Microgreen - possibly stunning development!

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Anybody want to email Norbert to ask him more questions?

[email protected]

Which filters did he test?

Does he think all of them have been economized? Is it possible that fleet customers are getting the original style still while consumers are getting economized ones?

What was the efficiency at 5 microns?

Is there a way to identify the original vs economized filters? From the inside. From the outside.

Maybe invite him to post here. Can point him to UOAs with high TBN in the recent past. Is it possible those were on pre 2013 filters?



Cant hurt to give it a try! Id love to hear what the guy has to say.


UD

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
That's true, I thought of that too. But he still wouldn't say things like MG refuses to test, that language comes from threads here. Anyway it doesn't matter, I just wouldn't jump to believe it's him, an 80 year old who decides to slam the product he invented on an Amazon review. Sounds more like the guy here who made up a story about working in an oil filter company or another one who gets thrown off periodically.
I'm going to check if they have a filter for my new car, I like the idea of the 2 micron disk as a bypass filter. I bought them before and I didn't like the adbv pressed up against the endcap. On the particular model, 101-1. They seem like very nice people and I like they support cancer research selling their pink filters.


In the end, it's very hard for us to know whether Mr. Assion posted that review or not.
That's some pretty advanced, and maybe pointless, trolling for somebody to research an obscure guy from an obscure company and pretend to be him, but the review doesn't quite smell right, either. I don't see what the big benefit is for the troller if he's not responding to emails sent to a fake address, and if it was just a disgruntled customer they could have easily smeared the product without all the research and pretending.
????

 

[DoubleWasp]

What's weird is that I emailed him, very interested in his info. I was not confrontational, patronizing, or anything.

Just never heard from him.

Makes it seem like a "hit and run" situation, which is very troll like.

There are places where I have left reviews concerning scams and bad businesses. I would be more than happy to fill anyone in on the details.

Further info from this guy? Zero.

 

[UncleDave]

Thanks.

UD

 

[Virtus_Probi]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp
What's weird is that I emailed him, very interested in his info. I was not confrontational, patronizing, or anything.

Just never heard from him.

Makes it seem like a "hit and run" situation, which is very troll like.

There are places where I have left reviews concerning scams and bad businesses. I would be more than happy to fill anyone in on the details.

Further info from this guy? Zero.


Quite possible that he was threatened with some sort of legal action or, on the other side of the coin, given some sort of compensation to keep his mouth shut...if that review was really him.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Fram, Purolator, Mobil 1, Royal Purple, ect all backup their efficiency claim with a reference to ISO 4548-12 on their boxes and websites. Microgreen does not.

Referencing the ISO test spec IS the data. I've already explained why in today's business world it's most likely believable because of potential lawsuits for false advertising. If you think anyone is lying you can hire a lawyer and threaten a false advertising lawsuit. I'll bet the company will show up in court with all kinds of test records to backup their claims.

So companies that can't backup their claims will most likely not even list an efficiency with a reference test spec. Or the efficiency isn't very impressive, so they won't even show the information or will show just an efficiency percentage without an associated micron size.

 

[DBMaster]

I'm still continuing to use them as directed, with the 30,000 mile OCI. I have the system going on three vehicles in the family now.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Fram, Purolator, Mobil 1, Royal Purple, ect all backup their efficiency claim with a reference to ISO 4548-12 on their boxes and websites. Microgreen does not.

Referencing the ISO test spec IS the data. I've already explained why in today's business world it's most likely believable because of potential lawsuits for false advertising. If you think anyone is lying you can hire a lawyer and threaten a false advertising lawsuit. I'll bet the company will show up in court with all kinds of test records to backup their claims.

So companies that can't backup their claims will most likely not even list an efficiency with a reference test spec. Or the efficiency isn't very impressive, so they won't even show the information or will show just an efficiency percentage without an associated micron size.


But its not quite as simple as that. Those are all single stage designs you mention.

The 2 stage designs seem to all be devoid of the 4548-12 rating.

Cummins highest recommended diesel filter the strata pour venturi claims 5 microns while being full flow - no 4548-12.

Amsoil doenst give a 4548-12 on their bypass either.

Baldwins 2 stage doesnt give one.

