Can a magnet lower particle counts?

[RDY4WAR]

Most likely, by weight/location and fluid velocity- the bulk of them simply sank to the bottom of the sump and never made it to the filter. ( which is what most do). Once there, they usually stay there.

I will say this though... from a racing background... when you hear a loud pop (verified from friend seeing fireball out of passenger side header from the stands) on the track, followed by lots of misfires and more pops, then pull the magnetic drain plug to find a lot of shredded iron stuck to it, is does confirm something is terribly wrong internally.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I have said for ages that magnets have some obvious shortcomings when it comes to auto engines.

High temps cause them to lose their attraction for ferrous debris, and many of the particles are NOT iron. I have always worried if you have a magnet with a chunk of particles attached and you run the engine up hard, will they simply come loose and re-enter the oil flow?

Just like a bigger oil filter, it is a "feel good mod" with little proven benefit except to your worried mind!

Agreed, but I usually run a bigger oil filter for the easy extra 1/2 qt capacity, not filtration.

 

[4WD]

Agreed, but I usually run a bigger oil filter for the easy extra 1/2 qt capacity, not filtration.

And sometimes more to grab or get a wrench on …

 

[rob1715]

It probably can make a difference. What the difference will make is debatable. There are hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road with 200k + miles on them without a magnet. Use it if you want, probably won't hurt anything, just don't pay too much for it.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

then pull the magnetic drain plug to find a lot of shredded iron stuck to it, is does confirm something is terribly wrong internally.

To fix that just switch to Quantum Blue with the shredded iron dissolving additive package and that problem will go away

 

[ARB1977]

I had one on a remote filter setup on my transmission. Pulled some clutch material out of the fluid during 30K filter changes.

 

[SpitFire6]

A N45SH Neodymium Magnet is good for 150C. 10mm diameter with a 2.2lb pull.
Put on the base of the filter if flat.

https://www.first4magnets.com/circular-disc-rod-c34/10mm-dia-x-1-5mm-thick-n45sh-neodymium-magnet-1-1kg-pull-p3633#ps_0_3787|ps_1_2728

 

[RDY4WAR]

For the dirt oval cars, 150*C oil sump temps isn't uncommon on long runs. They typically hang around 135-150*C.

 

[ZeeOSix]

ZeeOSix said:
Pretty much everyone knows that the majority of the sub 10u ferrous particles aren't going to be caught in the average oil filter. So yes, magnets located even after the oil filter will catch ferrous particles.

No a logical fallacy founded in an appeal to authority based on a circular argument will never become a fact regardless of how it is spun and the frequency of it. Lets see one of your famous "links to a study' showing this is in fact true. When you fail to provide as you normally do, I'll come back and revisit this with actual facts but you first. The difference is I actually do this- not just read about it.

Read the Bus Study for instance. They correlated lab filter efficiency testing to oil PC cleanliness and engine wear in real world use scenarios. Filters that rated highest in the comparative lab filtration efficiency testing also kept the oil PC lower, and cleaner oil resulted in less engine wear. It's really not a hard concept to understand.

I'd like to see the "actual facts" that you have because you never post any links to info to back up what you say. You just say things and expect everyone to believe it, so maybe start posting backup info and people might believe some of the things you claim.

ZeeOSix said:
A very high efficiency oil filter (99+% @ 20u) will catch way more sub 10u particles compared to say a filter at 50% @ 20u.

Many seem to forget or simply don't comprehend that all these filter ratings (ISO) are QUALITY tests for COMPARISON of products and performance against a UNIFORM TEST ( exact round beads, constant flows, constant temps etc- none of this represents real world conditions). NONE OF THEM are representing actual performance in usage. You nor anyone else can say with any degree of accuracy that any filter will do 'this or that" in actual conditions. This is like comparing a stage performance to reality. Those who do the real world stuff understand this.

See response above. The Bus Study showed a distinct correlation between lab filtration efficiency and real world PC data and engine wear. I've also seen some of the same correlation between rated filter efficiency vs PC counts looking at UOAs with PC data posted on this site. Post up some links that show that there is no correlation to a filter's ISO 4548-12 rating and the oil cleanliness in an engine used in the same use conditions in the real world.

Please explain to everyone reading this how a low efficient filter it going to keep oil cleaner or just as clean as a high efficiency filter used in the 100% exact same use scenario in the same engine.

ZeeOSix said:
There are lots of articles out there saying it's the sub 20u particles that do the most "normal" level of wear.

Those articles are too broad to be of relative value because a "wear particle" ( to perform 2-3 body wear) has to be relative to the gap otherwise it cant get in and wear at all. Those articles are just vague generalizations with the barest minimum of factual data supporting them and even then in very confined scenarios. They don't apply "across the board".

Do you have any links to official studies that shows otherwise. Post them up, otherwise I'm not buying that spin. You think people studying engine wear for decades don't know what they are talking about?

ZeeOSix said:
I'm still waiting for someone to show an SAE type study that says cleaner oil doesn't result in less engine wear.

