Has anybody taken the data from UOA's where different types of filters were used and compared wear numbers from the more 'restrictive'(allegedly) filters to the ones which seem to exibit more flow,such as Mobil1 and PureOne compared to Fram, K&N, etc? Of course, you'rd also need the same oil, butit might be a start....
Filter Flow Tests?
- Thread starter Russ_Knize
- Start date
- Status
I wonder if this worth all the effort involved. When all is said and done, only a small percentage of people will ever see the results. A SWAG would be 0.0001 % of the motoring public. So whats the point of arguing, its just a project and there will be some who will trust the results and there will be some who don't. Its not sanctioned by any legitimate organization. It may sway some to buy a certain product or not but a certain product (often a goal of some) but will it all be worth the effort? If its just a hobby for some, they should state so. If they are out to prove that the cheapest filter made is just as good as the most expensive. Good luck, people will always look to save a buck, its human nature. Others will base quality on price, if it cost more it got to be better.
But as sure as there is an internet, many will come to conclusions, weather based in fact or fiction, and will argue from that point of view. I already see it happening.
So, my recommendation, go buy what makes you feels happy and stop trying to convince everyone you are the expert.
Let me apologize in advance if I offended anyone participation in this tread.
[ August 22, 2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Mike ]
But as sure as there is an internet, many will come to conclusions, weather based in fact or fiction, and will argue from that point of view. I already see it happening.
So, my recommendation, go buy what makes you feels happy and stop trying to convince everyone you are the expert.
Let me apologize in advance if I offended anyone participation in this tread.
[ August 22, 2003, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Mike ]
In the scientific community they call it "peer review". As the oil site of record, here is where us oil obsessed folks get our fix. Is it a hobby or a disfunction? Don't you just love that feeling of superiority when you go to Wal-mart and see some moron buying x filters and y oil? OK dont answer that, its rhetorical. I have been an oil and filter faggot since way back so I love the give and take at this site. Think of just the people, recently who come here thinking that a backflow valve is not needed if your filter is mounted base up! I have a warm fuzzy feeling for the good we are doing for the unwashed masses, one ignorant barbarian at a time. I must also give a lot of thanks to Russ Knize who started my journey out of the wilderness.
Russ -
I do consider you a pioneer. Do you realize how many people have just copied and pasted your (former) website??
All this time I was waiting for you to open the Amsoil SDF-15.
I would consider it an honor to know you. You are welcome here with open arms, we look foward to your input - but somehow your posts come across as unhelpful and somewhat insulting.
OK Bob's tests have some serious flaws. We can agree to this. But he is trying stuff and publishing - I don't think it's all BS and pointless, nor wasted effort. I agree we don't know the reasons for restriction - but it just takes further study, I would think. And your help may be required.
[ August 22, 2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Pablo ]
I would consider it an honor to know you. You are welcome here with open arms, we look foward to your input - but somehow your posts come across as unhelpful and somewhat insulting.
OK Bob's tests have some serious flaws. We can agree to this. But he is trying stuff and publishing - I don't think it's all BS and pointless, nor wasted effort. I agree we don't know the reasons for restriction - but it just takes further study, I would think. And your help may be required.
[ August 22, 2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Pablo ]
Ok I would agree with others that the flow test only tells you which filter restricted flow and nothing about efficiency. Several point to an expensive bead test in order to determine a true efficiency. There is a test referred to as Bubble Point Test that you can directly correlate to pore size of the media. This test can be set up inexpensively,
1. To do this test you have to remove the outer housing first without damaging the filter. A lathe with a parting tool works best, but a careful hacksawing would work too.
2. Load/pump each filter with the fluid for a minute or so to remove all air from the media. This is referred to as “wetting out” the media. This will require flowing from the inside out.
3. Then with a good pressure regulator and gauge 0-30 psi, ramp the air pressure slowly until you see bubbles coming from the media.
4. Record this pressure.
After testing all the filters, you can positively say which is more efficient than the next based on the bubble point pressures. However, you can't exactly say what the pore size is without correlating it to a bead test. In this case the higher the bubble point the smaller the pore size. When testing like filters, bubble point or BP should be fairly linear, so if some BP at 8.0psi and another at 11.0psi you may say that one is around 35% more efficient that the other.
