Quote:
One thing that stands out in the raw data is that TP filtration does not filter down any finer that elemental bypass systems.
Again, without qualification (at least in your "conclusion"), you're extending the assertion beyond what the data can support. You should have said "..to the limitations that it alters UOA indicators. Since particle count was not included in this evaluation, I must humbly submit that there is the total possibility that my supposition is totally (to some unknown magnitude of significance) flawed."
You're putting a boxer and a wrestler in the same ring and they're boxing, not wrestling. You're using a rating system for the condition of the oil to determine the performance of filtration ..when the performance of filtration only evidences itself in UOA to a very limited degree. True particle level filtration is non-existent in any practical way in combustion (and most others) environments. You would also be challenged to not filter out desired particles while removing unwanted particles. The ability to alter UOA (with reads
When a filter manufacturer rates a filter they don't use UOA as a primary source of raw data. They use particle counts. The filter doesn't care whether it's insolubles or larger chunks of any composition.
It would be really hard, imo, to construct a test that would clearly define the impact of bypass filtration in terms of wear reduction. There was a study that showed that reductions to the 10um level resulted in reduced abrasive wear (I'm pretty sure this is an SAE paper on a diesel) This strongly suggests that the lower you go, the less wear will occur to the limits that >10um abrasive particles contribute to measured alterations to the engine's life. That is, we don't know the ROI, in terms of wear, on finer levels of filtration.
As far as tp versus traditional media ...it's pure speculation from either end of it. There's no bona fide test that I'm aware of that shows the efficiency of tp filtration ..but again, the immutable filtration triangle tends to support the notion (not confirm it) that tp is finer filtration with a short service life. The fact that it's also an economical media source is a favorable, but inconsequential, co-benefit in terms of its effectiveness.
If I hadn't had my minivan stolen (it had 5 MG filter inside it), I would have ganged 4 tp filters in parallel and used the 5th one as a downstream governor (to control flow). This should have made an apples to apples (or closer to) comparison with spin-on media. I cannot duplicate this experiment due to costs. I'm not going to buy 5 MG filters at available prices. I got these at salvage.
In conclusion
it's clear that you "want" to find this result in the compiling of your data. That's why it's easy to find a few flaws in it. As far as my "proof" that tp is finer ..this is, admittedly, formed with indirect and circumstantial evidence and therefore an "opinion" ..but I still see only like evidence to support your assertion that it's not finer than alternatives. You too are using indirect evidence to support your assertions.
(in advance, I beg pardon for any that are offended by the following adapted statement-it just seems so funny in the extreme depiction in example. For many it will cause a snort - for others- my apologies)
It's very much like saying "I've got proof you're *****. My daddy says ***** is (blank) and you're (blank) therefore I go under the premise that you're ******. QED *****. although to a much higher level of socialization and rationalization.
