Bypass vs. conventional systems

[dnewton3]

good link - thanks.

Here's some info I found from Oillab.com. It's an Oil Analysis service, like Blackstone and Oilanalyzers.

Hope I can get it to copy/quote correctly:

"SPECTROANALYSIS

Spectroanalysis is the analysis of the metal content and additive package. This test checks 19 elements and reports them in parts per million. These numbers represent the elements less than 5 microns in size. The spectrometers design limits its detection level to 5 microns and below. To evaluate the particulate larger than 5 microns, other test methods must be implemented.
The spectroanalysis is used to look for bearing or bushing wear in the form of copper, lead, or tin. The spectroanalysis also looks at dirt levels in the form of silicon. Wear in pumps, housings, and other points of contact can be evaluated using this information. It is important to remember that these are small particulate. If there are large particles of metals in the oil, larger than 5 microns, the spectroanalysis will not detect them. The larger particulate will be detected in the particle count and or the filter analysis, if the particulate are large enough.

The additive package of the oil can be identified and evaluated using the spectroanalysis.



PARTICLE ANALYSIS

The particle count is the single most important part of the report to measure the efficiency of the system filtration. The particle count measures all particulate in the oil larger than 5 microns.
Particulate include: dirt, carbon, metals, fiber, bug parts, etc.

The particle count can be done using either laser or optical methods. The laser method reports the quantity, size and distribution of particulate, but not what they are. The optical method gives a quantity, size, distribution and identification."

In reading this, it would lead me to believe that spectroanalysis is much more telling of how well a bypass filter would work, because it's effective range is
Soooooo .....
Wear metals reported by spectral analysis would be a very good indication of how well your bypass filter is working. In fact, particle counts are more appropriate for FF filters, based upon the micron size each test is biased towards.

Soooooo ....
My results from my study would in fact be VERY accurate and telling of how well bypass filtration compares to conventional FF filtration, and how well one bypass compares to another. Not that particle counts and filter studies aren't good info (they certainly are), but according to this website, and other information from other oil analysis labs, SPECTROANALYSIS IS THE MAIN TOOL IN COUNTING THE INDICATORS OF WEAR REGARDING CONTAMINATION AND DESTRUCTIVE MATTER IN SMALL MICRON RANGES, SAY AT OR LESS THAN 5um. That being established, you cannot reasonably refute the data I've posted regarding the study.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

SPECTROANALYSIS IS THE MAIN TOOL IN COUNTING THE INDICATORS OF WEAR REGARDING CONTAMINATION AND DESTRUCTIVE MATTER IN SMALL MICRON RANGES, SAY AT OR LESS THAN 5um.

---

Yet it ignores destructive (or destroyed) matter >5um. Suppose you have an inordinate amount of ejecta in the >5um range? How do you define between wear and resultant wear that is caused by larger particles?

If you recall DalessII's study, his digested samples resulted in thousands of ppm ..even for the bypass filter. Let's just say that the results were somewhere between 100 to 200 times the typical results yielded in typical UOA. The drift ..or variance, at that reduced level, would not show up more than a few standard deviations +/- at most..yet we can see the impact of the bypass filtration in total metals was hardly insignificant. I think, if I can recall the graph, it was to the tune of 40% reduction.

What it mostly infers is that the ROI on bypass filtration isn't that great. That the difference between standard filtration and bypass filtration is, although materially substantial reduction, it doesn't alter normal (what we interpret as) wear all that much.

It's like the "stat" cholesterol meds. Your doctor is happy when you've reduced total cholesterol from 220 to 190. The difference means that you may or may not require an Auto-Rx treatment later on. You also have to keep in mind that the doctor gets a few free lunches on those who make the stat drugs. So, we have to take Nebraskan's notion on it ..that even though he takes in his daily adult requirement of red wine to keep the arteries clear ..a little added insurance toward a longer, trouble free, life can't be bad ...even for the limited gain that it may produce.

 

[dnewton3]

---- Gary - every time I think I've got it all figured out, you bring up another view which warrants reconsideration! Ok, hang on, and let's ride again!

