[Cut Open] Microgreen 301-1

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
2015- you posted the data I copied and pasted - if its wrong its because you put it down wrong originally. I just copied it.
I never said the data was wrong, I merely stated that 0.75 QTs would not be 34% of the capacity of my FX4, and that was based upon the amount of oil that DBMaster changed (which he has now corrected to 22%). In any event, I am out of this thread, I have my opinion and you have yours and since I no longer own my FX4, this discussion (at least for me) is pointless to continue.

 

[kschachn]

There is still no demonstrated correlation between TBN retention and filtration efficiency by anything represented or referred to in this thread.

 

[Nate1979]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Here is a 30k UOA without a bypass filter
https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/3363390/Amsoil_ASM_0W20_30100_mile_UOA

It had less makeup oil as well.

It's very dangerous to compare single data points. No, dangerous is the wrong word. Completely incorrect to draw any conclusion from a single data point. This 30k UOA in your reasoning proves that the Microgreen is doing nothing because someone proved they could go 30k without one.


By your reasoning this one data point is "dangerous"- but you make claim the MG does nothing based on 1 data point.

Which is it ?

(this what I mean by picking and choosing data- you now proffer this as " proof")

On a separate note - I was wondering if anyone ever actually called amsoil out in the test - interesting find.

2015- you posted the data I copied and pasted - if its wrong its because you put it down wrong originally. I just copied it.

So in order of retained oil performance over 30K miles we now have -


1 Amsoil and Amsoil filter - data point at 30K
2 Microgreen and I believe Mobil 1 - data point at 30K

Any frams/ others match this?




UD



I said by your reasoning, not mine. You would need an entire database to accurately draw any conclusion on OCI length and oil filter correlation. But 5 sec on Google I was able to find a data point that you seemed to believe was due to a MG filter.

 

[UncleDave]

You said a single data point was dangerous then posted a single data point.

I asked the 30K question weeks ago so that "5 seconds" wasn't that.

I believe bypass's help preserve TBN- still do. I believe thats part of what makes the MG perform.

I think well probably see more people doing UOA's on them.

I also believe a 2 stage filter to be superior to 1.

any other filters match this?


UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
There is still no demonstrated correlation between TBN retention and filtration efficiency by anything represented or referred to in this thread.



Whats been demonstrated is a serious of UOA's showing the MG claim to be achievable.

The only diff between that and any other regular 1 stage filter is the bypass piece and the starting oil.

What relevant data would DB masters thread represent to you?

What do you glean from it?

UD

 

[BlueOvalFitter]

That is one heck of a nice, well built filter! Is it made in the MC FL-400S equivalent?
Thanks for the C&P.

 

[kohnen]

Originally Posted By: BlueOvalFitter
That is one heck of a nice, well built filter! Is it made in the MC FL-400S equivalent?
Thanks for the C&P.


Microgreen's website has a search by cross reference function. It says that their equivalent is MG 301-1. So, it appears so.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Whats been demonstrated is a serious of UOA's showing the MG claim to be achievable.


But with no correlation to the filter. None. No controls, no references. That is useless in making a determination IRT the filter.

But like I said earlier, if you believe it does then you're demonstrating the target audience for their marketing.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Whats been demonstrated is a serious of UOA's showing the MG claim to be achievable.


But with no correlation to the filter. None. No controls, no references. That is useless in making a determination IRT the filter.

But like I said earlier, if you believe it does then you're demonstrating the target audience for their marketing.



Each of the 3 data points reinforce the claim of the manufacturer.

The 2nd and third test act as control points to tell us if the first/2nd was a fluke.

The oil /filter combo could have failed at any point in the test.

Wouldn't the 2nd and third test reference sequentially and act as a control within the experiment?

There is some reference in a series of 3 tests.

UD

 

[kschachn]

Nope. There's nothing to isolate the performance of the oil filter as opposed to any other influence. It is a completely uncontrolled experiment from which no conclusion could possibly be made. On top of that the sample size is statistically insignificant.

Any experiment that would demonstrate the correlation would have to isolate the filtration from any other influence. That would be a properly constructed experiment. This "experiment" is (literally) all over the road and any conclusions that could be made are completely lost to all the other variables in the example.

A properly designed example would isolate the filtration. That is the first step. The second step is to perform sufficient trials to be statistically signifiant. This example has neither and is so far from having either one to be useless.

