The most surface area on a oil filter
- Thread starter easytim
- Start date
- Status
Bragging rights to most surface area does not the best filter make, because not all media are created equal. It's probably one of the best full-flow filters out there for particle removal efficiency. Not sure about flow and capacity. Would be nice to see results of ASTM filter tests to compare to others. But something tells me we'll never see those definitive test results.
Good filter for the money. Hate the new color.
Good filter for the money. Hate the new color.
Very impressive. That is 400 sq in of filter media to capture the gold paint that finds its way into the can.
Giant thumbs down on that "improvement"
Giant thumbs down on that "improvement"
It does provide a good grip though!
Most surface area does have the potential for making the best filter. Years ago I worked on trying to filter some very viscous dirty gear oil, and the only way we could get decent filtering was to minimize the flow rate. It was very obvious that the oil was dragging the (pulverized coal) particles through the filter media. We had to heat the oil a lot, and slow down the flow as much as possible to even begin to clean up the dirty oil.
Too much media can restrict flow.
There's only so much room in the can.
There's only so much room in the can.
Filter efficiency is inversely related to the velocity of flow through the media. Reduce the fluid velocity and your filter will catch and hold more stuff.
The PL30001 is probably reaching the limit of how full of media a can can get before that problem starts to appear.
Asterix
The PL30001 is probably reaching the limit of how full of media a can can get before that problem starts to appear.
Asterix
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
Filter efficiency is inversely related to the velocity of flow through the media.
Yes ..but typically with reduced rate of return. Assuming, for the moment, that particles are in suspension and not maintained in suspension just due to velocity, if you increase the media beyond a certain point, some particles may never get filtered just due to pore distribution and odds. (before reflexing- you're not the only one reading
)
Filter efficiency is inversely related to the velocity of flow through the media.
Yes ..but typically with reduced rate of return. Assuming, for the moment, that particles are in suspension and not maintained in suspension just due to velocity, if you increase the media beyond a certain point, some particles may never get filtered just due to pore distribution and odds. (before reflexing- you're not the only one reading
Gary Allan said:
Has if I was the only one reading this, its at odds that the pore distribution may never get filtered and if at some certain point if your media increases you may go past the particles of their suspension where velocity is due, for that moment it will reduce the return at any rate. This may sound backwards but I think I got it, yes
Last edited:
Synthetic media has more passages and can trap more particles and flow more oil than cellulose per square inch.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: John K
Gary Allan said:Quote:
Filter efficiency is inversely related to the velocity of flow through the media.
???????????? reflecting??? reacting?
I beg your pardon??
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: easytim
Has if I was the only one reading this, its at odds that the pore distribution may never get filtered and if at some certain point if your media increases you may go past the particles of their suspension where velocity is due, for that moment it will reduce the return at any rate. This may sound backwards but I think I got it, yes
This is just my reasoning based partially on data (granted -with applied assumptions) and experience with still wells where particles that wouldn't fall out of suspension due to low velocity. Assuming an equal flow distribution (in proportion to pore size) and an even particle distribution within the carrier fluid, where a filter wasn't a choke point, you would end with the lion's share of flow and particles passing through the larger pores.
From an "in the vacuum" viewpoint.
In reality (again, as I "imagine") the filter would indeed be a still-well and the laminar shearing would put the lion's share of the flow taking the short cut from the upper exterior to the upper interior of the filter. It would/should cascade downward in the shearing in relation to the real distance that it had to travel. You would (my reasoning) end up with a progressively descending saturation of the media. This view is void of any precipitation of particles that may fall out of suspension due to too low a velocity. I imagine that this isn't too much of an issue for most, but someone with longer idle times or with shorter duration events could encounter this effect.
Has if I was the only one reading this, its at odds that the pore distribution may never get filtered and if at some certain point if your media increases you may go past the particles of their suspension where velocity is due, for that moment it will reduce the return at any rate. This may sound backwards but I think I got it, yes
This is just my reasoning based partially on data (granted -with applied assumptions) and experience with still wells where particles that wouldn't fall out of suspension due to low velocity. Assuming an equal flow distribution (in proportion to pore size) and an even particle distribution within the carrier fluid, where a filter wasn't a choke point, you would end with the lion's share of flow and particles passing through the larger pores.
From an "in the vacuum" viewpoint.
In reality (again, as I "imagine") the filter would indeed be a still-well and the laminar shearing would put the lion's share of the flow taking the short cut from the upper exterior to the upper interior of the filter. It would/should cascade downward in the shearing in relation to the real distance that it had to travel. You would (my reasoning) end up with a progressively descending saturation of the media. This view is void of any precipitation of particles that may fall out of suspension due to too low a velocity. I imagine that this isn't too much of an issue for most, but someone with longer idle times or with shorter duration events could encounter this effect.
Seems to me that too much media area wouldn't become a problem until flow velocity drops below something like 10 times the mean particle velocity due to Brownian motion. That's fairly unlikely, I would think, in a typical engine even with the largest filter you can buy and fit into the car.
Asterix
Asterix
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: Asterix
Seems to me that too much media area wouldn't become a problem until flow velocity drops below something like 10 times the mean particle velocity due to Brownian motion. That's fairly unlikely, I would think, in a typical engine even with the largest filter you can buy and fit into the car.
Asterix
We went out of practical boundaries a bit back and it was merely to depict the reduced rate of return for increasing media size.
Gary
Seems to me that too much media area wouldn't become a problem until flow velocity drops below something like 10 times the mean particle velocity due to Brownian motion. That's fairly unlikely, I would think, in a typical engine even with the largest filter you can buy and fit into the car.
Asterix
We went out of practical boundaries a bit back and it was merely to depict the reduced rate of return for increasing media size.
Gary
- Status
