Would they all flow the same?
- Thread starter MarkC
- Start date
- Status
Ugly3 is correct here. millerl, look at the Oil Pump Overhaul diagram, you'll see the typical relief spring valve assembly. It is designed to begin to open at set pressure and limit maximum pressure.
You have data you haven't shared with us?
Think Three Stooges: Moe threatening Larry, "Why, I oughtta'... "
How about a more comprehensive report? Filter manufacturer, model number, specifications, flow rate, viscosities, temperatures, pressures, miles in use, etc.
Also, explain how 125 in^2 of media reduces down to about 63 in^2 of media.
I think Gary was doing his math from a 2" OD element with a 1" ID center tube and coming up with 63sq. in. of media..
Just a guess...
Just a guess...
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Okay ...I did a couple of things wrong here.
2 7/16 OD x 3.14 x 20 = 153 ^2"
1 ID x 3.14 x 20 = 62.8^2"
Cotton wound 1um rated 6 gpm.
There appears to be no other spec. That is, I don't know what pressure the flow rate is determined at, it just gives 6 gpm. I assume H20 is what it's rated for.
Now I have gauges on either side of the filter (gotta love those industrial housings) ..but I'm installing electric gauges to allow me to read this in the driver's seat while driving. This will allow me to view it at high speeds ..etc.
I've only had the filter in use 1500 miles. Admittedly this may prove to increase the PSID as accumulation of the debris increases. Unfortunately this is not a daily/high mileage driver so it takes a long time to evaluate it comprehensively.
But my observations/opinions still stand. Even with a highly restrictive media (which one could reason simultates a worn/saturated less restrictive media) shows very little PSID even under cold start up conditions with common weight motor oil.
Naturally, I'm open to any alternative POV from our esteemed membership.
"Moe, Larry!! Cheese!!"
2 7/16 OD x 3.14 x 20 = 153 ^2"
1 ID x 3.14 x 20 = 62.8^2"
Cotton wound 1um rated 6 gpm.
There appears to be no other spec. That is, I don't know what pressure the flow rate is determined at, it just gives 6 gpm. I assume H20 is what it's rated for.
Now I have gauges on either side of the filter (gotta love those industrial housings) ..but I'm installing electric gauges to allow me to read this in the driver's seat while driving. This will allow me to view it at high speeds ..etc.
I've only had the filter in use 1500 miles. Admittedly this may prove to increase the PSID as accumulation of the debris increases. Unfortunately this is not a daily/high mileage driver so it takes a long time to evaluate it comprehensively.
But my observations/opinions still stand. Even with a highly restrictive media (which one could reason simultates a worn/saturated less restrictive media) shows very little PSID even under cold start up conditions with common weight motor oil.
Naturally, I'm open to any alternative POV from our esteemed membership.
"Moe, Larry!! Cheese!!"
Gary, thanks.
Very interesting. Am I correct in assuming you're running the "full" engine flow of oil through the filter?
Given your areas for the media, thats roughly close to some of the small filters we see speced for a lot of cars today. It'll be interesting to see how the pressure changes across the filter as you accumulate miles on it. Although that filter might actually have an advantage due to it's depth filtering abilities.
I'll just add, I'm glad someone finally put some gauges on both sides of a filter in a running engine so we could get some real world data. I've wanted to do this for a long time but other projects always seem to get a higher priority.
Now if we can just talk you into repeating the experiment with a normal full flow filter without a bypass valve.
I'll chip in for any expenses it requires.
Very interesting. Am I correct in assuming you're running the "full" engine flow of oil through the filter?
Given your areas for the media, thats roughly close to some of the small filters we see speced for a lot of cars today. It'll be interesting to see how the pressure changes across the filter as you accumulate miles on it. Although that filter might actually have an advantage due to it's depth filtering abilities.
I'll just add, I'm glad someone finally put some gauges on both sides of a filter in a running engine so we could get some real world data. I've wanted to do this for a long time but other projects always seem to get a higher priority.
Now if we can just talk you into repeating the experiment with a normal full flow filter without a bypass valve.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Yes ...or so I reason. There is the poppet relief in the Permacool ..but if it was modulating ..you would hear buzzing and the gauges should be bouncing. I don't see any ocillation from the gauges. When I first installed it ...I doubted Ralph's assertion that no mods were required to the PermaCool. I drilled two 13/64 holes in the permacool. After warm up ..I had a cold filter. Those two holes didn't provide enough differential to push anything through the filter. I installed a new sandwich ..no holes ..worked great with only 2 PSID.
This will probably be a long term test due to the limited mileage that this vehicle sees. I would think a particle count would verify the effectiveness of the filter. If I can convince my wife to drive it on her commute for a month or two ..then it would rack up some miles fairly quickly.
I'm sure the depth of the media probably simulates a larger surface area than the exterior. By the destription, it appears that the interior is wound tighter than the exterior. I imagine that this is for longer life.
All in due time
[ February 15, 2005, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
This will probably be a long term test due to the limited mileage that this vehicle sees. I would think a particle count would verify the effectiveness of the filter. If I can convince my wife to drive it on her commute for a month or two ..then it would rack up some miles fairly quickly.
I'm sure the depth of the media probably simulates a larger surface area than the exterior. By the destription, it appears that the interior is wound tighter than the exterior. I imagine that this is for longer life.
I think I have everything all ready. I've got the adapter for the filter mount ...hmmm..but I only have dual remote mounts. It might be hard to find 3/4-16 thread filters w/o a bypass ..but plumbing the tees for PSID readings will be a snap. I've got just about every fitting known to modern man. I've got both Ford (3/4-16) and Chevy (13/16) dual mounts ..but I don't know if they make the Chevy in a single. That would give us a no-bypass filter sure enough.quote:
Now if we can just talk you into repeating the experiment with a normal full flow filter without a bypass valve.I'll chip in for any expenses it requires.