Red herring, non sequitur and at best only a tangent because the lubricant is only a PART of the wear process in terms of prevention, management of wear and overall tribology- so demanding a non issue as some validation of your incorrect premise and pontificating the fact its not there is right up there with saying that since you cant prove "X" that somehow defaults to "Y" being true. Another fallacy.

Not a red herring - it's pretty simple. Show me one official SAE type study that shows that cleaner oil (with all other factors constant) in the same engine under the same use conditions doesn't result in less engine wear.

ZeeOSix said:
Wear due to parts shedding much larger wear particles due to inadequate lubrication, parts failure, etc (what I'd call an "abnormal wear level") isn't what magnet filtration is focused on

No, magnetic filtration is about capture and retention and I explained that in detail

I think you missed the point. Of course any type of filtration is "about capture and retention" ... but magnetic filtration is up an beyond what most media type filtration can capture - ie, a larger amount of the ferrous particles below 10u that normal media type filtration can't capture.

 

[ZeeOSix]

The majority of the ferrous particles caught by magnets is going to be in the less than 10u range, which most normal (lower efficiency) automotive oil filters aren't going to capture. So if anyone is saying taking out particles less than 10u (including ferrous particles with a magnet) doesn't make a difference, then post up some study data that shows otherwise.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Like I said above, It's really not a hard concept to understand. Cleaner oil (regardless of how it's done) results in less engine wear.

There are a lot more than one study that concludes the same thing.

Correlating Engine Wear with Filter Multipass Testing

Diesel engine lubricant filtration is relied upon to protect critical engine components against wear. The type of filtration and the efficiency of particle removal is vital to minimizing engine wear. This paper presents the results of a comprehensive study which characterized the correlation between

www.sae.org

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

See response above. The Bus Study showed a distinct correlation between lab filtration efficiency and real world PC data and engine wear. I've also seen some of the same correlation between rated filter efficiency vs PC counts looking at UOAs with PC data posted on this site.

Correlation in statistics is an almost meaningless exercise without rigorous discipline to what exactly is being correlated and to what extent it is.

There is no direct line between wear generation at the point ( a mechanical action) and a filers effect on it no matter how many articles you quote or ty to spin it. Never had it- never will. All "data" in those correlations is between a guess and a wish.

I'd like to see the "actual facts" that you have because you never post any links to info to back up what you say. You just say things and expect everyone to believe it, so maybe start posting backup info and people might believe some of the things you claim.

I speak from actual experience, not other peoples work and am one of the people back in the day who helped build those "facts" you claim to link to.

Name one thing I post you don't think is a "fact" and I will be happy to show you. You just cant stand the fact you continuously get shot down and corrected. Here's what you do, take those "points" you feel in error and post what the error is ( wont hold my breath on that)

Please explain to everyone reading this how a low efficient filter it going to keep oil cleaner or just as clean as a high efficiency filter used in the 100% exact same use scenario in the same engine.

Your question and scenario is an impossibility nobody can address ( including you) because a filters "efficiency" is on a TEST STAND IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT- real work particle mass, geometry and so forth render all those "ratings" moot as far as what they represent in a REAL SITUATION.

Why can you not grasp that plain simple truth?

You think people studying engine wear for decades don't know what they are talking about?

Not "they", guess again

I think you missed the point. Of course any type of filtration is "about capture and retention" ... but magnetic filtration is up an beyond what most media type filtration can capture - ie, a larger amount of the ferrous particles below 10u that normal media type filtration can't capture.

how is that? I want you to explain that in detail how being ferrous ( the only thing a magnet can catch) is the only difference making something "beyond" what "most media" can capture. ( that whole statement was so vague and open ended its basically useless to try to correct)

The majority of the ferrous particles caught by magnets is going to be in the less than 10u range,

Tell me, how can this possibly be known? Is there a magical barrier where a 10.1 cant enter unless its non magnetic?

Its clear you have little to no actual experience conducting testing or interpreting results. That's called a baseless conclusion and a logical fallacy.

Like I said above, It's really not a hard concept to understand. Cleaner oil (regardless of how it's done) results in less engine wear.

You posted all those words, smoke screened, deflected, obfuscated, talked in circles and waded around saying "things" all to make and defend a straw point that was never in question in the first place for the purpose of distracting from all your other errors without disproving any point made.

Amazing, LOL

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ I'm not even going to address any of your complete non-sense replies because you're a faker that can never back-up anything you say, and will just twist it up to deflect. I really don't think you have a solid grasp of tribology or filtration based on some of your posts (or you have a hard time following simple logic), and like to twist up discussions to deflect for obvious reasons. Instead, you discount info I post up from official SAE studies, and then go down the personal attack rabbit hole, like your responses in post #32. You read between the lines to avoid addressing a specific point and discount SAE studies made by experts in the field, but I think we all know here that you're just a smoke blower because you can never link to any info to back-up anything you ever make a claim about. Has anyone here seen you posting even one link to anything you've ever claimed since you started posting? I haven't.

I'm still waiting for just one official SAE type study link posted up by anyone that shows that cleaner oil (regardless of how it's kept cleaner) doesn't reduce engine wear. Your claims are frankly ridiculous and laughable against all the studies that have been conducted that show that cleaner oil results in less wear (regardless of the machinery). Any "expert" engineer would easy grasp the logic. Much of what you post is discounted by people who actually have real engineering experience. Amazing, LOL.

