris can be anything and they can be caught by either the full flow or the bypass or not. We are discussing things that can be seen in the UOA that are caught or not caught by the bypass filter. The wear metal typically seen in the UOA are the one not caught by the filter, bypassed or not, since they are the same size or smaller than the additives themselves. Why? see number 2 above.
dnewton3
Staff member
I just got my email response from Amsoil.
I had sent this specific question early this morning:
"I have a question as to the filtering abilities of your EaBP filters. Your website states that the filter media is 98.7% efficient at 2um particle size. I find that to be both believable and credible, given the information I've researched for your product, and those of your competitors. I believe that your EaBP filters are good products, and function as well as any other major competitive brand.
My specific question is this: Can the media distinguish particle composition? In other words, does filter media have the ability to discriminate between a 3um particle of soot and a 3um particle of wear metal, such as Fe or Al or such? Would it, with regularity, catch particles of Si yet pass particles of Pb or Tn, if they were all of the same size (say 4um)?
I believe the media to be non-discriminatory, and it would catch all particles of any stated size with the same efficiency, given reasonable statistical allowances. In short, the media will catch what it can catch, and pass what it cannot, regardless of the analytical make-up of the particle, because the media is a size-based restriction device and not a composition selection device. Is this correct?"
Here is their answer:
"David;
The filter will only filter out solid particles (no dissolved additives, for instance) but cannot distinguish between soot and wear metals of the size noted. Silicon can be either a solid like sand that will be removed or a liquid like silicone oil that is part of the formulation and cannot be removed. So your belief is correct. "
Byron Selbrede
Technical Services
In short, the source you quote agrees with me. A bypass filter will indeed catch any particle within it's purview, and that includes wear metals. Therefore, depending upon where you sample, the data of wear metals can either be greatly or moderately skewed. (Note - I'm not saying that is a bad thing; it is just something to be cognizant of so that one understands the limits and effects of what we see).
Additionally, here's what Blackstone has to say:
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/by-pass-oil-filtration.php
"Not only do the by-pass filtration units cleanse the sump oil of blow-by and oxidation products, they also reduce wear metals and silicon accumulations, both of which are abrasive. Oil does not wear out. Its usefulness is limited by contamination. By-pass filtration removes most of the contaminants."
Now, "abrasize" contaminants (particles) are generally anywhere from 3-10um in size, depending upon which filter site you want to believe. I take it as a homogenization; some say 5-10um, some say 1-7um, other say 3-8um. It all depends upon which bypass filter site you favor. I just lump them together and say 1-10um particles are the ones that do the MOST damage, because they are the ones that are large enough to cause interference, and yet small enough to not be caught by a full flow filter with any regularity. Oil Guard has a good little explination called "CSP" (clearance sized particles) http://www.oilguard.com/whareclpacs.html
Here is what Polaris Labs (who Amsoil uses to process the UOAs you may send them) has to say about ICP analysis:
http://www.polarislabs.com/test-explanations/icp-metals.php
"Elemental Analysis by ICP (inductively-coupled plasma) detects up to 24 metals, measuring less than 5μ in size, that can be present in used oil due to wear, contamination or additives. Wear Metals include iron, chromium, nickel, aluminum, copper, lead, tin, cadmium, silver, titanium and vanadium. Contaminant Metals include silicon, sodium, and potassium. Multi-Source Metals include molybdenum, antimony, manganese, and lithium. Additive Metals include boron magnesium, calcium, barium, phosphorous and zinc. Elemental Analysis is instrumental in determining the type and severity of wear occurring within a unit."
They directly state that the UOA is effective up to 5um (I don't know of anyone that disagrees with this professionally). They directly mention wear metals, in addition to additives.
It is completely true to say that some lube makers use elements such as Cu as an additive, and that will also skew a UOA. But those are chemically solubilized additives and NOT sized as wear metals. Wear metals that exist in the 2-5um range, that would normally be seen in a traditionally filtered system, will be systematically scrubbed in a bypass filter system, and therefore their absence will skew a UOA.
Full flow filters really have no ability to skew a UOA; they cannot filter down into the effective UOA range with any consistiency. But bypass filters most certainly can filter down that far, and they in fact do skew UOAs!
IT IS THIS SIMPLE:
- UOAs CAN SEE UP TO 5um IN SIZE.
- BYPASS FILTERS ARE VERY EFFECTIVE DOWN TO 1-2um IN SIZE.
- IT IS CLEAR THAT WEAR METALS MOST CERTAINLY CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE FLOW STREAM WITH BYPASS FILTERS.
