Can a magnet lower particle counts?

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

I'm only going to respond to a few things, because you're going into the twisted strawman mode again as usual.

Translated- cherry pick then duck and run

The fact was the engines that used more efficient oil filters had cleaner oil, which resulted in less engine wear. It's a very simple connect the dots logic puzzle.

logic is a process, not a conclusion. In the study they reached a "conclusion" based on the design of experiments and parameters evaluated. Nowhere on Earth does that constitute or qualify as a "fact". ( otherwise there would never be any possible contradicting study showing something else). Plus the 'study" was unchallenged so you cannot even claim the "conclusions" are without error or bias.

If you actually had the base knowledge of both the subject and how to conduct studies these concepts would be givens- not arguments like you use them for and certainly not "facts" that somehow cannot be challenged.

So I'm asking you to show why the bus study (or any other similar study conducted in the real world) was flawed that conclude better oil filtration results in cleaner oil, which results in less engine wear.

Again, another demonstration of your overall lack of subject matter knowledge on studies. It doesn't have to be "flawed", the dataset could be too small, conditions different, parameters focused on specific objectives and so forth. The fact you even brought this up is proof you don't understand how studies work or results are to be interpreted or used.

If you don't believe it, then prove it with some information. People aren't going to believe even you (ego crusher, lol) if you simple say something with no technical information references.

That's your straw- never did I say or infer any of that. Go back and read very carefully and in context.

If you think cleaner oil means less engine wear, then you agree with me. But nothing you've said in this discussion even hints that you think that.

Then you really need an annex on reading comprehension. I made it clear numerous times that clean oil is a contributing factor but NOT THE ONLY ONE and then conditions. ( but that's where you go off tangent because we are talking about specifically magnetic filtration and its overall effect on a particle count)

True or false ... does cleaner oil (lubrication media) result in less moving machinery wear (all other factors held constant)? It's an easy yes or no. No twisted word games ... what's your answer?

True with no reservation in your "perfect world" example- reality has more contributing factors and many of them totally overwhelm any benefit from a lubricant no matter how clean it is. ( find a link to that too and read up)

You haven't taken anything apart in a technical manner

Negative Ghostrider

especially since you can never post even one link of information supporting your misconceived claims.

Let me be blunt with you Z, I'm a recognized SME in this area- my comments carry the same weight as these "links" you crave and please point out any one you feel is 'misconceived' or in "error" and I'll educate you.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Let me be blunt with you Z, I'm a recognized SME in this area- my comments carry the same weight as these "links" you crave and please point out any one you feel is 'misconceived' or in "error" and I'll educate you.

LoL ... get over yourself. You can't even prove what you claim, and certainly can not prove that cleaner oil doesn't result in less wear. If that was the case, there would be literally dozens of official studies that proved that decades ago. You seem to come across as a "flat earther" type at times, coming up with all kinds of illogical reasons why every study on the subject matter is inaccurate or completely wrong.

All you do is tout that you're some kind of "super expert" in everything under the sun, but can never once even back up anything you say - what's that actually say. Smoke screen facade expert is about the only thing that you come across as. Like I said, you have not taken anything apart in any kind of technical manner. If you could, you would post reference information to prove it. Still waiting for anything in that department.

If you think cleaner oil means less engine wear, then you agree with me. But nothing you've said in this discussion even hints that you think that.

Then you really need an annex on reading comprehension. I made it clear numerous times that clean oil is a contributing factor but NOT THE ONLY ONE and then conditions. ( but that's where you go off tangent because we are talking about specifically magnetic filtration and its overall effect on a particle count)

Guess you actually haven't been keeping up on the focus of the side discussion (oil cleanliness vs wear - which magnets could also be a factor). I said "with all other factors held constant" that cleaner oil will result in less wear - easy to grasp. But you read between the lines and go off in the straw field. If all other factors are held constant, and you looked at the rate of wear as a function of only oil cleanliness, do you really think there is no correlation? - that's how you come across because you can't seem to follow the logic of the discussion, and also discount every study that concludes the same thing.

If you go back and read what I said about magnets on filtration I never said it was going to be a big difference, but simply said it could result in cleaner oil for ferrous particles 10u or less (that typical oil filters can't catch), and that could in turn help reduce wear since it's know that range of particles do indeed cause wear. I'm surprised you didn't try to tear apart FilterMag's claim (Ref post #36) on their product ... you're slipping, lol. So lets hear in detail why you don't believe that cleaner oil doesn't result in less wear. Sill waiting for a valid study link.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

So many errors and obfuscations/deflections but lets go by the numbers, one at a time.