What you say makes sense because a bypass filter doesn't stop at the upper end of filtration, it just does a better job at the lower-micron end. So in theory and practical application, the BP filter would be continuing it's assistance in the same effective range as a FF filter, but in a much lower quantity because it's only filtering a partial (5-10%) flow.

Makes me wonder why we don't all send the oil sample in WITH the filter(s) for a much more complete analysis. Well - cost is probably the main reason. I have read all about the laser, optical, etc methods just today. There are so many options for particle counts that we could rage on in a sub-topic for weeks.

I would think that for my specific application on my Duramax, the help of bypass filtration may not be as needed as say a 5.9CTD. Not that the CTD is inferior, but the FF filter ratings are so much better on the Dmax. I know that it's a nominal rating (not beta), but at 8um, it's still a relative improvement over the 20um nominal for a CTD. In fact, at 8um nominal, there is probably some significant blurring of the lines between BP and FF filtration as far as range goes. The BP has the advantage of a finer level filtration, but with the FF nearing (not equaling) the BP effective range, and a FF being able to see 100% of the flow, it probably pulls out a much greater quantity of particulate, but not a finer particulate.

I also try to keep in mind that no filter actually cleans an engine; oil cleans the engine. Filters clean the oil. I was thinking specifically of the results from my study. It's very likely that the reason both FF and BP systems had such similar results is that as long as the oil isn't overloaded past it's design limits, the oil itself is what is controlling wear and particulates. Detergents in the oil clean the engine. Dispersants help reduce agglomeration. It's part of the oil's job to do this, right? So the study I did may not be a statement of filtration as much as oil capacity (both volume and characteristics). And that's why the BP can filter longer; it's pulling out that range of particulate that overwhelms the oil. And it only has a positive effect in the long term; for shorter OCI's the oil is in within control limits and doesn't need BP filtration. That would explaiin why wear rates are evidently similar up to xxxx miles. In that regard, if you replace the oil, you reset the "clock". So if my data and study don't support my claim of equal opportunity for engine health (FF compared to BP), then what does the study say?

For me, it confirms that BP filtration is very benefitial in the long term, because it facilitates longer OCIs, which save money. If you use BP but only drive short milages per year, the only benefit you're getting is a claimed benefit of a cleaner engine that can't really be substantiated, and even then, the gain is so minute it's barely perceptible.

I hereby declare the need for tighter filtration in FF filters. If we can get them down to 5-8um nominal, there may never be a need for bypass.

Let the debate rage on!

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

---- Gary - every time I think I've got it all figured out, you bring up another view which warrants reconsideration! Ok, hang on, and let's ride again!

---

Hey, pal I'm just winging it here. I've just been winging it longer than some..

Quote:

---

I would think that for my specific application on my Duramax, the help of bypass filtration may not be as needed as say a 5.9CTD.

---

Well, I'd probably say that neither OEM figured that either engine warranted a bypass filter as standard equipment. I imagine that GM/Isuzu spec'd your filter to such a fine level due to some fine particulate issue that it wants to avoid that may effect the engine's performance or service routine. The Cummins is offered in several different chassis that all spec longer OCIs than the Dodge pickup offering. One, IIRC, is almost double in OCI. I don't know if that model is equipped with a bypass as standard equipment ..but it would make sense. You can't be competitive in HD sales if your engine is going to be spec'd to 7500 mile OCIs if choosing a Navistar or Duramax powerplant allows less downtime with 10-15k service intervals.

Quote:

---

In fact, at 8um nominal, there is probably some significant blurring of the lines between BP and FF filtration as far as range goes. The BP has the advantage of a finer level filtration, but with the FF nearing (not equaling) the BP effective range, and a FF being able to see 100% of the flow, it probably pulls out a much greater quantity of particulate, but not a finer particulate.

---

I pretty much agree there. The full flow probably encounters and traps more "mass" ..but I don't know how much mass the lower particles represent in a diesel. If soot resides mainly in the lower numbers ..then it may add up to a substantial amount (I don't know).

