this link http://www.rep-am.com/story.php?id=8501&p=0 dovetails nicely with the last topic about oil filters but again no contact info.nothing new but intresting ya think....
miracle filter
- Thread starter lewk
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
If you put his name into google you get tons of "press releases" type stuff. All appear to be timely. You can even find the patent appication.
If you do a search for the engineers last name, you'll find a ton of patents(some questionable). Here are 2 concerning the miracle filter.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...7,048,848.PN.&OS=PN/7,048,848&RS=PN/7,048,848
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...6,605,215.PN.&OS=PN/6,605,215&RS=PN/6,605,215
A combination full flow and bypass filter in one. Sounds just like a Trasko or AFT.
Amsoil also has the dual remote mount bypass + full flow filter.
Trasco/AFT are too small for 30k usage(needs 3 changes). I also doubt that any other combination filter will be big enough for 30k usage.
Nothing wrong with the Amsoil dual in most setups. But, why not just run a normal bypass filter? There's gotta be at least a dozen companies offering bypass filters that any competent person can install themselves.
Links for comparison of combination filter(full + bypass):
AFT
http://www.appliedfiltration.co.uk/oil01.htm
Trasko
http://www.trasko-usa.com/instructions.htm
Amsoil remote:
http://www.amsoil.com/bypassfilters/instructions/BP152.pdf
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...7,048,848.PN.&OS=PN/7,048,848&RS=PN/7,048,848
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...6,605,215.PN.&OS=PN/6,605,215&RS=PN/6,605,215
A combination full flow and bypass filter in one. Sounds just like a Trasko or AFT.
Amsoil also has the dual remote mount bypass + full flow filter.
Trasco/AFT are too small for 30k usage(needs 3 changes). I also doubt that any other combination filter will be big enough for 30k usage.
Nothing wrong with the Amsoil dual in most setups. But, why not just run a normal bypass filter? There's gotta be at least a dozen companies offering bypass filters that any competent person can install themselves.
Links for comparison of combination filter(full + bypass):
AFT
http://www.appliedfiltration.co.uk/oil01.htm
Trasko
http://www.trasko-usa.com/instructions.htm
Amsoil remote:
http://www.amsoil.com/bypassfilters/instructions/BP152.pdf
unDummy, thanks for the links. I thosught it sounded awfuly familiar.
IIRC, Fleetguard makes bypass/full flow filters in one container too.
IIRC, Fleetguard makes bypass/full flow filters in one container too.
very interesting article. I wonder if any one from this board could get their hands on a few. I wouldn't mind giving one a try on either of my trucks.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Plan on paying a bit for some product that some guy invested $250k in R&D. This you will probably not see for sale at any reasonable cost. I would more think that if it is all that good, some filter company will buy the rights to it and they may bring it to market. He's on the older side to get a ROI on this thing.
This kind of leads back to the idea of combining a ff filter with a bypass filter, but I think the combination that would work best is two seperate filters. They new filter does makes it easyer to implement. I just don't think the capacity is there, and to make the one filter idea work, that is last longer, the filter has to be less effective.
Oh boy....
Yes Fleetguard does have a combination full flow-by-pass filter. So do all the heavy duty filter manufacturers.
It is because the Cummins engine is designed for it internally.
Back in the 1980's Cummins went to 2 seperate spin on filters to get away from the big canister 750 by-pass filter that was the by-pass filter of choice ( and not a toilet paper media one by any stretch.) The part numbers were LF670 for the full flow and LF777 fo the spin on by-pass.
The engine desing allows the oil from the by-pass to go direct back to the oil pan.
Hence the term-----By-Pass.
The oil from a by-pass filter is not used to lubricate the engine. Which is why you do not want to take away any more than 10% of the oil flow when you have a by-pass.
Cummins in the mid 90's went to a one filter design of a combination full flow and by-pass filter. Part number LF3000. They also offer this, as different part numbers, for non Cummins engines.
So this would not be a "new" design fo automotive filters.
By-pass filters work best with low flows. Higher flows will not get you the beta ratios that show you effectively trap smaller particles.
If someone had a picture of his design, we could tell if in fact his filter has the design to be a by-pass style and full flow.
As for 2 micron particles being trapped by his design..why even a Fram does that..