The trick here is finding a fluid that will provide good bubble points. You want one thick or sticky enough that the BP pressures are around 10-15 psi, that way you don't have to worry about trying to record differences of .1psi on manual equipment. The other thing is ramp speed of pressure should be as consistent as possible. An experienced tester can be very repeatable, but from tester to tester, it will vary a little. If any are interested in setting up a BP tester let me know, I can elaborate on the specific components and test methods.
Bob in a way performed a Bubble Point test when he left the M1 & Fram drain under gravity. The Fram dried or bubble pointed and the M1 didn't. The M1 needed more than static head pressure to bubble point the the media.
Tim
1. To do this test you have to remove the outer housing first without damaging the filter. A lathe with a parting tool works best, but a careful hacksawing would work too.
2. Load/pump each filter with the fluid for a minute or so to remove all air from the media. This is referred to as “wetting out” the media. This will require flowing from the inside out.
3. Then with a good pressure regulator and gauge 0-30 psi, ramp the air pressure slowly until you see bubbles coming from the media.
4. Record this pressure.
After testing all the filters, you can positively say which is more efficient than the next based on the bubble point pressures. However, you can't exactly say what the pore size is without correlating it to a bead test. In this case the higher the bubble point the smaller the pore size. When testing like filters, bubble point or BP should be fairly linear, so if some BP at 8.0psi and another at 11.0psi you may say that one is around 35% more efficient that the other.
The trick here is finding a fluid that will provide good bubble points. You want one thick or sticky enough that the BP pressures are around 10-15 psi, that way you don't have to worry about trying to record differences of .1psi on manual equipment. The other thing is ramp speed of pressure should be as consistent as possible. An experienced tester can be very repeatable, but from tester to tester, it will vary a little. If any are interested in setting up a BP tester let me know, I can elaborate on the specific components and test methods.
Bob in a way performed a Bubble Point test when he left the M1 & Fram drain under gravity. The Fram dried or bubble pointed and the M1 didn't. The M1 needed more than static head pressure to bubble point the the media.
Tim
Tim,
You made some very good points in your first post.
Please elaborate, I think we would all be interested in how this would work. Like you said it wont tell absolute efficiency, but would give a good indication of comparative efficiencies. I think that captures what we are all curious about, which filter filters better.
Dan
[ August 22, 2003, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]
You made some very good points in your first post.
Please elaborate, I think we would all be interested in how this would work. Like you said it wont tell absolute efficiency, but would give a good indication of comparative efficiencies. I think that captures what we are all curious about, which filter filters better.
Dan
[ August 22, 2003, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Dan4510 ]
After giving it some more thought and some discussion with one of my R&D colleges, who I consider an expert in filtration. He pointed out Bubble Point can directly calculate pore size. However this test and calculation doesn’t yield a “nominal” pore size it calculates the largest pore size because those will be the first to clear using this test method.
Now the good news, the test set will be even less expensive that I first thought. I’ve been giving this some thought for some time and have wanted to do this myself for the filters that I use on my cars and tractor. Since I have all the testing equipment, needed at my disposal I’ll make the first system and compare the results to some expensive calibrated lab equipment used to do the same thing. I will first try testing the filters without removing the case, if this can be done the advantage is I can use them when I’m done. Otherwise, I’ll result to cutting the can off. A brief description will be:
1. Filter holder: Plate with a ¾” threaded stud with a hole through the center, and a side port to the outside of the filter.
2. Misc. tubing and connectors
3. 60/40% Alcohol / DI Water: I’ll start with this because it’s clean, easy to work with, cheap, and I know the surface tension of the fluid. Surface tension is need to calculate pore size and its If I have to use another fluid like oil then I have to measure the surface tension, which may be a lengthy process.
4. Tub or tank to submerge the filter in.
5. Air pressure source and a regulator
6. 0-5 psi gauge or a “water manometer”: A water manometer is simply a piece of tubing fixed to a vertical holder with inch graduations on it. It’s cheap and very accurate. 27 inches of water equals 1.01 psi at sea level
Once I get the test set together and some bugs worked out I’ll post some pictures, full description, pore size calculations and a test method. That way anyone can duplicate my results or test other filters of their choice.