Quote:

---

I also try to keep in mind that no filter actually cleans an engine; oil cleans the engine. Filters clean the oil. I was thinking specifically of the results from my study. It's very likely that the reason both FF and BP systems had such similar results is that as long as the oil isn't overloaded past it's design limits, the oil itself is what is controlling wear and particulates. Detergents in the oil clean the engine. Dispersants help reduce agglomeration. It's part of the oil's job to do this, right? So the study I did may not be a statement of filtration as much as oil capacity (both volume and characteristics).

---

Over my stay here I've kinda figured that there are a few components in some oils that will actually disrupt existing formations. Otherwise, as you more or less stated, detergents and such suspend particles until they reach some holding capacity. The filter relieves the oil of larger particles that would otherwise eventually drop out of suspension. That is, although some cleaning may occur, the main function that oil performs, beyond its primary function of lubrication, is deposit control.

Quote:

---

So if my data and study don't support my claim of equal opportunity for engine health (FF compared to BP), then what does the study say?

---

If you limit your assignment of worth of bypass filtration to cleanliness, then you've, in more cases than not, proved your case.

Let's for moment say that 15um.

We run our OCI without bypass filtration and the 2um-10um particles accumulate unabated ..unfettered. We know this is a good time to dump the oil ..and do it. Maximum cost:benefit extraction with the modality of filtration employed.

Now we do the same run with a filter capable of controlling the >2um and 2 the particle count in that same 2um-10um range. We reason that any wear (remember, we're magical men of mystery here) that occurred ..over the same span..that it was 1/2 of whatever it was. Doesn't that reason in your head?


But we put away our hookah and do a reality check... We don't know what "wear" 2um-10um particles cause ..but whatever it is, we just gave the engine a double life to the extent that 2um-10um shortens it ...which may be ZERO compared to other components in the complex machinery.

Quote:

---

If you use BP but only drive short milages per year, the only benefit you're getting is a claimed benefit of a cleaner engine that can't really be substantiated, and even then, the gain is so minute it's barely perceptible.

---

Bypass filtration for your average user will/may save you downtime ..maybe. Or it may just make the oil that you're already wasting cleaner when you waste it.

Bypass filtration is somewhat of a oddity. The only people that typically use bypass filtration, as XS650 stated, make lubrication (and many things mechanical) a hobby. Hence they're already prone to "good care" of things in an appropriate manner for the service duty involved. If they're short trip types ..heck, around here, even if they're doing 15k a year, they're changing it out at 3k/3m. Even those who extend drains without bypass filtration are totally conscious of cleanliness on the internals ..at least to all practical limits.

So, it kinda shakes out like this, imo. Those who need and/or could benefit from bypass filtration, in a passenger car/personal use environment, would never buy a bypass system. Those who use them typically don't need them. The engine they scrap will probably be in better condition without a bypass than 10,000 other engines in the junkyard ..and those will probably be in fair shape. Engines live way too long compared to the rest of the chassis. The ceiling is very high already ..and breaching it isn't practical or desirous for most.

 

[dnewton3]

We may have reached a point where we are actually in a relative state of agreement. Is this the first sign of the apocolypse?

 

[dnewton3]

Here is a quote from a Q/A section of the Rotella website. Granted, it's got some propoganda in it for Rotella products, but it is echoed in the Chevron and Castrol websites, so if it's wrong, at least it's a collusion of the indurstry in general (which I doubt).

(quote):
Why do some oils handle soot better?


When fuel burns in a diesel engine, soot is formed. Much of that soot goes into the crankcase. Soot starts out as extremely small particles, but if not properly controlled, can agglomerate and form larger particles. These large soot particles can be bad for several reasons.

First, soot can contribute to engine deposits. Deposits allowed to accumulate can restrict oil flow, inhibit proper piston ring action, and act as abrasives. This can mean reduced performance, and eventually excessive wear that shortens engine life.