There are many medias that will do that on the market. But as with Red Bowties situation, you do not want to starve the engine of oil. Which is why you don't want to allow much flow through the by-pass so that the full flow section of the filter allows enough oil downstream to lubricate the engine and not cause any problems.
Yes Fleetguard does have a combination full flow-by-pass filter. So do all the heavy duty filter manufacturers.
It is because the Cummins engine is designed for it internally.
Back in the 1980's Cummins went to 2 seperate spin on filters to get away from the big canister 750 by-pass filter that was the by-pass filter of choice ( and not a toilet paper media one by any stretch.) The part numbers were LF670 for the full flow and LF777 fo the spin on by-pass.
The engine desing allows the oil from the by-pass to go direct back to the oil pan.
Hence the term-----By-Pass.
The oil from a by-pass filter is not used to lubricate the engine. Which is why you do not want to take away any more than 10% of the oil flow when you have a by-pass.
Cummins in the mid 90's went to a one filter design of a combination full flow and by-pass filter. Part number LF3000. They also offer this, as different part numbers, for non Cummins engines.
So this would not be a "new" design fo automotive filters.
By-pass filters work best with low flows. Higher flows will not get you the beta ratios that show you effectively trap smaller particles.
If someone had a picture of his design, we could tell if in fact his filter has the design to be a by-pass style and full flow.
As for 2 micron particles being trapped by his design..why even a Fram does that..
There are many medias that will do that on the market. But as with Red Bowties situation, you do not want to starve the engine of oil. Which is why you don't want to allow much flow through the by-pass so that the full flow section of the filter allows enough oil downstream to lubricate the engine and not cause any problems.
FG, the entire patent is at
Miracle Filter
You can select the many patent drawings of the filter there, if you don't fall a sleep first reading the patent.
It basically has 2 very small elements in one housing with parallel flow paths in the housing. The pressure drop across the miniscule bypass filter is the same as th pressure drop across the too small full flow section.
The patent system as it exists is wonderful. You could patent a dog turd.
Couldn't get the picture link from that page to open. Tried twice. Got microsoft error report.
Maybe some other time.
Maybe some other time.
Remember, if it's a good filter, it's a miracle.
I really have a bad time with any product, fluid, that is suppose to make you do it less frequently. I have no problem getting off my Butt and doing car and truck mataniance.
In fact I kind of injoy it, I figure a 1 hr job changing oil or oil filter is no big deal.
I just changed my tranny fluid on my Wrangler and replaced the transmission pan with one that holds more fluid. I will porbably change the fluid again in another 35,000 miles..so what! This idea of leaving in fluids to 50,000+ miles or more unill they drain out like syrup or oil filters past 5,000 miles max, Is not my way of taking care of things..as you fellas know the biggest 2 killers of any engine and transmission is dirt and heat....so I use synthetics in every thing I own and it dosent set in there past 5,000 miles for oil and 35,000 for tranny fluid.
I never will forget a neighbor who lived down from us had a huge dairy farm he had 3 trucks that he would haul silage with,2 pickup trucks 3 cars and a couple of tractors. this was back in the early 60,s he used 4qts havoline 30 wt mixed it with 1 Quart of transmission fluid in a 5 quart oil pan.
and he got many many miles on all of his rigs, and the farmers next to him thought he was nuts.
In fact I kind of injoy it, I figure a 1 hr job changing oil or oil filter is no big deal.
I just changed my tranny fluid on my Wrangler and replaced the transmission pan with one that holds more fluid. I will porbably change the fluid again in another 35,000 miles..so what! This idea of leaving in fluids to 50,000+ miles or more unill they drain out like syrup or oil filters past 5,000 miles max, Is not my way of taking care of things..as you fellas know the biggest 2 killers of any engine and transmission is dirt and heat....so I use synthetics in every thing I own and it dosent set in there past 5,000 miles for oil and 35,000 for tranny fluid.
I never will forget a neighbor who lived down from us had a huge dairy farm he had 3 trucks that he would haul silage with,2 pickup trucks 3 cars and a couple of tractors. this was back in the early 60,s he used 4qts havoline 30 wt mixed it with 1 Quart of transmission fluid in a 5 quart oil pan.
and he got many many miles on all of his rigs, and the farmers next to him thought he was nuts.
- Status
Similar threads
