MicroGreen

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
So nice to see the trolls come back. We are a popular place, indeed...


Sad. Sayjac has always been pretty well informed when it comes to filters.

Well it could be sad if that post was referring to me. However as my last posted link will indicate if somewhat subtly, and other reasons, quite confident Steve is not referring to me.

And based on the last couple non trolled posts, apparently I did know of what I spoke regarding the use of ISO 4548-12 tests for verification of efficiency claims.



Absolutely NOT referring to you, man!

And trust me, DP knows the score here...
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ElastoHydro
Originally Posted By: sayjac
Until a beta with and ISO 4548-12 at 2um is posted, then I'll be proven wrong. Until then it's just promotional rhetoric imo.


4548-12 won't work with an oil filter with a slow filtering element in it next to a normal filtering media like microgreen does.
The way microgreen takes a long time (~100 miles or so) to filter out the super small particles wouldn't be reflected on a bench test.


Sure ISO 4548-12 will work with the Microgreen filter because no oil is actually bypassing the filter can. That ISO test measures upstream and downstream particle sizes and numbers in real time. So if the oil goes in dirty and comes out clean, then the test measures the efficiency in real time.

If the Microgreen filter is really helping out in the super small particle range (10 microns and below), you would see it in the ISO 4548-12 test results.


The microgreen oil filter takes too long to get the smaller particles out. ISO 4548-12 is multi-pass, but not enough passes to show the performance. Think of getting particles in the 1 to 10 micron range out as asymptotic, no hurry.

Microgreen is really two oil filters. One oil filter is very normal, plain, cellulose material. The other oil filter is a small disc and it takes 100 miles or more to see much difference. Its a long term goal.
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
I would guess that a Fram Ultra would perform just as good as the Microgreen. If the Microgreen takes a small portion of the flow of oil through the 2-5 micron pore openings then it should be similar to the Fram Ultra which is always removing 80% @ 5 microns.


That 80% at 5 microns is steady state. Meaning in the multipass test the filter kept on allowing 20% (100% minus 80%) to fall through the oil filter. In a mesh-depth filter media, smaller particles have a way of steadily tumbling through. The bigger they are the longer they are held in the media. Small particles might stick for a moment or so, then tumble through. Physical reality.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
...Absolutely NOT referring to you, man!

And trust me, DP knows the score here...

And you know the score as do I and others surely are beginning to see it. That's why I identified it early on and cut off acknowledgement of those posts. The four of one surly MO of personal attack as opposed to reasonable discussion that was occuring is easily recognized, as it was with you in the link. And it's same MO as recently perma banned poster on a topic that also just happened to be near and dear to the banned poster.

So it's all good, and this thread can be used as a future reference for a similar situation, for all to see.
 
Originally Posted By: ElastoHydro
The microgreen oil filter takes too long to get the smaller particles out. ISO 4548-12 is multi-pass, but not enough passes to show the performance. Think of getting particles in the 1 to 10 micron range out as asymptotic, no hurry.

Microgreen is really two oil filters. One oil filter is very normal, plain, cellulose material. The other oil filter is a small disc and it takes 100 miles or more to see much difference. Its a long term goal.


I see the point. In that case then, it would be valid to see Microgreen's test data on the high efficiency filter section. If Microgreen says it can take out particles down ot 2 microns it probably does, but at what efficiency?

What I have a problem with is that since the normal filtering section of the filter doesn't capture a lot below 10 microns, what is the holding capacity of the 2 micron section of the filter. The flow rate must be super small going through the ultra high efficiency section or it would clog up with debris pretty fast and not be doing anything beyond that point.
 
^^^^ A lot depends on the pore size distribution on those sintered teflon discs. They claim they are in the 2-5 mic range, maybe +/-1.5 standard deviations out on the bell curve for the 2-5 micron range, who knows. Depending on how responsible and honest they fell about their claims!

If pore sizes are being reported correctly, almost nothing bigger than 5 microns gets through the teflon frisbee.

And we only guess what percentage of 1 micron to 3 micron stuff gets through the bigger set of pores, yet most I'd suspect would get caught. Vague a little.

The flow rate through the teflon microfilter disc must be small. It might get stopped-up early, who knows.
 
^^^ I'd suspect Microgreen's filter change interval recommendation is based on how both sections of the filter may load up with debris. But if the high efficiency "cake" section got totally clogged up and all flow through it stopped, you'd probably never know it.
 
I'd like the microgreen more if they used a Fram Ultra media with their small particle parallel filter (teflon frisbee part). Instead, they use a paper media.
 
Originally Posted By: ElastoHydro
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
I would guess that a Fram Ultra would perform just as good as the Microgreen. If the Microgreen takes a small portion of the flow of oil through the 2-5 micron pore openings then it should be similar to the Fram Ultra which is always removing 80% @ 5 microns.


