Quote:
I disagree with 427 regarding his statement that little can be derived from one set of comparative oil sample results.
George, you can derive all you want, but coming up with valid conclusions is a different matter all together.
Quote:
On the contrary, what the two samples did was confirm what is an industry recognized set of standards. That accepted standard bieng that a cellulose/paper oil filter element is essentially a >30 micron oil filter and that a microglass element can effectively filter down to 1 microns with a 99.97% efficiencies when properly configured.
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.
Quote:
Thus the one set of sample results confirmed what has been confirmed thousands of times by both laser and pour blockage: that the microglass element is 90%+ more efficient in the
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.
Quote:
So, the single EaO test confirmed that:
1. The filter media is indeed a full microglass element.
No...it supports your conjecture that it is.
Quote:
2. The filter very effectively filters to 10 microns, far below what a comparable cellulose would filter.
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?
Quote:
3. As a result of the confirmation that it is a full glass media, the filter will flow much, much better than a comparable cellulose or cellulose/glass blend, espcially so during sub freezing temperatures where a cellulose can be completely blocked due to water expansion in its fiber make up. Additionally the dirt holding capacity for the filter should be roughly 4 times that of the cellulose filter, given years of comparative testing done by the industrial filter manufacturers.
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.
Quote:
4. In hydraulic systems composed of pumps, servo valves, piping, gaskets and drive motors, the reduction of one ISO code has been shown to extend component life by 25%.
The lubricating environment in an internal combustion engine is quite different than a hydraulic system. You of all people should be aware of this.
Quote:
The reduction of the 10 to 30 micron abrasive particulates (SAE papers published by Detroit Diesel, Cummins have shown that in diesel engines, the 10 to 30 micron particulate is *the* abrasive particle size) by 90%+ will have a significant long term affect on wear.
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.
Quote:
5. Particulates in engine oil are catalysts for oxidation. A reduction of particulates in the oil can enable longer oil life along with more effective additization performance as some additives will cling to particulates and stop being effective.
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?
Quote:
So is this going to enable 427's 427 run a gazillion miles? Probably not.
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.
Quote:
But can having ultra clean oil be beneficial in many more ways than thought possible? Every day I work with hydraulic systems that failures are reduced or totally eliminated through the use of ultra clean hydraulic fluids. By just lowering an ISO code 1 number, cutting the particulate numbers in half, yes, identifiable wear rate reductions and corresponding increases in component life takes place. We are reducing ISO codes by a factor of 4. I think we could safely say that our engine and components are going to derive benefits from that level of cleanliness.
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.
Quote:
So, yes, an awful lot of good, valid, useful informatin can be derived from that one test result.
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.
Quote:
(which was two, by the way, as I indicated the oil was actually clean enough to run a laser with comparable results to the pore blockage of the Amsoil EaO)
George Morrison, STLE CLS
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.