Particle Count Comparison, 2/5/06

[SWHeat]

quote:

---

Well, as I said, you can figure (reason) it out. If you look at a PC where a bypass filter has been used, you can see a tremendous decrease in >10um particles ...but not as drastic a reduction in >5 or >2.

---

I did not know that. It would reason there is a limit to filtration technology. Yet, there still is a decrease, just not as much as the above 10 microns. Right? Again, what is "good enough?"

quote:

---

That means (to me) that filtration doesn't inhibit this size of particle "production". If the smaller particles are generated by larger particles knocking around inside the engine ...the the reduction of larger particles would result in a proportionally lower number of "resultant" particles. IF however, the added filtration had no, or reduced, impact on smaller particles, then one could say that the indications that the presence of the smaller particles infers a different source putting them in the oil (either natural shedding ..or combustion byproducts).

---

I follow you. I have a headache beginning...but I follow your reasoning. I would surmise that the small reduction in 2-5 micron particles is somehow correlated to fewer >10 micron particles "bumping around" and breaking into smaller chunks. Again, how the other ones get there??? I don't know, and frankly, don't care, unless..... there would be some way to prevent it (i.e. change the air filter). Also, do they really need to be gone to prolong a gas or diesel engine's lifespane? That is the question that we are really discussing here. Conventional wisdom would say, yes.

 

[Gary Allan]

Fair nuff

 

[Filter guy]

Sorry Gary your last answer won't do..it's to short..

If the filter is loading (plugging) it should be becomming more effecient (even for smaller particles below its nominal filter rating..am I wrong here filter guy?) and should show cleaner oil.

This is true. As a filter plugs it gets more efficient at removing all sizes of particles.


The only other factor being the filter going into bypass in which NO filtering is happening.

The only way a filter does not remove particles is no flow or totally plugged. These would be the conditions which would allow for the by-pass to open and no filtering is done.
One can accomplish this in a lab and load the filter totally. It would be rare for a consumer to do this.

As far as the discussion over particles smaller than 5 um not showing a similar reduction in % of particle count as larger sizes when the efficiency increases due to better filtration.---the answer is the engine doesn't generate those smaller particles in the same quantity as it does the larger sizes.

In a lab when SAE or ISO tests are run, weighted uniform amounts of various sizes ( 1-40 um) are used. So there is a known % of smaller particles injested into the fluid stream to test the filters ability to remove them. That doesn't mean an engine will have in it's fluid stream a decent % of the smaller particles to remove out.

So, this should prove that those trying to have a super duper efficient spin-on filter at the lower micron sizes isn't neccessary. As may be a bit self defeating if the by-pass opens up due to restriction and allows all sizes of those particles to escape being filtered.

 

[Filter guy]

btw..here's a white paper on Particle Count methology and the changes in industry "test dust" done by Pall Corporation. Pall is one of the leaders in Hydraulic Filters. Thiers is the Ferrari of filters..

What you can see is a chart of particle counts of the size particles used in a lab test. Note the higher counts of smaller particles in test dust. Oil filter companies use the same test dust.

As discussed the problems with comparative testing relate to the type of particle counter used by the lab itself. Which is why even with beta ratios comparing one Companies results to another may not be Apples to Apples unless you know they both used the same type particle counter. Which is why this report is of value for those in here. Even for oil filter companies and why the variation of "micron" size ratings for just simple oil filters as seen on line, from websites, or on packaging. ( well brand X is a 19 and brand Y is a 22 as an example )

http://www.particle.com/whitepapers_hiac/pdfs/ISO Changes.PDF

It's boring really...

But to some BITOG types it may be of interest..

 

[Filter guy]

Another version of what is on the bottom of page 11 and page 12 in the Pall link above ( as it is adobe, I couldn't cut and paste)

The replacement of ACFTD with ISO MTD in the multi-pass test also affects retained-dirt-capacity values for filter elements. Capacity may be somewhat higher or lower with the new dust, again depending on the specific filter being tested. However, most filters we evaluated exhibited an increase of about 10% to 40% in dirt-holding capacity when using ISO MTD. Because each type of filter performs differently with the new dust, there is no single conversion factor to change ACFTD capacities into ISO MTD capacities.

Again note that an increase or decrease in dirt capacity when tested with ISO MTD does not imply that the filter's actual service life will be longer or shorter. In fact, there will be no change in field-service life. As a rule, dirt-holding capacity should not be used as an indicator of field-service life.

From here: http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com...er/Article/True/6431/TechZone-HydraulicFilter
----------------------------

Now i'm sure this will give everyone confidence that using larger filters with more capacity means you can go longer on oil drain intervals....