Now the good news, the test set will be even less expensive that I first thought. I’ve been giving this some thought for some time and have wanted to do this myself for the filters that I use on my cars and tractor. Since I have all the testing equipment, needed at my disposal I’ll make the first system and compare the results to some expensive calibrated lab equipment used to do the same thing. I will first try testing the filters without removing the case, if this can be done the advantage is I can use them when I’m done. Otherwise, I’ll result to cutting the can off. A brief description will be:
1. Filter holder: Plate with a ¾” threaded stud with a hole through the center, and a side port to the outside of the filter.
2. Misc. tubing and connectors
3. 60/40% Alcohol / DI Water: I’ll start with this because it’s clean, easy to work with, cheap, and I know the surface tension of the fluid. Surface tension is need to calculate pore size and its If I have to use another fluid like oil then I have to measure the surface tension, which may be a lengthy process.
4. Tub or tank to submerge the filter in.
5. Air pressure source and a regulator
6. 0-5 psi gauge or a “water manometer”: A water manometer is simply a piece of tubing fixed to a vertical holder with inch graduations on it. It’s cheap and very accurate. 27 inches of water equals 1.01 psi at sea level
Once I get the test set together and some bugs worked out I’ll post some pictures, full description, pore size calculations and a test method. That way anyone can duplicate my results or test other filters of their choice.
Bob, can you please prove this to me? Are you referring to your Micron Moly vs. Supreme thread ( http://theoildrop.server101.com/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000211 )?
If not, then disregard the rest of my post. If so, IMHO, first the test must be proven to be repeated. The two Supreme/M1 results are not even close to being repeteable. The lead was double on the 4k run than on the 10.5k run. How can you prove anything when the same oil with the same filter in the same car doesn't even compare equally?
Bob, I'm not trying to blast you, but probably more than half of the people on this board are telling their friends that filter efficiency is not as important as flow. I don't beleive enough data has been generated to come to that conclusion.
[ August 25, 2003, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Chris A ]
Since I haven't got a lot of time right now, let me point out to you something that you may not have thought of...
"The two Supreme/M1 results are not even close to being repeteable. The lead was double on the 4k run than on the 10.5k run. How can you prove anything when the same oil with the same filter in the same car doesn't even compare equally?"
When a filter starts to clog up as there is some evidence that the 10k filter was run longer than should been, and by trying to gravity drain the oil, it wouldn't again showing high restriction through the media, is it possible that when the oil hit the filter, with such resistance, it would open the bypass valve sooner, thus allowing more flow quicker than the lower properly working newer filter? Again, flow prevailing thus showing lower wear numbers over the greater amount of time than the newer one? Am I going to prove that flow is more important, look at all the numbers, from the first to the last, notice that when I dropped the viscosity to the 5w30 it even when lower, again, better flow?. Hopefully soon I'll have my last analysis back to demonstrate the difference that the pao had on the wear protection of the blend over the 5w30 mineral using the same filter type.
The next one will demonstate 2things, is the full flow filter really helping capture wear particles and two will the 100% non restriction actually lower wear numbers even lower?
The fat lady hasn't sung yet. These tests are subjective at best but looking at the evidence, so far, flow is proving out to be more pronounced in reducing wear than filtration/pao synth base oil.
[ August 25, 2003, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]
"The two Supreme/M1 results are not even close to being repeteable. The lead was double on the 4k run than on the 10.5k run. How can you prove anything when the same oil with the same filter in the same car doesn't even compare equally?"
When a filter starts to clog up as there is some evidence that the 10k filter was run longer than should been, and by trying to gravity drain the oil, it wouldn't again showing high restriction through the media, is it possible that when the oil hit the filter, with such resistance, it would open the bypass valve sooner, thus allowing more flow quicker than the lower properly working newer filter? Again, flow prevailing thus showing lower wear numbers over the greater amount of time than the newer one? Am I going to prove that flow is more important, look at all the numbers, from the first to the last, notice that when I dropped the viscosity to the 5w30 it even when lower, again, better flow?. Hopefully soon I'll have my last analysis back to demonstrate the difference that the pao had on the wear protection of the blend over the 5w30 mineral using the same filter type.