Still like your twisted straw filled posts for the "entertainment" value, usually gives me a .

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

^^^ I'm not even going to address any of your complete non-sense replies because you're a faker that can never back-up anything you say, and will just twist it up to deflect.

Would you like some cheese?

 

[ZeeOSix]

^^^ Show us all in detail why all these studies are wrong that conclude cleaner oil, regardless of how it's kept cleaner, results in less engine wear. Stop deflecting and twisting, and show us the info with links backing up your claims that goes against every study on the subject matter. I'm still waiting, and always will be because there isn't one properly conducted study on earth that shows otherwise.

 

[UncleDave]

Just curious if anyone has tested for particles in the 4 to 20 micron size for a given oil filter then run it again for the same oil/time with a magnet.

If you dig around you can find the filtermag study that claimed that a set of theirs was good for between 1 and 3 iso code drops.

If true this is significant for an inexpensive add on.

They claim it works best in approx the range you suggest.

There are other sudies that show ferrous particle can often time act as a carrier for other particles that bond with them.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Show us all in detail why all these studies are wrong that conclude cleaner oil, regardless of how it's kept cleaner, results in less engine wear.

Stop playing in the straw to defend yourself. I have never said any of the above. I challenge you to show where. Again, you talk in circles and say nothing.

Stop deflecting and twisting, and show us the info with links backing up your claims that goes against every study on the subject matter.

The information I state is factual on the face and easily verifiable. Why don't you show me one in actual error so I can educate you further.

Here's reality Z, Posting a link to a study that isn't your area of expertise, you don't have the requisite knowledge of, don't have all the data/experiments and review that makes up the study and a whole lot more is NOT "verification" or "validation" to anything. Never has been and never will be.

Post the claim you believe is in error and one of your linkies ( provided its on an actual point I made- not one of your made up straw creations) and I'll take it from there.

I'm still waiting, and always will be because there isn't one properly conducted study on earth that shows otherwise.

Ahh, another logical fallacy. Say nothing but say it often hoping it becomes true.

You are just having a tantrum because you don't know all you think you do and your points are taken apart by someone who can and you are having a fit about it. If you actually knew the subject matter- you wouldn't need the links and could discuss from your own knowledge base and understand studies have everything from limits to agendas so they are not to be taken at face value or as an absolute.

 

[UncleDave]

Also from Machinery Lubrication magazine.

A good list of " Potential" benefits of magnets.

Clearly all cannot be on any one given machine but its an interesting holistic look from a well known source.

The one that surprised me here was the potential enhanced oxidation stability.

Pretty sure this is from the older Fitch, Jim.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

A good list of " Potential" benefits of magnets.

Hard to argue against "potential" while steering away from addressing "likelihood of occurrence" and completely avoiding describing that 'potential benefit" in terms of recognizable measurable benefit.

Articles are good sources of awareness, inspiration and general information but should be regardless with a high degree of objectivity and critical thinking while carefully vetting the information in them.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Show us all in detail why all these studies are wrong that conclude cleaner oil, regardless of how it's kept cleaner, results in less engine wear.

Stop playing in the straw to defend yourself. I have never said any of the above. I challenge you to show where. Again, you talk in circles and say nothing.

I'm only going to respond to a few things, because you're going into the twisted strawman mode again as usual. See your reply about the bus study below. If you knew what the bus study (as well as other similar studies) concluded, you wouldn't have said what you did below. 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. 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. 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.

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. Maybe you have a problem understanding the actual focus of the conversation ... ??

See response above. The Bus Study showed a distinct correlation between lab filtration efficiency and real world PC data and engine wear. I've also seen some of the same correlation between rated filter efficiency vs PC counts looking at UOAs with PC data posted on this site.

Correlation in statistics is an almost meaningless exercise without rigorous discipline to what exactly is being correlated and to what extent it is.

There is no direct line between wear generation at the point ( a mechanical action) and a filers effect on it no matter how many articles you quote or try to spin it. Never had it- never will. All "data" in those correlations is between a guess and a wish.

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?

I'm still waiting, and always will be because there isn't one properly conducted study on earth that shows otherwise.

Ahh, another logical fallacy. Say nothing but say it often hoping it becomes true.

You are just having a tantrum because you don't know all you think you do and your points are taken apart by someone who can and you are having a fit about it. If you actually knew the subject matter- you wouldn't need the links and could discuss from your own knowledge base and understand studies have everything from limits to agendas so they are not to be taken at face value or as an absolute.

Having a "tantrum" ... lol, look at your previous posts, then in the mirror. You haven't taken anything apart in a technical manner - not sure you can actually keep up technically from what's been said by you so far. The only thing you've "taken apart" is your own facade trying to make people here actually believe that you know what you're talking about ... especially since you can never post even one link of information supporting your misconceived claims.

I'm still waiting for those links to official studies that show better oil filtration (regardless of how it's done) doesn't result in less engine wear.