Second Partticle Counts Complete
- Thread starter GeorgeCLS
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
If you say so
On what?
Again, this is not rocket science. The performance of paper/cellulose filters has been documented 4 million times in industry. Correspondingly, the performance of a microglass element has likewise been documented a gazillion times and comes out to be 90%+ more effective in the My two concerns with the EaO filter were that (1) it was possibly just another microglass/cellulose blend which would provide slightly better performance than a straight cellulose and that (2) even if it were a microglass, if the components were not of high quality and construction, it may not provide significant performance advantages.
These questions were answered, for me, with the one oil sample particle count results.
One can continue testing ad infinitum but I think the results will just continue to confirm what has already been accomplished thousands of times with respect to filter media performance as used in industry. And in industrial application particle count with hydraulic oils, particle counting is accomplilshed via laser.
So, this is as in "textbook"... The Amsoil EaO filter utilizes a microglass element with good construction and as a result provides filtration performance in line with what a microglass element should provide.. It is as simple as that...
George Morrison, STLE CLS
These questions were answered, for me, with the one oil sample particle count results.
One can continue testing ad infinitum but I think the results will just continue to confirm what has already been accomplished thousands of times with respect to filter media performance as used in industry. And in industrial application particle count with hydraulic oils, particle counting is accomplilshed via laser.
So, this is as in "textbook"... The Amsoil EaO filter utilizes a microglass element with good construction and as a result provides filtration performance in line with what a microglass element should provide.. It is as simple as that...
George Morrison, STLE CLS
Ditto George, and the eye don't lie. The oil stays cleaner as compared to paper filters, something has to be going on.
Harry
Harry
George, you can derive all you want, but coming up with valid conclusions is a different matter all together.
Well if that's true, this filter should be stripping out the VIIs as you've claimed before. And don't try to tell me M1R doesn't have VIIs.
George, it is very rare in any discipline to allow ONE measurement to be used as confirmation of any proposed conjecture if it's the first data point. The best that could be said is that this ONE measurement supports the conjecture.
The measurement of other filter designs, for entirely different applications, in other environments, don't count.
You're also assuming that all Ea0 filters models are constructed identically and with the exact same media. I haven't seen this confirmed yet.
No...it supports your conjecture that it is.
Not from the information you've provided so far since you never made it clear how this sample was tested. If it was the pore blockage method, what was the membrane filter size? What formula did they use to extrapolate the results?
As far as I'm concerned, you haven't confirmed anything yet. All the rest is deduced from a premise that hasn't been confirmed for all Ea0 filters yet.
The lubricating environment in an internal combustion engine is quite different than a hydraulic system. You of all people should be aware of this.
That study was on diesel engines that have a far greater load of particulates than a gasoline engine.
And, to quote you, "will have a significant long term affect on wear." Just how significant are we talking? Significance is usually used in terms of probability, not of quantity. It could be the case that eliminating the "10 to 30 micron abrasive particulates" will have a very significant but small effect.
Assuming the premise, the question is then by how much? 5%, 10%, 50%? And then given that percentage, what effect will that have on engine life? Maybe by changing the oil slightly more regularly you achieve the same engine life?
That's what I've been trying to say. There may be significant benefits to using this filter, but when one does a total cost/benefit analysis it may be no better than other maintenance strategies.
As I mentioned before, the lubricating environment in an internal combustion engine is quite different than a hydraulic system. You're using extrapolated data from one 1500 mile Eao filter measurement, of one particular Ea0 filter model, in one particular engine and then deducing the same improvements will be seen in entirely different equipment while also assuming that the cost/benefit models are identical.
Sure...you have to start somewhere, and I never said the data wasn't useful or valid but to claim it's a done deal and no further testing or analysis is needed is a bit premature to any engineer/scientist I know. There's a big difference between valid data and a valid conclusion.
Well...maybe I missed it, but it wasn't clear to me how the data you presented was measured. I even tried prodding you into answering this by bringing it up several times.
For the record, why don't you tell us exactly how both sets of data were arrived at.
So everyone, with many different formulations of oils, different engines, and operating enviroments are seeing the exact same thing as you?
I'm not far enough in my testing to make such a claim, but mine looks to be darkening at the same rate as the previous test run.
I think 427 has a point, although I think we are splitting nanofibers here
I won't draw conclusions with just one test either, but I do like the results so far and I will continue to test them on my vehicles. I've got a K&N that I am going to put to the test against the EAO myself.