That 80% at 5 microns is steady state. Meaning in the multipass test the filter kept on allowing 20% (100% minus 80%) to fall through the oil filter. In a mesh-depth filter media, smaller particles have a way of steadily tumbling through. The bigger they are the longer they are held in the media. Small particles might stick for a moment or so, then tumble through. Physical reality.


That's not something that I had considered. However, then I think it becomes really complicated in the real world because since you have a steady incoming rate of particles including 5 micron size both filters will only be removing a certain percentage of them. So, then you would need to know the incoming rate of particles along with what percentage of oil is going through the teflon small particle filter.

If you look at the Microgreen page they show a graph of this that they do not remove all 5 micron size particles but down to a steady state level. I don't know how much you can believe their data but they only remove it down from 5000 to 1500 and then steady state after that.
http://www.microgreenfilter.com/testing-and-validation

So, would Fram Ultra be any different?
 
^^^ The more you think about it, the Fram Ultra may win this, or at least come close. Without genuine test data, I don't know the result.

The testing-and-validation web page Nate1979 posted the link for does show a steady set of particles at 5 microns staying in circulation. It might be due to the steady blow-by onslaught of particles typically getting through an air filter since air filters are only good down to around 50 to 100 microns from what I've heard.
 
Keep in mind that Microgreen suggests changing the filter every 10K miles and the oil every 30K. Yeah, someone is now on the floor foaming at the mouth and having convulsions over the last part of that sentence. LOL

graph1.gif


Apparently, based on this graph, Microgreen has (hopefully) verified that the ultra fine filter cake doesn't totally block up by the end of a 10K mile use of the filter. See how the the graph of the 5 micron particles per 1 ml of oil slowly rises near 10K and 20K marks, then curves back down after supposedly a new filter is installed. Of course, they were probalby running this test on a pretty new, tight engine that didn't produce much debris under operation.
grin.gif


RdTst2.gif
 
Microgreen looks like a great idea but I do wonder how much real impact it has since the 5micron filtering area is so small.

How much percentage of the oil flow actually goes through the 5u media ?

It can't be very significant considering that the 5u inherently restricts so much flow. This is why you see such larger filters coupled with traditional filters in bypass filtration setups and they still don't see full flow, only a percentage goes to the bypass media due to the pressure differential it could cause.

If your goal is to filter down to the 5u range then I would just get a bypass filtration setup. Most will not see a ROI.
 
Originally Posted By: Umibozu
Most will not see a ROI.


ROI for which investment, the bypass filter setup or the microGreen filters? If the 30,000 mile OCI is feasible, and you are a user of synthetic oil, there will definitely be ROI.

This is what I am testing for you guys. According to most of you, I am risking a major engine catastrophe. It's exciting!
 
It makes total sense to use a MicroGreen oil filter this way. Just change the oil filter every 6 months or 10,000 miles, and change the oil every 18 months or 30,000 miles. Simple and easy. Saves money. The small pore sizes in the special part of the microgreen oil filter will remove the tiny particles over hundreds of miles slowly. The 'regular oil filter' portion will do what normal average oil filters have always done. Fleets have already used this for years now with good results. Whats the risk? Your wallet will be heavier, I guess you might fall down from that, creating a safety issue.
 
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Originally Posted By: Umibozu
Most will not see a ROI.


ROI for which investment, the bypass filter setup or the microGreen filters? If the 30,000 mile OCI is feasible, and you are a user of synthetic oil, there will definitely be ROI.

This is what I am testing for you guys. According to most of you, I am risking a major engine catastrophe. It's exciting!


I meant for the full bypass filtration setup.

I went the opposite way. I've been slowly extending FCI miles while keeping OCI more or less the same.
 
Originally Posted By: DBMaster
Originally Posted By: Umibozu
Most will not see a ROI.


ROI for which investment, the bypass filter setup or the microGreen filters? If the 30,000 mile OCI is feasible, and you are a user of synthetic oil, there will definitely be ROI.

This is what I am testing for you guys. According to most of you, I am risking a major engine catastrophe. It's exciting!


Having a UOA done at 10K and 20K miles would give you some warm fuzzy that the engine isn't screaming Uncle on it's way to the 30K mile OCI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
Oil filter for B58 engine?
Replies
6
Views
1K
drtyler
P
MG 101-1 around 13k miles off a Toyota 1.3
Replies
3
Views
706
fantastic
D
NGK plugs made in USA?!
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
ARCOgraphite
S
Are the 2024 Outback vs 2024 WRX Oil Filters interchangeable?
Replies
19
Views
655
ZeeOSix
G
Nissan 0W20 Factory Fill, 1,785 mi, 2023 Armada 5.6 DGI
Replies
14
Views
1K
GTR_Hopeful
Back
Top