- THE OVERLAP (approximately 3-4um of range) WILL BE SKEWED BY ANY PROCESS THAT CAN REMOVE WEAR METAL EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE EFFECTS THE UOA RESULTS.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom how you don't see these facts. But I suspect all these links and direct quotes will still not be enough for you.
I guess that Noria (Machinery Lubrication), Amsoil's direct statement (as well info from other bypass filter makers), Blackstone and Polaris Labs (as well as other UOA services) and I are mistaken. We're ALL wrong and you're right ...
Yeah - that's it.
I had sent this specific question early this morning:
"I have a question as to the filtering abilities of your EaBP filters. Your website states that the filter media is 98.7% efficient at 2um particle size. I find that to be both believable and credible, given the information I've researched for your product, and those of your competitors. I believe that your EaBP filters are good products, and function as well as any other major competitive brand.
My specific question is this: Can the media distinguish particle composition? In other words, does filter media have the ability to discriminate between a 3um particle of soot and a 3um particle of wear metal, such as Fe or Al or such? Would it, with regularity, catch particles of Si yet pass particles of Pb or Tn, if they were all of the same size (say 4um)?
I believe the media to be non-discriminatory, and it would catch all particles of any stated size with the same efficiency, given reasonable statistical allowances. In short, the media will catch what it can catch, and pass what it cannot, regardless of the analytical make-up of the particle, because the media is a size-based restriction device and not a composition selection device. Is this correct?"
Here is their answer:
"David;
The filter will only filter out solid particles (no dissolved additives, for instance) but cannot distinguish between soot and wear metals of the size noted. Silicon can be either a solid like sand that will be removed or a liquid like silicone oil that is part of the formulation and cannot be removed. So your belief is correct. "
Byron Selbrede
Technical Services
In short, the source you quote agrees with me. A bypass filter will indeed catch any particle within it's purview, and that includes wear metals. Therefore, depending upon where you sample, the data of wear metals can either be greatly or moderately skewed. (Note - I'm not saying that is a bad thing; it is just something to be cognizant of so that one understands the limits and effects of what we see).
Additionally, here's what Blackstone has to say:
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/by-pass-oil-filtration.php
"Not only do the by-pass filtration units cleanse the sump oil of blow-by and oxidation products, they also reduce wear metals and silicon accumulations, both of which are abrasive. Oil does not wear out. Its usefulness is limited by contamination. By-pass filtration removes most of the contaminants."
Now, "abrasize" contaminants (particles) are generally anywhere from 3-10um in size, depending upon which filter site you want to believe. I take it as a homogenization; some say 5-10um, some say 1-7um, other say 3-8um. It all depends upon which bypass filter site you favor. I just lump them together and say 1-10um particles are the ones that do the MOST damage, because they are the ones that are large enough to cause interference, and yet small enough to not be caught by a full flow filter with any regularity. Oil Guard has a good little explination called "CSP" (clearance sized particles) http://www.oilguard.com/whareclpacs.html
Here is what Polaris Labs (who Amsoil uses to process the UOAs you may send them) has to say about ICP analysis:
http://www.polarislabs.com/test-explanations/icp-metals.php
"Elemental Analysis by ICP (inductively-coupled plasma) detects up to 24 metals, measuring less than 5μ in size, that can be present in used oil due to wear, contamination or additives. Wear Metals include iron, chromium, nickel, aluminum, copper, lead, tin, cadmium, silver, titanium and vanadium. Contaminant Metals include silicon, sodium, and potassium. Multi-Source Metals include molybdenum, antimony, manganese, and lithium. Additive Metals include boron magnesium, calcium, barium, phosphorous and zinc. Elemental Analysis is instrumental in determining the type and severity of wear occurring within a unit."
They directly state that the UOA is effective up to 5um (I don't know of anyone that disagrees with this professionally). They directly mention wear metals, in addition to additives.
It is completely true to say that some lube makers use elements such as Cu as an additive, and that will also skew a UOA. But those are chemically solubilized additives and NOT sized as wear metals. Wear metals that exist in the 2-5um range, that would normally be seen in a traditionally filtered system, will be systematically scrubbed in a bypass filter system, and therefore their absence will skew a UOA.
Full flow filters really have no ability to skew a UOA; they cannot filter down into the effective UOA range with any consistiency. But bypass filters most certainly can filter down that far, and they in fact do skew UOAs!
IT IS THIS SIMPLE:
- UOAs CAN SEE UP TO 5um IN SIZE.