Nor does microgreen

I think this is because the standard 4548-12 test length doesnt allow the secondary filtration to prove its effectiveness -

Norb mentions 10K miles 45 minutes which Im guessing through inference is likely a standardized run time for the test.


Why wouldn't you think insolubles is good indication of filter performance when blackstone does?

I enjoy your posts and view as dialog more than a guy needing to be right.

UD

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
I'm still continuing to use them as directed, with the 30,000 mile OCI. I have the system going on three vehicles in the family now.


May I ask a couple questions? Do you use the MG200-6, and if so is it made in China? It looks different than the 101-1 I tried before. What is this sale they run? I see I can get the 200-6 for 10.99 on Amazon. That's not bad in itself but always looking for sales. Thanks.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Fram, Purolator, Mobil 1, Royal Purple, ect all backup their efficiency claim with a reference to ISO 4548-12 on their boxes and websites. Microgreen does not.

Referencing the ISO test spec IS the data.

But its not quite as simple as that. Those are all single stage designs you mention.

The 2 stage designs seem to all be devoid of the 4548-12 rating.

Yes, but since the main element does most of the filtering, they should list an ISO 4545-12 for the main element. Then they can throw in the bypass portion of the filter with another spec. If the main filtering element isn't very efficient then seems the bypass portion isn't going to make up the difference without loading up quickly and become blocked off all together and totally ineffective.

Seems in a dual stage filter like this, they would have to start with a pretty efficient main element to take full advantage of a 2~5 micron 2nd stage.

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
I'm still continuing to use them as directed, with the 30,000 mile OCI. I have the system going on three vehicles in the family now.


May I ask a couple questions? Do you use the MG200-6, and if so is it made in China? It looks different than the 101-1 I tried before. What is this sale they run? I see I can get the 200-6 for 10.99 on Amazon. That's not bad in itself but always looking for sales. Thanks.


I use the MG101-7 on two of the vehicles and the MG201-7 on one of them. I do buy them during sales but don't remember the exact prices. I think I've paid about $10 each during the various sales. I keep at least one of each on the shelf in reserve. The first couple I bought were made in Mexico, but the newer ones are made in China. I find out about the sales via their email distribution list which I'll bet you can be added to by sending an email request to [email protected].

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Fram, Purolator, Mobil 1, Royal Purple, ect all backup their efficiency claim with a reference to ISO 4548-12 on their boxes and websites. Microgreen does not.

Referencing the ISO test spec IS the data.

But its not quite as simple as that. Those are all single stage designs you mention.

The 2 stage designs seem to all be devoid of the 4548-12 rating.

Yes, but since the main element does most of the filtering, they should list an ISO 4545-12 for the main element. Then they can throw in the bypass portion of the filter with another spec. If the main filtering element isn't very efficient then seems the bypass portion isn't going to make up the difference without loading up quickly and become blocked off all together and totally ineffective.

Seems in a dual stage filter like this, they would have to start with a pretty efficient main element to take full advantage of a 2~5 micron 2nd stage.



Thats one way they could measure it.

- but the manufacturers of dual stages all seem to be in unison here all of them shunning the 4548-12. I do not be live this is accidental.

What you say seems reasonable to me - but In the world of "filterdynamics" things aren't always as they seem.


UD

 

[WellOiled]

When I first looked at the design, I was very skeptical about the bypass filter portion. I believe it is simply too small to catch the amount of dirt that passes through the full flow portion of the filter.

The real problem here is they validated the original design and then changed the design to reduce costs but then did not validate the changes.

I would not trust them unless they produce ISO 4548-12 test results. I don't think they did the tests. If they did the tests, why would they not release the results unless the filter flunked the test?

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
...

- I don't seek argument but understanding.

...


I’m not seeking argument either.

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
...

Can you tell me why you don't think this is at least a good indicator of filter effectiveness when Blackstone does?

...


Because based on the series of UOAs I’ve done insolubles do not appear to change significantly between filters from Fram Ultra to Honda A01 the numbers don’t swing radically. The newer engine (Ford 3.7) turns in low insolubles with a Motorcraft filter, which is not an especially efficient filter.

I concede that a diesel may change the equation a bit.

I do have a Microgreen on the Acura at the moment, so If it turns in a TR in insolubles next time around I’ll revise my opinion.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
- but the manufacturers of dual stages all seem to be in unison here all of them shunning the 4548-12. I do not be live this is accidental.