LoL ... get over yourself. You can't even prove what you claim, and certainly can not prove that cleaner oil doesn't result in less wear.

I back up everything I say with relative facts and data up to and including when its just an observation or general opinion. There is no point here to "prove"- it is a series of observations and conditions where results vary, not "absolutes' which can be 'proven" ( as opposed to being disproven). In any case, neither you nor any of your "links" has "proven" anything or "disproven" same. They too are "opinions".

Again, demonstrating that you simply have no idea how the actual process of conducting, publishing and challenging studies works.

If that was the case, there would be literally dozens of official studies that proved that decades ago.

A logical fallacy- where is the "link" to the 'study" that proves that statement? ( your own words even trap you)

You seem to come across as a "flat earther" type at times, coming up with all kinds of illogical reasons why every study on the subject matter is inaccurate or completely wrong.

That's a flat out lie and I challenge you to produce any post of mine that meets your false claim.

All you do is tout that you're some kind of "super expert" in everything under the sun, but can never once even back up anything you say - what's that actually say. Smoke screen facade expert is about the only thing that you come across as.

Feel free to challenge my claims at any time and not just talking in circles with ad hom accomplishing nothing. Lets have one.

Guess you actually haven't been keeping up on the focus of the side discussion (oil cleanliness vs wear - which magnets could also be a factor). I said "with all other factors held constant" that cleaner oil will result in less wear - easy to grasp. But you read between the lines and go off in the straw field. If all other factors are held constant, and you looked at the rate of wear as a function of only oil cleanliness, do you really think there is no correlation?

Here's where you like changing the rules to suit you as you go along. You want the "presumption" of a conclusion that the test and data does not support as a stand alone entity. I didn't read between anything- I addressed it exactly as you put it in proper contest and then qualified my answer. You simply didn't like that and now are doing what you do best- obfuscate and project more straw by changing the statement.

So lets hear in detail why you don't believe that cleaner oil doesn't result in less wear. Sill waiting for a valid study link.

I don't need a link to a study-as stated, my comments stand alone on their factual accuracy.

Again, the point you raise is false on its face because nothing I have ever said or implied even remotely go there. I said oil is not the ONLY factor in the wear equation ( that's why its called Tribology) and other factors can overwhelm or negate the effects of lubrication (clean or not) and that there are no single point conclusions ( which you cant seem to grasp but find a link on that) and all wear scenarios have to be viewed as a WHOLE and that whole has varying ranges.

 

[Kernel Potter]

A few other benefits to a magnet is if the oil filter has a bypass event(s) the magnet will help keep more ferrous debris from geting to the rest of the engine. Another thing I read is wear metals building up in the oil over time has shown to contribute to LSPI events.

I've used magnets in the oil system for many years and still do. I used to get those magna-guard polished ceramic ones that went inside the filter. They always had a light, fine paste of metals on them. And since it was in the stream post filter media it was nice to know that stuff wasn't circulating around the engine any longer.

Now that I read that the dual stage oil pumps are getting up to 100psi of oil pressure, I place some powerful neodymium sticks on the outside of the filter. Whether it's possible or not (having the magnet flow away in the oil stream) it doesn't give me a good feeling having them in the filter.

Now - do I feel this is going to make a huge difference overall? No. But why worry about Fram XG flters and the such if you don't care if 10u and less iron and steel particles are freely flowing in your oil system for thousands of miles? Plus LSPI is reason enough for me to do it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

So lets hear in detail why you don't believe that cleaner oil doesn't result in less wear. Sill waiting for a valid study link.

I don't need a link to a study-as stated, my comments stand alone on their factual accuracy.

Again, the point you raise is false on its face because nothing I have ever said or implied even remotely go there. I said oil is not the ONLY factor in the wear equation ( that's why its called Tribology) and other factors can overwhelm or negate the effects of lubrication (clean or not) and that there are no single point conclusions ( which you cant seem to grasp but find a link on that) and all wear scenarios have to be viewed as a WHOLE and that whole has varying ranges.

Yes, the things you have posted certainly does imply that you think otherwise. But I guess if you actually believe that cleaner oil reduces engine wear, then you do agree with the point I've making all along. All the other psychobabble deflections you're touting is just straw.

And I clearly said all things held constant except the cleanliness level of the oil. That's not hard to understand. So you have gone off in the weeds more than I have in this discussion with your deflections and not understanding the actual focus of the subject. It's what you typically do so you don't get caught being wrong, so no surprise there.