Second, adding solid material to oil tends to thicken it. Increased oil viscosity can mean reduced power and fuel economy, and at its worst, inadequate lubrication that can lead to excessive wear.

Third, soot can render some antiwear and antioxidant oil additives ineffective, risking increased wear and oil thickening. Also, when soot joins together to form bigger particles, it can be abrasive as it is carried in oil.

The secret to soot handling is to keep soot from forming particles big enough to cause problems. A good dispersant additive suspends very fine particles in the oil. This keeps them from becoming large enough to form deposits, or large enough to become abrasive.

In doing this, dispersants also keep soot from neutralizing the activity of other oil additives. Used oil analysis can tell you if your oil is handling soot properly. If your oil is up to it, risks posed by soot can be dealt with. Premium oils like Shell ROTELLA-T sometimes show more used oil soot content than other oils. This means the oil is working. Since an engine makes the same amount of soot for a given fuel burn rate, the more soot in oil, the less that's left behind in your engine causing harm. If your oil has properly dispersed soot, when you drain oil, you also drain away soot.
(endquote)


This helps explain why the insolubles, when comparing a FF conventional system to a BP filtered system in my study, are the same level up to a given point. I do realize that insolbules and soot are related, but not always the same, as insolubles also include oxidation products and other nasties. Still - if the oil is keeping the soot/insolubles small enough and preventing/reducing agglomeration, then a BP filter doesn't even have a change to filter it out because it's not getting large enough to be filtered, or become abrasive and cause damage.

What this suggests is that, at least in my study, BP filters bridge a gap in soot/insolubles that doesn't exist until AFTER a certain milage marker is achieved. If you OCI before that point, the BP is having a small subtle effect that probably isn't cost effective.

 

[SWHeat]

Quote:

---

This helps explain why the insolubles, when comparing a FF conventional system to a BP filtered system in my study, are the same level up to a given point.

---

Please elaborate. We have not seen any of the DATA other than what you summarized. I see nothing in your summarized DATA that would suggest any difference or "given point" of change/improvement.

Quote:

---

I do realize that insolbules and soot are related, but not always the same, as insolubles also include oxidation products and other nasties. Still - if the oil is keeping the soot/insolubles small enough and preventing/reducing agglomeration, then a BP filter doesn't even have a change to filter it out because it's not getting large enough to be filtered, or become abrasive and cause damage.

---

I don't know about that one. I've been lurking for two years here and I thought the oil just kept the byproducts of combustion in suspension, keeping them from aggregating.. I dont' know...somebody help! Paging Gary Allan.

---

What this suggests is that, at least in my study, BP filters bridge a gap in soot/insolubles that doesn't exist until AFTER a certain milage marker is achieved. If you OCI before that point, the BP is having a small subtle effect that probably isn't cost effective.

---

I disagree. I will give you that all filters are better at filtering when slightly loaded. However, the bypass starts filtering everything from a given size and larger right away. Cost effective....always debatable.

Oh, dear sir. I surely wish you could remove your blinders and stop trying to minimize the benefits of bypass filtration. You have come so far. I thought you had become Gary Allanized! LOL Alas, NOT.

Granted, your conclusion for FF filtering down to 5 microns nominal was totally on the mark IMO. However, 5 microns absolute would rock.

 

[Gary Allan]

We were mostly always in agreement. Like I said, there were a few members that were

while I continued to pull valid alternative (albeit, speculative) views out of my behind that were of questionable significance ..that you were challenged to dismiss. They didn't bother to point that out since the exchange was pleasant and fun to watch

. Everybody got some good reading ...you realigning your defensive blockade ..and I, like water, went about seeking any outlet around it. All I had to do was keep you on the defensive ..or at least appear so.

As I'm sure you're aware, it's always easier from outside the declaration/assertion when it comes to any debate. It would have been just as easy for you if I had been the one to declare some absolute from the opposite end.


Naturally, it's got nothing to do with me enjoying a good debate and having the ability to argue from either end of the (most) issue(s). That is, even though we're mostly in agreement, I've shared the challenges that one may encounter when you hang it out there. There's always someone who will attempt to lop it off and you can't always figure where they're going to come from.