- BYPASS FILTERS ARE VERY EFFECTIVE DOWN TO 1-2um IN SIZE.
- IT IS CLEAR THAT WEAR METALS MOST CERTAINLY CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE FLOW STREAM WITH BYPASS FILTERS.
- THE OVERLAP (approximately 3-4um of range) WILL BE SKEWED BY ANY PROCESS THAT CAN REMOVE WEAR METAL EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE EFFECTS THE UOA RESULTS.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom how you don't see these facts. But I suspect all these links and direct quotes will still not be enough for you.
I guess that Noria (Machinery Lubrication), Amsoil's direct statement (as well info from other bypass filter makers), Blackstone and Polaris Labs (as well as other UOA services) and I are mistaken. We're ALL wrong and you're right ...
Yeah - that's it.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
IT IS THIS SIMPLE:
- UOAs CAN SEE UP TO 5um IN SIZE.
- BYPASS FILTERS ARE VERY EFFECTIVE DOWN TO 1-2um IN SIZE.
- IT IS CLEAR THAT WEAR METALS MOST CERTAINLY CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE FLOW STREAM WITH BYPASS FILTERS.
- THE OVERLAP (approximately 3-4um OF range) WILL BE SKEWED BY ANY PROCESS THAT CAN REMOVE WEAR METAL EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE EFFECTS THE UOA RESULTS.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom how you don't see these facts. But I suspect all these links and direct quotes will still not be enough for you.
Hahahaha!!! Only in your mind can it be that simple.
What is the ratio of wear metal in the 3-4um range compares to the total wear number?
After a fresh oil and filters changes and the engine has run for 15 minutes, there is less than 1.3% of particles left larger than 2um. Due to this reduction of particles by the bypass filter, the engine wear is now decreased by a factor of 8 to 14 times (see link below). So, how many ppm of wear metal are there now in the 3-4um range and what is the tolerance of an UOA? For all practical scientific purposes it is zero.
http://kleenlube.com/sae_tests
IT IS THIS SIMPLE:
- UOAs CAN SEE UP TO 5um IN SIZE.
- BYPASS FILTERS ARE VERY EFFECTIVE DOWN TO 1-2um IN SIZE.
- IT IS CLEAR THAT WEAR METALS MOST CERTAINLY CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE FLOW STREAM WITH BYPASS FILTERS.
- THE OVERLAP (approximately 3-4um OF range) WILL BE SKEWED BY ANY PROCESS THAT CAN REMOVE WEAR METAL EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE EFFECTS THE UOA RESULTS.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom how you don't see these facts. But I suspect all these links and direct quotes will still not be enough for you.
Hahahaha!!! Only in your mind can it be that simple.
What is the ratio of wear metal in the 3-4um range compares to the total wear number?
After a fresh oil and filters changes and the engine has run for 15 minutes, there is less than 1.3% of particles left larger than 2um. Due to this reduction of particles by the bypass filter, the engine wear is now decreased by a factor of 8 to 14 times (see link below). So, how many ppm of wear metal are there now in the 3-4um range and what is the tolerance of an UOA? For all practical scientific purposes it is zero.
http://kleenlube.com/sae_tests
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
What is the ratio of wear metal in teh 3-4um range compar to the total wear number?
It depends upon your source. There is some evidence that the UOAs only show perhaps 5-10% of the total metals. But, that really does not matter; we judge wear by the evidence seen, not the prophesized matter that remains unseen.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
After a fresh oil and filters changes and the engine has run for 15 minutes, there is less than 1.3% of particles left larger than 2um. Due to this reduction of particles by the bypass filter, the engine wear is now decreased by a factor of 8 to 14 times (see link below). So, how many ppm of wear metal are there now in the 3-4um range and what is the tolerance of an UOA? For all practical scientific purposes it is zero.
Your math is fuzzy; really fuzzy. As always, you don't qualify your statments. How much volume in the sump? What circulation rate? What BP sample rate? Please do remember that the bypass filter element that is 98.7% efficient is ONLY that efficient on the (approximate) 10% total flow; the rest never goes into the bypass element. And, while the bypass is pulling stuff out, the engine is also reintroducing more. Plus, a small amout of stuff like soot will agglomerate to a larger size. Don't try the math game on me; you won't win - I do statistical process quality control for a living.
"Due to this reduction of particles by the bypass filter ... "
Holy Cow - you just stated my point and act as if it's your own? Isn't that what I've been saying? That the media removes particles (including wear metals), and that in turn is LESS particles that show up in a UOA. Hence - a bypass filter removes metal particles that would otherwise show up in the UOA.