From the 4548-12-2017 standard:

Quote:
This test is intended for application to filter elements with an efficiency of less than 99 % at particle size greater than 10 μm.

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: WellOiled
When I first looked at the design, I was very skeptical about the bypass filter portion. I believe it is simply too small to catch the amount of dirt that passes through the full flow portion of the filter.

The real problem here is they validated the original design and then changed the design to reduce costs but then did not validate the changes.

I would not trust them unless they produce ISO 4548-12 test results. I don't think they did the tests. If they did the tests, why would they not release the results unless the filter flunked the test?

Curious, how do you know or are qualified to say what they did or didn't do?

Should I not trust Cummins? I have no 4548-12 from them.

UD

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer

- but the manufacturers of dual stages all seem to be in unison here all of them shunning the 4548-12. I do not be live this is accidental./quote]

From the 4548-12-2017 standard:

Quote:
This test is intended for application to filter elements with an efficiency of less than 99 % at particle size greater than 10 μm.


interesting, unless I'm reading it wrong there's the answer as to why no 4548-12 for the dual stages.

UD

 

[WellOiled]

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
When I first looked at the design, I was very skeptical about the bypass filter portion. I believe it is simply too small to catch the amount of dirt that passes through the full flow portion of the filter.

The real problem here is they validated the original design and then changed the design to reduce costs but then did not validate the changes.

I would not trust them unless they produce ISO 4548-12 test results. I don't think they did the tests. If they did the tests, why would they not release the results unless the filter flunked the test?

Curious, how do you know or are qualified to say what they did or didn't do?

Should I not trust Cummins? I have no 4548-12 from them.

UD


In spite of everyones attempts to get ISO 4548-12 test results from them, they have never been successful getting any ISO test results. There is not one post made on BITOG backed by ISO 4548-12 test results.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Assion also left a review on the MG510-9 filter.

Notice how he points out that it doesn't have a bypass valve despite the packaging saying it does.

https://www.amazon.com/microGreen-MG510-...ype=all_reviews

Quote:
Indeed this filter does not meet the filtration efficiency as claimed by the filter provider.
Tests performed on the full-flow cartridge media and on the micro-filter media are confirming, the MG 510-9 is working just as a normal filter. The claim of unbeatable extraordinary filter performance far beyond the capabilities of traditional filters is massively exaggerated and untruthful. SOMS has so far since years refused to provide proof for its extraordinary oil cleanliness claims of its spin-on filter series. Furthermore this MG 510-9 filter does not provide a by-pass valve, but nevertheless its packaging is presenting one. The full-flow media is Absolute Rating 20µm as well as the micro filter media Absolute Rating 20µm. Usually a 20µm rated filter makes it impossible to capture large numbers of particles substantially smaller than 20 microns. Unfortunately most of harmful minor particles remain in the oil. And for comparing: The efficiency of SOMS Spin-on filter models before 2013 was 99% @ 5µm after 10,000 road miles additional testing and not only after some 45 minutes labor testing at ISO 4548-12 multiple pass. Questions? Norbert Assion / [email protected]

 

[UncleDave]

Originally Posted By: DuckRyder
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
...

- I don't seek argument but understanding.

...


I’m not seeking argument either.

Originally Posted By: UncleDave
...

Can you tell me why you don't think this is at least a good indicator of filter effectiveness when Blackstone does?

...


Because based on the series of UOAs I’ve done insolubles do not appear to change significantly between filters from Fram Ultra to Honda A01 the numbers don’t swing radically. The newer engine (Ford 3.7) turns in low insolubles with a Motorcraft filter, which is not an especially efficient filter.

I concede that a diesel may change the equation a bit.

I do have a Microgreen on the Acura at the moment, so If it turns in a TR in insolubles next time around I’ll revise my opinion.


Thanks -

Isn't the honda A01 a tough guard? pretty sure thats what my ridgeline2017 uses. - maybe not.
There wouldn't be much swing from a tough guard to an ultra - a little under the same conditioning and loading likely

Without knowing the engine miles and time on the oil its hard to say - Ive seen trace indicated several times but only take note of hours or miles when its my stuff but post always curious to see.

Im inclined to believe Blackstone has a decent handle on filtration efficiency and performance.

UD