I won't draw conclusions with just one test either, but I do like the results so far and I will continue to test them on my vehicles. I've got a K&N that I am going to put to the test against the EAO myself.
EXCELLENT!! I certainly would like to see a few different "brands" of filters tested against the Ea0. So far we have a Toyota OEM, SuperTech, possibly a K&N? Some Pure 1 and M1EP data would round the picture out nicely.
And everyone knows that how a oil LOOKS tells us how its performing.
Unless its your oil turning dark, then its doing its job...
Sorry. Not buying it.
I'll wait and see what others results are and then still, the cost vs the end result is a MAJOR factor.
Bill
Bill,
Some oils apparently darken with usage no matter what filter is being used. On my car, using the same oil and an Eao filter, the oil stays cleaner than it did with the Honda filter.
Harry
Some oils apparently darken with usage no matter what filter is being used. On my car, using the same oil and an Eao filter, the oil stays cleaner than it did with the Honda filter.
Harry
An valid scientific experiment in lube filtration should be able to be duplicated by a certified lab, using standard ASTM procedures. Amsoil and their filter partners - including Donaldson - have already done extensive testing of this filter media and generated data that indicates this media is approx 99% effective @ 15 um.
What George has done is methodically verify the previous testing results under carefully controlled conditions. I would agree that further testing will shed little additional light on this and the results would be expected to be comparable to those generated to date.
I think the payoff here for the average car owner is not necessarily longer engine life per se, but the possibility of going 200k-250k miles with little or no loss in engine performance due to wear. Of course for commercial users who put 50k per year on their engines, I do believe that ultimate engine life can be significantly extended with ultrafine filtration.
These results also have significant relevance for the use of the nano-fibers as an air filter media. If you can keep almost all the silicon out of the engine intake it should significantly reduce upper engine wear and help you maintain high compression.
In the interest of full disclosure I have been using Amsoil products for almost thirty years. However as an experienced engineer I also look for outside verification of data used in advertising, and these results look even better than I personally expected, given the normal test to test variability in oil analysis results.
TD
What George has done is methodically verify the previous testing results under carefully controlled conditions. I would agree that further testing will shed little additional light on this and the results would be expected to be comparable to those generated to date.
I think the payoff here for the average car owner is not necessarily longer engine life per se, but the possibility of going 200k-250k miles with little or no loss in engine performance due to wear. Of course for commercial users who put 50k per year on their engines, I do believe that ultimate engine life can be significantly extended with ultrafine filtration.
These results also have significant relevance for the use of the nano-fibers as an air filter media. If you can keep almost all the silicon out of the engine intake it should significantly reduce upper engine wear and help you maintain high compression.
In the interest of full disclosure I have been using Amsoil products for almost thirty years. However as an experienced engineer I also look for outside verification of data used in advertising, and these results look even better than I personally expected, given the normal test to test variability in oil analysis results.
TD
Thanks George for posting these results. I'd like to see more data as well though. Looks promissing.
This is why I never stock up on any one brand of oil or oil filters. Something new is always coming along...
I have an Amsoil Eao on now and one left for my next change.
This is why I never stock up on any one brand of oil or oil filters. Something new is always coming along...
I have an Amsoil Eao on now and one left for my next change.
From my perspective of working with industrial filters each and every day, the questions I had were answered, as I delineated them.. i.e. that this IS simply a microglass element that is constructed with materials enabling the media to work at its potential... I have disected the filter, examined its construction, and have results concurrent with its design, bingo..
I am a super conservative person having at least 6 inches of scar tissue on my derrierre from oil filters which did not perform as specified from the major manufacturers of the world. There is nothing quite like having to make a presentation of why your promised 15/13/10 is still a 23/21/19 after the plant switched to thewhiz bang microglass elements I recommended from a reputable manufacturer.. Been there done that too many times... "Gosh the world respected manufacturer has tested this filter to 3 microns beta 200!" Hmmmmm... So, given that and my knowledge of filter performance in the real world, I have no problems with a single test verification of something that is textbook..
Obviously more testing could be of value IF the samples are taken correctly and accomplished by a lab that cares. There are many variables, all of which can skew results horribly. (not doing a double rinse for the sample bottles, using a contaminated thief, tubing, failure to clean the sample point well,failure to do a complete purge, etc.)
i.e. particle count contamination/improper procedure is the #1 issue with particle counts: many results are totally mis-leading as a result of a less than perfect sample..... I have one on my desk this morning from a power plant that the indicates that the oil coming OUT of a $100,000 filter system is dirtier than the oil going INTO the unit... The samples were improperly taken. It is sooo easy.........