The next one will demonstate 2things, is the full flow filter really helping capture wear particles and two will the 100% non restriction actually lower wear numbers even lower?
The fat lady hasn't sung yet. These tests are subjective at best but looking at the evidence, so far, flow is proving out to be more pronounced in reducing wear than filtration/pao synth base oil.
[ August 25, 2003, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: BOBISTHEOILGUY ]
.
So, what would have happened to all of the wear metals during the first 4k miles when the filter was not bypassing (or whatever it was doing during the other M1 interval)? They should still be there, right? I think in order to prove anything, each set of data should be shown that it is repeatable. The 2 tests with the M1 filter do not show repeatable results so I don't believe the tests come close to proving anything.
I agree. I also have no problem with you theorizing about flow is more important than filtration. I think you should stay clear of the "prove/proof" word until your theory has been show to be repeatable under each test scenario.
[ August 25, 2003, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Chris A ]
Everybody ... slow down, quit arguing, read Schultz's posts and look at his profile. Looks like we have the subject matter expert we are always looking for on this forum. And he says he has the equipment and desire to get us some answers. Let's keep him engaged and be thankful he is here.
[ August 25, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: doyall ]
[ August 25, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: doyall ]
Doyall, I think that what chris and I are doing is debating opinions not arguing.
Chris, "I think you should stay clear of the "prove/proof" word until your theory has been show to be repeatable under each test scenario."
Fair enough.
There's some more I think needs to be mentioned.. Oil filtration will exceed it's ability to flow IMO(hows that), as filtration media will grow old from hot and cold oil over a period of time. Like any thing such as a sponge, the fibers will start to fray and also contribute to reducing flow. Another interesting thing I noticed is that when I took a new filter media, put oil in a can and stuck the filter media into the oil, it took a bit for the media to absorb enough oil to pass through to the middle. As it did, the outside level of oil went down. So, when I took my filter media off my engine and replaced with a straight plate eliminating the full flow filter, my oil change which normally consists of 4.25 quarts to get full, only took exactly 3quarts to fill up. There was over a qt of oil capacity in that little filter locked up in the media. No wonder the filter was much heavier when pulled off.
As for why the lead numbers are higher in a 4k drain over a 10k drain, good question. As I look at a lot of analysis, ever notice that 2k, and some 3k drains seem to have higher wear numbers than 5-6k drains? I think that there is a time where it takes a while maybe for all of the oil to pass through the filter media maybe. Of course after a while longer, the media may be going into bypass more and more then by that time, full flow is occurring quicker thus if what I'm noticing is there is less wear? until you pass a certain point where the media isn't working at all thus no filtration is working and wear numbers eventually start to accumulate. This may prove out to show when I get my analysis back without a filter. If this is the case, I'll have elevated wear numbers in 4k than any of the previous analysis. Then once I install the bypass, my wear numbers effectively should fall below any others as then I'll have full flow but also filtration.
Something I'd like you to answer, Since I used a m1 filter with a pao blend on one analysis at 4k , and then switched to a fram with a mineral counter part oil of the blend for 4k, why then would I get a lower lead count on the mineral and fram filter than a blend with the "pao" in it? Any thoughts or opinions on this? have any idea what it might prove? definitely the mineral can't be that much superior to an exact copy of the blend without pao.
Chris, "I think you should stay clear of the "prove/proof" word until your theory has been show to be repeatable under each test scenario."
Fair enough.
There's some more I think needs to be mentioned.. Oil filtration will exceed it's ability to flow IMO(hows that), as filtration media will grow old from hot and cold oil over a period of time. Like any thing such as a sponge, the fibers will start to fray and also contribute to reducing flow. Another interesting thing I noticed is that when I took a new filter media, put oil in a can and stuck the filter media into the oil, it took a bit for the media to absorb enough oil to pass through to the middle. As it did, the outside level of oil went down. So, when I took my filter media off my engine and replaced with a straight plate eliminating the full flow filter, my oil change which normally consists of 4.25 quarts to get full, only took exactly 3quarts to fill up. There was over a qt of oil capacity in that little filter locked up in the media. No wonder the filter was much heavier when pulled off.