Glad you finally admit that you agree with my point. But I'm still waiting for links from anyone to any official studies that show cleaner oil doesn't reduce wear. All your other comments aren't worth the time to address, it's all just stawman deflections.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Now that I read that the dual stage oil pumps are getting up to 100psi of oil pressure, I place some powerful neodymium sticks on the outside of the filter. Whether it's possible or not (having the magnet flow away in the oil stream) it doesn't give me a good feeling having them in the filter.

Higher oil pressure does equate to more flow at a constant oil viscosity, and it's the force of the oil flowing over the magnets that might be a concern. Of course high engine revs (especially with cold oil) is going to result in the most oil flow force on the filter, etc. Better safe than sorry.

A couple of members here put magnets on the filter base plate (inside the filter), so if they did come loose there is no way they can go through the base plate holes. Personally, I would use magnets on the outside (like a FilterMag), or just use a powerful drain plug magnet, which can collect quite a bit of ferrous material from my experiences with many vehicles. It was pretty amazing how much material just a strong drain plug magnet caught on vehicles going through break-in. After about 5000 miles, the amount caught was way down, like 20~25% of what it was initially.

Now - do I feel this is going to make a huge difference overall? No. But why worry about Fram XG flters and the such if you don't care if 10u and less iron and steel particles are freely flowing in your oil system for thousands of miles?

As mentioned earlier, a higher efficiency filter will catch more particles below 20u than a much less efficient filter, so there is some benefit especially the longer the OCI is ran. X particles going round-and-round through the oiling system for Y miles is what matters. If you can reduce X times Y by either a more efficient filter and/or a shorter OCI, then wear can be reduced to some degree. If people changed the oil every 1000 miles or less (on a broken-in engine) they wouldn't need much, if even any filtration.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Yes, the things you have posted certainly does imply that you think otherwise.

No, but I'll allow you a graceful exit on that point because you have been exposed enough

But I guess if you actually believe that cleaner oil reduces engine wear, then you do agree with the point I've making all along.

Cleaner oil CONTRIBUTES to a reduction in wear. The oil proper doesn't "reduce" anything. (machines wear with clean pristine oil in case you were not aware of that)

All the other psychobabble deflections you're touting is just straw.

No but again, a circular argument is all you have and now that tire is flat.

So you have gone off in the weeds more than I have in this discussion with your deflections and not understanding the actual focus of the subject.

No, none of that is true- you just couldn't keep up with the points in the conversation so you make things up as you go in order to give the illusion of it so you feel better.

Glad you finally admit that you agree with my point. But I'm still waiting for links from anyone to any official studies that show cleaner oil doesn't reduce wear. All your other comments aren't worth the time to address, it's all just stawman deflections.

Run Forrest Run. You are circularly consistent- I'll say that. I never disagreed with the point specifically- just your erroneous application of it. Those are two different things.

BTW, where are all those points you claim I'm in error on?

 

[edwardh11]

what does Toyota do? Seems their engines last quite a long time

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

what does Toyota do? Seems their engines last quite a long time

Top of the line front end design engineering, precision machining and testing BEFORE the actual production model hits the street.

One of the significant contributors to them lasting longer because its designed and built into it at every step of the process.

 

[jeepman3071]

Let's say a magnet did provide a measurable difference, it would only extended engine life such a miniscule amount that outside influences would likely make it too difficult to decide if the magnet was actually the reason for the engine lasting longer. It is a feel good mod, just like larger oil filters. Adding 1/4 quart more capacity shouldn't have any influence on extending oil changes whatsoever. If your engine is shedding so much metal that it fills up the normally spec'd oil filter, a larger one won't help anything and your engine is likely not long for this world no matter what you do. An extra 1/4 quart of oil capacity shouldn't have any influence either. In theory, the larger capacity might actually be a negative, since in colder climates it will take longer for the oil to reach operating temperature.

 

[UncleDave]

Let's say a magnet did provide a measurable difference, it would only extended engine life such a miniscule amount that outside influences would likely make it too difficult to decide if the magnet was actually the reason for the engine lasting longer. It is a feel good mod, just like larger oil filters. Adding 1/4 quart more capacity shouldn't have any influence on extending oil changes whatsoever. If your engine is shedding so much metal that it fills up the normally spec'd oil filter, a larger one won't help anything and your engine is likely not long for this world no matter what you do. An extra 1/4 quart of oil capacity shouldn't have any influence either. In theory, the larger capacity might actually be a negative, since in colder climates it will take longer for the oil to reach operating temperature.