You can dismiss my comments as being "laboratory" or too complicated but they are correct. We get people on this board all the time that do an "experiment" (usually related to additives) in which they claim a result. This is exactly along those lines, and has exactly the same problems. There is no thing at all about the filter that can be deduced from the examples shown here.

Of course just like the additive companies that's what they are banking on. Make claims that cannot be verified nor dismissed by any field trial by an individual. This way they can't be sued and those who know no better will believe. I spent a good chunk of my life as a research technologist for a large company, designing experiments to isolate variables and make statistically valid conclusions. This thread and the data presented in it would have probably cost my job had I ever published it in one of my briefs to my peers.

 

[UncleDave]

In that independent blackstone testing serves as a good benchmark thats pretty much the best we have as individuals.

The manufacturer claims statical significance with multiple fleet contracts awards.

City of Oxnard
Polk County Sheriff - 800 vehicles
North Miami Beach public services
Empire limo service - 300 vehicles

All act as independent control and testing points.

Although they dont claim the ISO chapters you would like to see they claim the filter has passed a litany of ISO tests.

Maybe not good enough for your liking as they dont call out individual chapters - but I believe with that data fronted and the tests we do see posted by this parties Im comfortable with the filters performance.

There are little to no 3rd party example on this site of any filter matching its performance.

Ive seen one so far with an Amsoil test and thats very expensive oil and filter comparatively.

Its your opinion "nothing" can be deduced as we have at least three blackstone data points to look at with a known oil shear monster car.

UD

 

[jhellwig]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Whats been demonstrated is a serious of UOA's showing the MG claim to be achievable.


But with no correlation to the filter. None. No controls, no references. That is useless in making a determination IRT the filter.

But like I said earlier, if you believe it does then you're demonstrating the target audience for their marketing.



Each of the 3 data points reinforce the claim of the manufacturer.

The 2nd and third test act as control points to tell us if the first/2nd was a fluke.

The oil /filter combo could have failed at any point in the test.

Wouldn't the 2nd and third test reference sequentially and act as a control within the experiment?

There is some reference in a series of 3 tests.

UD









A control would be using the factory speced filters and oil. Otherwise you have no reference for how the test function as the equipment is designed to function

 

[UncleDave]

Without a control we can still tell that the filter performed as claimed by looking at the data points we do have.

We just can't tell its delta/performance from the stock setup without said control in the same test.

It it tore, malfunctioned or didn't work at all it would have red flagged DB's results.

IF we trust their fleet contracts validity and ISO claims we can be confident they have instituted proper control.

IF we dont trust these things the tests we have are still data points - not complete and total conclusions, but we have 3rd party data points that dont invalidate the claim.



UD

 

[UncleDave]

It appears Camilla Dennison is the CEO of Microgreen - former president of Champion labs.

You think she may know a thing or two about filters?

Heres one of the two patents issued on the device.

http://www.google.com/patents/US7048848

Not easy to get patents.

Im fairy satisfied the management team at microgreen can implement a filter test.


UD

 

[kschachn]

A common but completely incorrect belief is that patents show efficacy. Patents never show nor do they demonstrate efficacy. They only show novelty.

You can have a patent on a device that does absolutely nothing but is novel.

 

[kschachn]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Im fairy satisfied the management team at microgreen can implement a filter test.


One wonders then why they don't publish the results.

One reason would be because they do not support the marketing claims.

 

[UncleDave]

I never said a patent demonstrated efficacy.

I said they were hard to get. They are.

Do you have any on anything.

In my former life at Autodesk a huge 3D cad company patents were always difficult to obtain and in my current company they are as well.

In your prior post you spoke of " we" - who is we?
Do you represent the management team here at BITOG?

Id love to see some of the papers you wrote. Always eager to learn more.

UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: kschachn
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Im fairy satisfied the management team at microgreen can implement a filter test.


One wonders then why they don't publish the results.

One reason would be because they do not support the marketing claims.
\\

Could be they dont. Id bet they and the fleet managers that run them with hundreds of vehicles believe they work.

Another reason could be that they publish a claim vs a filtering standard.

I wonder why no one else claims serviceable oil after three filters and 30K?


UD

 

[kschachn]

Yes I have two patents with my name on them, I got them while working for a large company. I also have several published papers with one as the principal author. Most of my work at that time was studying the surface morphology of carbon black complexes and the effect of heat treatment on electrical conductivity and water adsorption.

 

[UncleDave]

Nice work.

Which patents?

I understood that utility patents cover the design of something that has to be shown to work where a design patent can be ornamental.

Pretty sure the MG patent fall under the utility category- maybe not.

UD