As for why the lead numbers are higher in a 4k drain over a 10k drain, good question. As I look at a lot of analysis, ever notice that 2k, and some 3k drains seem to have higher wear numbers than 5-6k drains? I think that there is a time where it takes a while maybe for all of the oil to pass through the filter media maybe. Of course after a while longer, the media may be going into bypass more and more then by that time, full flow is occurring quicker thus if what I'm noticing is there is less wear? until you pass a certain point where the media isn't working at all thus no filtration is working and wear numbers eventually start to accumulate. This may prove out to show when I get my analysis back without a filter. If this is the case, I'll have elevated wear numbers in 4k than any of the previous analysis. Then once I install the bypass, my wear numbers effectively should fall below any others as then I'll have full flow but also filtration.
Something I'd like you to answer, Since I used a m1 filter with a pao blend on one analysis at 4k , and then switched to a fram with a mineral counter part oil of the blend for 4k, why then would I get a lower lead count on the mineral and fram filter than a blend with the "pao" in it? Any thoughts or opinions on this? have any idea what it might prove? definitely the mineral can't be that much superior to an exact copy of the blend without pao.
Absolutely
I really don't have much to add that would explain it
I think it would be interesting (I'd even PayPal you $12) to go back to a M1 filter and see if the lead goes way up again. Although this still would not be proof, it would be enough to convince me that there is something to the theory.
[ August 25, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Chris A ]
Then by all means, go for it! Sorry for the inference.
Chris, I just got my last report and you'll see how the blend appears not to be doing much better with the same oil filter as the mineral.
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000211;p=4#000111
Care to contribute any reasons this might be?
http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000211;p=4#000111
Care to contribute any reasons this might be?
I understand that Chris, but that IS one of the points of that analysis. It not only is the blend vers mineral but ALSO using the SAME FRAM FILTER, which is basically a repeatable point of two like oils with both wear #s showing near the same.
BTW, to answer your post about me, As some know, I drive this car hard. 2 wks ago, hit 100mph running on the hwy. I take off hard at lights, and I do alot of both, hwy and local driving. I also sit in the parking lot while my wife goes into the store and watch people going in and out all the while the car is idling with the A/c running.
The state of florida ranges in temps during this time of year, 78-99*degs. I would say that you'd be hard press to put an engine through any harder that what I do as it would be a severe driving if ever it was classified as one.
BTW, to answer your post about me, As some know, I drive this car hard. 2 wks ago, hit 100mph running on the hwy. I take off hard at lights, and I do alot of both, hwy and local driving. I also sit in the parking lot while my wife goes into the store and watch people going in and out all the while the car is idling with the A/c running.
The state of florida ranges in temps during this time of year, 78-99*degs. I would say that you'd be hard press to put an engine through any harder that what I do as it would be a severe driving if ever it was classified as one.
Some food for thought: Depth media's all have a service life. By that, I mean they will retain particles until that service life is exceeded. An example would be loading a filter with a constant amount particulate over time and watching the downstream side with a particle counter. At the beginning, the downstream will have a much lower count than the upstream side. Once the filter is fully loaded (service life exceeded), often you will find the down stream counts to be nearly equal and higher than the upstream counts.
Therefore, if the service life of a very retentive filter is greatly exceeded then a less retentive filter that hasn't exceeded its service life may look like it performed better.
Therefore, if the service life of a very retentive filter is greatly exceeded then a less retentive filter that hasn't exceeded its service life may look like it performed better.
Remember Bob, all I was asking was your "proof" that a more restrictive filter causes more wear than one that has better flow.
Also, this IS the oil filter section and I would have been happy to reply to your other thread if I was interested in discussing the oil side of this discussion.
Also, this IS the oil filter section and I would have been happy to reply to your other thread if I was interested in discussing the oil side of this discussion.
- Status