I think that we've done all we can do here. I'd like you to look at this link from PALL . There's a calculator that allows you to spec the critical nature of your machinery ..the bearing type ..etc..etc. and it will puke out a cleanliness spec. Look at how they compare to our automotive standards. Now sure, I selected the max length of desired service and the most critical criteria for max service ..and surely the spec engine was designed with an industrial environment in mind ..but it still shows what they consider valid in terms of filtration. ..and yes, they do sell filters in a competitive environment.

Thanks for your contribution to the board.

 

[dnewton3]

SWHeat - for the first elaboration, I was comparing the study data I had that was not reported in the post I did. I have the advantage (now that the data is in my computer) that I can "sort" any criteria I want, and Mini-Tab (the statistical program) will spit it out toot-sweet quick. I asked it to show me insolubles at 7k miles oil use (because that's where the average of nonBP showed an average of use) and the BP systems were right around the same level of .27%. So it's fair to say that up until at least 7k miles in this study, the OIL is probably controlling the insolubles and not the filters, because the OIL is the common component in both systems. If you continue milage w/o OCI, the oil seems to become overwhelmed at around 9200 miles and the BP continues its steady hold around .3 to .35%, where the conventional system just keeps escalating.

As far as the next question, my intent was to claim that when soot is SUB-micronic, which is almost alwasy is in it's infancy, it's too small for any practical filter to catch. Oil holds it in suspension and keeps it from agglomerating for long enough that neither the BP or FF can grab it. Again, I can click/drag data on my desktop that you can't see. I just didn't post all the data because quite frankly the possibilities are endless as to the variations (veh milage, oil milage, eng typ, wear metals, etc.) I can ask the system an infinite number of scenarios and it will give the the statistical breakdown for any level. It can even do multiple running variables (makes your head spin!).

ON THE OTHER HAND - I am working myself into some consideration that BP has it's usefullness, but not where it's as widely publisized. Only one website, Oil Guard, specifically states that engine damage occurs mainly in the 5-15um range. All the other websites tout how they can go down to 1um or so, and that's where they concentrate their claims. I know that all work up from 1um, but OIL Guard specifically states that 5-15um is the problem, and THAT is what my data shows. In other words, my data shows relative equality up to xxxx miles ONLY when viewing up to 5um in UOA land. In fact, as Gary first pointed out quite accurately that UOAs don't tell us the quantity or quality of particles past this point (above 5um), and a particle count would be much more accurate. So in my opinion, Bypass filter companies should not claim how great they are at 1-5um, they should brag about that bridge they gap from 5-15um, where after that the FF begins to take over. Below 5um, I think the OIL is the main contributor of success. From 5-15um, the BP rules, and above that the FF is King.

With particle count analysis, we could substantiate that. Anyone got that data? I'll gladly to the foot work if someone has the raw data from maybe 50 vehicles or so.

Anyway, heading home now. Chew on that and I'll talk with you tomorrow.

 

[SWHeat]

Quote:

---

With particle count analysis, we could substantiate that. Anyone got that data? I'll gladly to the foot work if someone has the raw data from maybe 50 vehicles or so.

---

There are some, but I doubt 50. Certainly not 50 FF and 50 bypass to do a comparison.

Footing an extra $20.00 or so for a particle count really makes the UOA cost skyrocket. I had plans to do a study and found a lab that was better priced. Then my data collector car was totaled. That kind of killed the project. Since then I've spent my spare time fixin' up beaters for my kid two teenagers. Maybe next year when all of the maintenance projects are completed.

 

[Jim]

I have to trust the engineers at Mercedes Benz when it comes to bypass filtration. The older Benz diesels had bypass filtration as standard equipment. My newer Benz does not have bypass. Does this mean they don't want the cars to last as long? The 240D with the bypass filter has 325,000 miles on it and it runs like new. Perhaps the newer oil formulations lessen the need for bypass filters and that is why they are no longer used.