Thus having "more data" has a very good possibility of producing data with little or no value..... I live with this each and every day. This is not like capturing a simple spectrographic oil analysis...
George Morrison, STLE CLS
I am a super conservative person having at least 6 inches of scar tissue on my derrierre from oil filters which did not perform as specified from the major manufacturers of the world. There is nothing quite like having to make a presentation of why your promised 15/13/10 is still a 23/21/19 after the plant switched to thewhiz bang microglass elements I recommended from a reputable manufacturer.. Been there done that too many times... "Gosh the world respected manufacturer has tested this filter to 3 microns beta 200!" Hmmmmm... So, given that and my knowledge of filter performance in the real world, I have no problems with a single test verification of something that is textbook..
Obviously more testing could be of value IF the samples are taken correctly and accomplished by a lab that cares. There are many variables, all of which can skew results horribly. (not doing a double rinse for the sample bottles, using a contaminated thief, tubing, failure to clean the sample point well,failure to do a complete purge, etc.)
i.e. particle count contamination/improper procedure is the #1 issue with particle counts: many results are totally mis-leading as a result of a less than perfect sample..... I have one on my desk this morning from a power plant that the indicates that the oil coming OUT of a $100,000 filter system is dirtier than the oil going INTO the unit... The samples were improperly taken. It is sooo easy.........
Thus having "more data" has a very good possibility of producing data with little or no value..... I live with this each and every day. This is not like capturing a simple spectrographic oil analysis...
George Morrison, STLE CLS
George,
I see your point, I am therefore very much looking forward to your 10,000 mile analysis.
Harry
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Where is this data published in a "not possibly tainted with a marketing spin on it" manner TeeDub
There are all kinds of SYNTEQ media ..1 thru ?? SYNTEQ 1 is Beta75=2 SYNTEQ 9 is Beta75=22
Efficiency Beta 2 (Micron): 15
Efficiency Beta 20 (Micron): 30
Efficiency Beta 75 (Micron): 37
Application Note: SYNTEQ Media #16
So, as we can see ...all that is micro-glass/synthetic media is not gold
Again (for the umpteen time for those who apparently need this perpetually reinforced) I want this to be the absolute best filter known to modern man that's suitable for automotive use.
Assuming no marketing spin, you're talking about the media. What about the average off the shelf Ea0 filter of any size or part number? And what about all the other variables such as type and quantity of test dust, flow rates, pressure pulses, equipment vibration, etc, etc. Quoting a figure like approx 99% effective @ 15 um can be misleading as we've seen too many times in the claims by filter manufacturers.
A real engineer would be advocating more real world testing data, not less.
Oh...I see, only your data is valid.
You're immune from sampling errors, bad lab procedures and incorrect interpretation of the extrapolated data.
Yeah right.
I with you, Gary, as I've stated a few times already.
I guess I just went to an engineering school that taught us how to do scientific analysis in a different manner than some of the other so called engineers here.
He is not stating that he advocates less data per se. But that he actually goes through from experience different methods than most to get accurate consistent data.
On another thread he was mentioning how you could get pre-cleaned bottles for sample or just use a double rinse method. There is more to it than just sticking a bottle in the stream. Did you clean your sample thief etc etc. Now with that and a lab he trust for consistency he got results based on his experience that verified what he already suspected. Could he have had a bad sample sure. Did he? Probably not. It just backed up data from years of experience and hands on practical application testing.
Now with good samples I am sure he'd have no problem comparing notes and seeing it proven again. However the first, second, or third result that did not agree, he is cautioning that, that would not mean the filters were sub-standard or even that there is a problem at all. That is probably his major concern.
On another thread he was mentioning how you could get pre-cleaned bottles for sample or just use a double rinse method. There is more to it than just sticking a bottle in the stream. Did you clean your sample thief etc etc. Now with that and a lab he trust for consistency he got results based on his experience that verified what he already suspected. Could he have had a bad sample sure. Did he? Probably not. It just backed up data from years of experience and hands on practical application testing.
Now with good samples I am sure he'd have no problem comparing notes and seeing it proven again. However the first, second, or third result that did not agree, he is cautioning that, that would not mean the filters were sub-standard or even that there is a problem at all. That is probably his major concern.
- Status
Similar threads