Of course, that is a DIRECT contradiction to what you stated earlier a page or so back in this thread. Let me remind you of how far you've come from your original statement I took issue with:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
You can check with Amsoil and they will tell you that the bypass filter does not remove wear metals.
My clearly quoted source from Amsoil directly disagrees with you and agrees with me. And yet you have not provided any reference as to your source at Amsoil.
Further, you've posted one link (I'd read it long ago before you posted it here) that does NOTHING to refute my claim that bypass filters do remove wear metals.
After your done shooting yourself in both feet, how are you going to walk?
Two things are apparent to me:
1) I've lost interest
2) you're just lost
Have a good day.
What is the ratio of wear metal in teh 3-4um range compar to the total wear number?
It depends upon your source. There is some evidence that the UOAs only show perhaps 5-10% of the total metals. But, that really does not matter; we judge wear by the evidence seen, not the prophesized matter that remains unseen.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
After a fresh oil and filters changes and the engine has run for 15 minutes, there is less than 1.3% of particles left larger than 2um. Due to this reduction of particles by the bypass filter, the engine wear is now decreased by a factor of 8 to 14 times (see link below). So, how many ppm of wear metal are there now in the 3-4um range and what is the tolerance of an UOA? For all practical scientific purposes it is zero.
Your math is fuzzy; really fuzzy. As always, you don't qualify your statments. How much volume in the sump? What circulation rate? What BP sample rate? Please do remember that the bypass filter element that is 98.7% efficient is ONLY that efficient on the (approximate) 10% total flow; the rest never goes into the bypass element. And, while the bypass is pulling stuff out, the engine is also reintroducing more. Plus, a small amout of stuff like soot will agglomerate to a larger size. Don't try the math game on me; you won't win - I do statistical process quality control for a living.
"Due to this reduction of particles by the bypass filter ... "
Holy Cow - you just stated my point and act as if it's your own? Isn't that what I've been saying? That the media removes particles (including wear metals), and that in turn is LESS particles that show up in a UOA. Hence - a bypass filter removes metal particles that would otherwise show up in the UOA.
Of course, that is a DIRECT contradiction to what you stated earlier a page or so back in this thread. Let me remind you of how far you've come from your original statement I took issue with:
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
You can check with Amsoil and they will tell you that the bypass filter does not remove wear metals.
My clearly quoted source from Amsoil directly disagrees with you and agrees with me. And yet you have not provided any reference as to your source at Amsoil.
Further, you've posted one link (I'd read it long ago before you posted it here) that does NOTHING to refute my claim that bypass filters do remove wear metals.
After your done shooting yourself in both feet, how are you going to walk?
Two things are apparent to me:
1) I've lost interest
2) you're just lost
Have a good day.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
After a fresh oil and filters changes and the engine has run for 15 minutes, there is less than 1.3% of particles left larger than 2um. Due to this reduction of particles by the bypass filter, the engine wear is now decreased by a factor of 8 to 14 times (see link below). So, how many ppm of wear metal are there now in the 3-4um range and what is the tolerance of an UOA? For all practical scientific purposes it is zero.
Your math is fuzzy; really fuzzy. As always, you don't qualify your statments. How much volume in the sump? What circulation rate? What BP sample rate? Please do remember that the bypass filter element that is 98.7% efficient is ONLY that efficient on the (approximate) 10% total flow; the rest never goes into the bypass element. And, while the bypass is pulling stuff out, the engine is also reintroducing more. Plus, a small amout of stuff like soot will agglomerate to a larger size. Don't try the math game on me; you won't win - I do statistical process quality control for a living.
"Due to this reduction of particles by the bypass filter ... "
Holy Cow - you just stated my point and act as if it's your own? Isn't that what I've been saying? That the media removes particles (including wear metals), and that in turn is LESS particles that show up in a UOA. Hence - a bypass filter removes metal particles that would otherwise show up in the UOA.
Of course, that is a DIRECT contradiction to what you stated earlier a page or so back in this thread. Let me remind you of how far you've come from your original statement I took issue with:
My clearly quoted source from Amsoil directly disagrees with you and agrees with me. And yet you have not provided any reference as to your source at Amsoil.
My math is not fuzzy only that you've failed to comprehend. All the data for the bypass filter in my post are straight from AMSOIL:
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eabp.aspx
For a guy that do statistical process quality control you can't seem to read very well. What part of "fresh oil" do you not understand? There is no wear metal in fresh oil and certainly very little or nothing after 15 minutes of idling. The reduction of particles in fresh oil will then cause a reduction of wear metals by a factor of 8-14 times during the OCI. This means that whatever wear metals exist in the 3-4um range will also be reduced by that factor. But, most if not all wear metals are not 3-4um but from 0.01 to 0.2um size, which is the size of the additives like I have stated previously.