Its no fix for an existing problem, but nothing is.
Nor does it have one iota of effect on primary wear.

Ignoring the diagnostic tool value, passenger autos are such lightly loaded vehicles its not going to make much of a difference.
Especially with conservative OCI's and todays oil.
Add in a timing belt and you have even less particle generation from a top end.

Change the vehicles and load and the value proposition changes.
As the load increases so does wear.
Things like hard working trucks and motorhomes, marine engines and high hour high load gensets are going to wear more in a given timeframe and will benefit from reduced particles. I see all brands of worn out half tons come through the shop that are at the 10 year 150K mark. The chevy 5.3 being the one I see most.

It's in this environment that the claimed scrubbing power of 1-3 ISO code drops become a meaningful measurement of reduced secondary wear.

My RX 400 puts almost nothing on a drain plug, or filter mags, its a relatively low HP V6 with battery assist and a belt driven cam even after 20K.

My titan towing a 7500 pound boat through the high desert shows all kinds of muck against the (filtermag) side of the filter after 7K.Thats with a fram ultra which is about as good as it gets in a single stage filter.

I'd rather have these particles held by the mag than going round and round in my mill especially in through the pin bushings in that timing chain.

Still if you are interested in less wear vs how much less wear these are a cheap filter performance add on.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Let's say a magnet did provide a measurable difference, it would only extended engine life such a miniscule amount that outside influences would likely make it too difficult to decide if the magnet was actually the reason for the engine lasting longer. It is a feel good mod, just like larger oil filters.

BINGO ( but that comes with a qualifier- we are talking specifically an ICE because systems such as hydraulics and most gear trains DO benefit directly from magnetic systems but that's beyond the scope of this commentary)

Nobody should question the simple concept that any particle trapped will move to decrease wear caused by RECYCLED PARTICLES.

Problem is that's more hypothetical and storybook than real world ( with notable exceptions as identified above) but articles quote things like that as if they were some kind of engineering constant- they aint.

In the real world, "wear particles" are generated by a mechanical action at a fixed location for any number of causes ( beyond the scope of this commentary)

Once the wear generation starts, it WILL continue until mechanically corrected. This wear generation puts any number of wear particles ( size and volume of particles) in the lubricant as a constant source once initiated. ( now oil is contaminated)

First question is - will these particles ever reach the filter? That's going to be determined by the geometry and weight of the particles relative to the travel path, velocity of the fluid and a host of other things. Most will settle and live on the bottom of the sump.

Then is there enough NPSH of the pump to pick them up and get them to the filter- ( some obviously)

Lastly, there is the filter media ( assuming not in bypass )- that media doesn't care if ferrous or not

Then the cycle continues with whatever gets past.

So, without a true "concrete number" broken down by % of whatever element, lets say out of 100% of the "particle load" that escapes the filter that 25% is magnetic- that still leave 75% bypass of damaging particles. We can "assume" that if the magnet traps 80% in the filter of that 25% magnetic- the rest still gets through.

Its REASONABLE to believe that if the filter is compromising then as the magnetic particles are captured- non ferrous particles will most likely pass in their place.

So a virtual net zero gain if the filter is allowing a degree of pass thru regardless of a magnet or not. Damaging wear particles are STILL being generated ( so constantly adding) and they are still circulating ( the non ferrous ones).

There's no study that breaks it down that way because it would be virtually impossible physically and cost prohibitively financially to even attempt such an action.

In that real world scenario, the "clean oil" still isn't "clean ENOUGH" ( still has the bypassing non ferrous particles and the generator is still making more) and OCI will only buy time and progressive wear is still going on and getting worse.

Conversely, if there is no significant wear generator and the filter is not passing significant particles then the magnet is providing no realized benefit.

This is why I recommend taking what these articles say at arms length and with a degree of critical analysis- most are hypothetical in approach and promote the "perfect world" outcomes and more often than not don't address all the concerns or factors in favor of the theme of the article.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Cleaner oil CONTRIBUTES to a reduction in wear. The oil proper doesn't "reduce" anything. (machines wear with clean pristine oil in case you were not aware of that)

I've seen it all now, and obviously you can't focus on one simple point and have missed logic once again. If something contributes to a reduction in wear, then it IS reducing wear. You just agreed with what I've been saying all along. Are you afraid to actually say you agree that cleaner oil reduces engine wear? You're straw making defection machine is operating at full speed today.