When with a 10-40% increase in "capacity" due to the new test dust being used, there is no recommendation for longer change intervals--in the field is the recommendation.


Well that will put the cat in with the pigeons..

 

[Gary Allan]

I'm still not keen on the filter getting more efficient with age. I'll grant that they get a few holes plugged ..that's how they work. If fact, when I had a Amsoil bypass running in parallel to a ff filter ..with no biasing valve, it took a couple of thousand miles for the bypass to be any type of thermal activity ..since it was just too easy to go through the full flow.

..but you'll also get in increase in velocity through the media as some of the holes get plugged. We're reminded that the slower the flow rate ..the higher the capture ratio. Where some smaller particles will just tumble along and get snagged ..they blast by and continue on their merry way.

So, I imagine that there's a "sweet spot" in filter usage ..where there's enough a low velocity to snag oddball sized stuff ..and enough partially blocked larger pours that snag smaller stuff ..but enough open larger pours as to not make every pass through some high velocity screamfest.

I think the majority of common usage falls in this sweet spot.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

No personal attack made here.

---

No there wasn't. We were having fun. I can't figure out how to snicker effectively with gremlins ...or ..I could have been having an "episode" (cue suspence music

)

quote:

---

Gary, before I say anything more...let me just say that I've been reading on here since May 2005 and have always been impressed with your responses and vast knowledge database. Now having prefaced my remark....I find no "simple math" involved in filter loading. If the filter is loading (plugging) it should be becomming more effecient (even for smaller particles below its nominal filter rating..am I wrong here filter guy?) and should show cleaner oil. The only other factor being the filter going into bypass in which NO filtering is happening. Complex I tell you. Nothing simple about it

---

I don't know how much stock I take in the filter getting better as it ages theory. It may be totally valid ..but if you look at my ponderings on the mileage comparisons ..it doesn't appear to show in this comparison ..over the span of miles shown. The two M1's appear to have the same "capture" ratio. Those are comparable to mine, if indexed for mileage and sump size (within a decently close range).

That is, I can't see that this threshold has been reached in this exercize.

quote:

---

I really don't know how the particles got there. Does it really matter?

---

Well, as I said, you can figure (reason) it out. If you look at a PC where a bypass filter has been used, you can see a tremendous decrease in >10um particles ...but not as drastic a reduction in >5 or >2. The amount is lower ..but not to the same contour. That means (to me) that filtration doesn't inhibit this size of particle "production". If the smaller particles are generated by larger particles knocking around inside the engine ...the the reduction of larger particles would result in a proportionally lower number of "resultant" particles. IF however, the added filtration had no, or reduced, impact on smaller particles, then one could say that the indications that the presence of the smaller particles infers a different source putting them in the oil (either natural shedding ..or combustion byproducts).

If you would care to see what my bypass valve test shows at this point, take a look here.

 

[SWHeat]

Thanks for the info Filter guy. I missed that you had posted until this evening. I don't have time to read the two articles tonight, I just skimmed over them....but I'm looking forward to it. From the sounds of it...I'll need some caffeine tomorrow night to get throught them.

Gary, from the particle counts that started the thread....I don't think a single one of them had begun to "plug" yet. Hence, the semi-linear increase in particle counts with milage (for most of them--who knows...maybe the MC was the only one that had begun to plug up). I would imagine, that once a filter started to plug, its life span would drop very quickly. The particle counts suggest that the fitlers were far from reaching their "sweet spot" in my opinion.

What do ya'll think?

 

[SWHeat]

Hey, they don't look "boring" from my quick review! Just what are you trying to say?

Good stuff I tell you...

How long will it be before every lab is online with the current...1999 standard? Until the equipment breaks? Can't they just recalibrate it to the new standard? Or, is it because their customers are accustomed to the old 2/5/15 micron data that they delay the change?

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

ary, from the particle counts that started the thread....I don't think a single one of them had begun to "plug" yet. Hence, the semi-linear increase in particle counts with milage (for most of them--who knows...maybe the MC was the only one that had begun to plug up). I would imagine, that once a filter started to plug, its life span would drop very quickly. The particle counts suggest that the fitlers were far from reaching their "sweet spot" in my opinion.

---

I'm in cautious agreement with you.

 

[chucky2]

The M1 EP oil and Motorcraft filter particle counts were off my vehicle.

For all who participated in this thread, you might want to go check out my latest UOA, which is located here - Mobil-1 5W-30 EP, 2003 Ford 4.0L SOHC V-6, 5001 mile OCI - to look at the particle count info on my last 5,001 mile run of the same oil, but this time a Mobil-1 Extended Performance oil filter.

The results were very interesting to say the least...

Chuck