So, if there is few or no wear metal exists at the 3-4um range and the bypass filter reduce the total wear metal at a factor of 8-14 times overall then how many ppm is that in the UOA? Here's a hint, almost zero if you don't round off.
You have a habit of setting up your own parameters to support your own conclusion. Amsoil agreed with you that the bypass filter is undiscriminating in its process but no where did they agree with you that there is wear metals at 3-4um.
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
After a fresh oil and filters changes and the engine has run for 15 minutes, there is less than 1.3% of particles left larger than 2um. Due to this reduction of particles by the bypass filter, the engine wear is now decreased by a factor of 8 to 14 times (see link below). So, how many ppm of wear metal are there now in the 3-4um range and what is the tolerance of an UOA? For all practical scientific purposes it is zero.
Your math is fuzzy; really fuzzy. As always, you don't qualify your statments. How much volume in the sump? What circulation rate? What BP sample rate? Please do remember that the bypass filter element that is 98.7% efficient is ONLY that efficient on the (approximate) 10% total flow; the rest never goes into the bypass element. And, while the bypass is pulling stuff out, the engine is also reintroducing more. Plus, a small amout of stuff like soot will agglomerate to a larger size. Don't try the math game on me; you won't win - I do statistical process quality control for a living.
"Due to this reduction of particles by the bypass filter ... "
Holy Cow - you just stated my point and act as if it's your own? Isn't that what I've been saying? That the media removes particles (including wear metals), and that in turn is LESS particles that show up in a UOA. Hence - a bypass filter removes metal particles that would otherwise show up in the UOA.
Of course, that is a DIRECT contradiction to what you stated earlier a page or so back in this thread. Let me remind you of how far you've come from your original statement I took issue with:
My clearly quoted source from Amsoil directly disagrees with you and agrees with me. And yet you have not provided any reference as to your source at Amsoil.
My math is not fuzzy only that you've failed to comprehend. All the data for the bypass filter in my post are straight from AMSOIL:
http://www.amsoil.com/storefront/eabp.aspx
For a guy that do statistical process quality control you can't seem to read very well. What part of "fresh oil" do you not understand? There is no wear metal in fresh oil and certainly very little or nothing after 15 minutes of idling. The reduction of particles in fresh oil will then cause a reduction of wear metals by a factor of 8-14 times during the OCI. This means that whatever wear metals exist in the 3-4um range will also be reduced by that factor. But, most if not all wear metals are not 3-4um but from 0.01 to 0.2um size, which is the size of the additives like I have stated previously.
So, if there is few or no wear metal exists at the 3-4um range and the bypass filter reduce the total wear metal at a factor of 8-14 times overall then how many ppm is that in the UOA? Here's a hint, almost zero if you don't round off.
You have a habit of setting up your own parameters to support your own conclusion. Amsoil agreed with you that the bypass filter is undiscriminating in its process but no where did they agree with you that there is wear metals at 3-4um.
Last edited:
Thanks for the thorough overview of this topic dnewton3. You have a persistence and clarity that is very welcome on the forum.
What I get from this is that efficient filtering to 1um really sets a new baseline for analysis. This new baseline should not be directly compared to a typical 20um filtered system.
I must also applaud azsynthetic for his entertaining contributions.
What I get from this is that efficient filtering to 1um really sets a new baseline for analysis. This new baseline should not be directly compared to a typical 20um filtered system.
I must also applaud azsynthetic for his entertaining contributions.
Originally Posted By: martinq
What I get from this is that efficient filtering to 1um really sets a new baseline for analysis. This new baseline should not be directly compared to a typical 20um filtered system.
Absolutely. Because of this, the amount of oils the OP added is skewing his UOA results more so than whether the bypass filter removes any wear metal in the 3-4um range. Every time he added a quart he also reduced the wear metals that can be seen by the UOA by 20%.
What I get from this is that efficient filtering to 1um really sets a new baseline for analysis. This new baseline should not be directly compared to a typical 20um filtered system.
Absolutely. Because of this, the amount of oils the OP added is skewing his UOA results more so than whether the bypass filter removes any wear metal in the 3-4um range. Every time he added a quart he also reduced the wear metals that can be seen by the UOA by 20%.
- Status
Similar threads