No, but I'll allow you a graceful exit on that point because you have been exposed enough

The only person that you're actually exposing is yourself.

No but again, a circular argument is all you have and now that tire is flat.

You only think it's circular because you can never even answer a simple yes or no question: Does cleaner oil (all other factors held constant) reduce wear?

We all know the answer, but you're the only one who believes it's not a true, and go in circles trying to circumvent the discussion with deflections so you don't expose yourself, but it's too late for that now.

No, none of that is true- you just couldn't keep up with the points in the conversation so you make things up as you go in order to give the illusion of it so you feel better.

It is true ... you have gone off in the weeds with your deflections because you don't understanding the actual focus of the simple subject, and don't want your facade to be exposed.

BTW, where are all those points you claim I'm in error on?

See your first comment above ... that one takes it all.

The rest of you comments are worthy of a theme song. I'm still waiting for links from anyone to any official studies that show cleaner oil doesn't reduce wear - as in not contributing to reduce wear (worded for your grasping, lol).

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

^^^^This is truly stage 4 denial in the meltdown mode. No other way to call it.

 

[kschachn]

^^^^This is truly stage 4 denial in the meltdown mode. No other way to call it.

I don't know, from my view ZeeOSix is correct. Somehow you equate voluminous but often vapid posts with actual technical content.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Change the vehicles and load and the value proposition changes.
As the load increases so does wear.
Things like hard working trucks and motorhomes, marine engines and high hour high load gensets are going to wear more in a given timeframe and will benefit from reduced particles. I see all brands of worn out half tons come through the shop that are at the 10 year 150K mark. The chevy 5.3 being the one I see most.

It's in this environment that the claimed scrubbing power of 1-3 ISO code drops become a meaningful measurement of reduced secondary wear.

My RX 400 puts almost nothing on a drain plug, or filter mags, its a relatively low HP V6 with battery assist and a belt driven cam even after 20K.

My titan towing a 7500 pound boat through the high desert shows all kinds of muck against the (filtermag) side of the filter after 7K.Thats with a fram ultra which is about as good as it gets in a single stage filter.

I'd rather have these particles held by the mag than going round and round in my mill especially in through the pin bushings in that timing chain.

Still if you are interested in less wear vs how much less wear these are a cheap filter performance add on.

Good stuff here. Yes, vehicles used in high load use scenarios are going to generate more wear particulate due to heavily loaded parts, which ends up in the oil and contributes to added engine wear. Your example of your Titan in heavy towing use showed that with comparative FilterMag collected ferrous material results. The high efficiency Ultra was probably also contributing to help keep the oil cleaner too. Shorter OCIs will also help reduce wear if the machine is really abused with high load use.

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^^This is truly stage 4 denial in the meltdown mode. No other way to call it.

You lost one of the simplest discussions about engine wear there is. As kschachn points out, where's the proof of all your false claims that cleaner oil (with all other factors held constant) doesn't reduce wear?

The three biggest mysteries on Earth that mankind can never prove: 1) The Earth is flat, 2) We never went to the moon, and 3) Cleaner oil doesn't help reduce engine wear.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

I don't know, from my view ZeeOSix is correct.

On what point of is this just a fan rally?

Somehow you equate voluminous but often vapid posts with actual technical content.

Really, where?

Lets have some substance with your false claims

 

[kschachn]

I think most people on this board know exactly what I’m referring to. The only thing bigger then the length of some of your posts is your obvious self importance.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

You lost one of the simplest discussions about engine wear there is. As kschachn points out, where's the proof of all your false claims that cleaner oil (with all other factors held constant) doesn't reduce wear?

You got one fanboy with a baseless unqualified opinion and you claim victory over a false point?

Well, when its all you have - its all you have. I don't fault you for that.

where's the proof of all your false claims that cleaner oil (with all other factors held constant) doesn't reduce wear?

You need remedial reading. That's been addressed properly and in context several times. What part don't you understand?

Oil proper doesn't "reduce" wear- it reduces FRICTION. Friction is a PART of the wear generation process- not the whole.

How much and what type 'clean" oil will "reduce" the wear of a part that is geometrically out of tolerance or has a radical change in surface profile?

You don't even understand or comprehend the science of wear, much less tribology and filtration. You need more links.

You are trying to take 1 part of an equation and regard it singularly as a whole unto itself in the wear equation. it isn't.

Sadly, given the way you talk in circles , i can only conclude that you don't even have a basal level of understanding of the basic principles of the subject.