All in due time
[ February 15, 2005, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
I'm confused by this part. This remote mount has a bypass valve? Or is it the sandwich that has the bypass valve? Or neither? Why did you drill two holes in the Permacool mount and where did the holes start and end? Is the new sandwich strictly to allow a remote filter installation, i.e., it just directs all the flow to an inlet/outlet ports you attached lines to?
The final effect is, you now have the total, unrestricted oil flow from the oil pump to your 1um filter such that there are no physical paths that can potentially allow the oil flow to bypass this filter on it's way to the engine accept for the oil pump bypass valve, and, no other filter is in this flow path?
[ February 15, 2005, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I thought that I might lose someone with how I worded that.
The installation as it stands has a brand new Permacool sandwich adapter. It has an integrated poppet bypass valve. This has a very stiff spring on it. My belief that it is never breached is that I have the same differential at cold and hot. If this was opening ..it would modulate rapidly (buzzing) as it evidenced the shockwaves of having too dense a media and suddenly having that resistance released. If it was open ..then I would most likely see gauge fluctuations (bouncing needles). I don't
Now I can replace this sandwich with a non-sandwich adapter (which I have). This would have aboslutely no bypass to it.
This same adapter could also be plumbed to a single remote filter mount with a standard oil filter. This remote I can also rig before and after gauges to facilitate reading cold differentials (or saturated differentials). That's later down the road though.
In short ..there is an "escape" in this setup. But I don't think that it's a factor with this filter ...yet anyway. I guess I could ask Permacool what the breaking pressure is for the poppet. That could add some reasonable assurance that I'm not FOS
Just to clear up the reference to the two 7/64th holes that I drilled in my first Permacool sandwich: After warm up ..I didn't have enough differential pressure across the sandwich adapter to push any oil to the 1um filter. When warming up ..yes ..when fully warm ..no. That means that the entire engine, after warmup, could be totally supplied with all its lubrication needs with two 7/64th holes for a supply. This supports my theory that backpressure from down stream makes any restriction (two 7/64th holes would appear quite restrictive to most of our members) a moot point. This led me to say that it would also make most fiter medias a non issue as well.
I still wonder if I said all that in a coherant manner
[ February 15, 2005, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
The installation as it stands has a brand new Permacool sandwich adapter. It has an integrated poppet bypass valve. This has a very stiff spring on it. My belief that it is never breached is that I have the same differential at cold and hot. If this was opening ..it would modulate rapidly (buzzing) as it evidenced the shockwaves of having too dense a media and suddenly having that resistance released. If it was open ..then I would most likely see gauge fluctuations (bouncing needles). I don't
Now I can replace this sandwich with a non-sandwich adapter (which I have). This would have aboslutely no bypass to it.
This same adapter could also be plumbed to a single remote filter mount with a standard oil filter. This remote I can also rig before and after gauges to facilitate reading cold differentials (or saturated differentials). That's later down the road though.
In short ..there is an "escape" in this setup. But I don't think that it's a factor with this filter ...yet anyway. I guess I could ask Permacool what the breaking pressure is for the poppet. That could add some reasonable assurance that I'm not FOS
Just to clear up the reference to the two 7/64th holes that I drilled in my first Permacool sandwich: After warm up ..I didn't have enough differential pressure across the sandwich adapter to push any oil to the 1um filter. When warming up ..yes ..when fully warm ..no. That means that the entire engine, after warmup, could be totally supplied with all its lubrication needs with two 7/64th holes for a supply. This supports my theory that backpressure from down stream makes any restriction (two 7/64th holes would appear quite restrictive to most of our members) a moot point. This led me to say that it would also make most fiter medias a non issue as well.
I still wonder if I said all that in a coherant manner
[ February 15, 2005, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
Gary Allen - Just to clear up the reference to the two 7/64th holes that I drilled in my first Permacool sandwich: After warm up ..I didn't have enough differential pressure across the sandwich adapter to push any oil to the 1um filter. When warming up ..yes ..when fully warm ..no. That means that the entire engine, after warmup, could be totally supplied with all its lubrication needs with two 7/64th holes for a supply. This supports my theory that backpressure from down stream makes any restriction (two 7/64th holes would appear quite restrictive to most of our members) a moot point. This led me to say that it would also make most fiter medias a non issue as well.
I am going to have to think on this one for a long time. All the oil need through 2 7/64" holes - hard to get a grip on.
I am going to have to think on this one for a long time. All the oil need through 2 7/64" holes - hard to get a grip on.
This is interesting. When you add up all the area provided by the bearing clearances in something like a Honda V6 you get ~.5 in^2 not including the VTEC system, and all those bearings you claim can be supplied by ~.02 in^2 of area provided by your two 7/64 holes.
Yes, they do:
Part# 1793 Single filter mount with 1/2" NPT(int) ports right and left. 13/16"-16 thread
Then put on a filter equivalent to one of these:
WIX Part Number: 51042
Principal Application: GM Cars & Trucks (75-76, 96-05)
Style: Spin-On Lube Filter
Type: Full Flow
Media: Paper
Height: 3.404
Outer Diameter Top: 2.921
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 13/16-16
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: None
Anti-Drain Back Valve: Yes
Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.734 2.430 0.226
[ February 16, 2005, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: 427Z06 ]
Gary..The string has a certain diameter, and the tighter the wind, the lower the micron rating. That's how string wound filters come up with their ratings.
I'm not sure this alone is a valid assumption. Unless the bypass valve/spring assembly had absolutely NO damping, I wouldn't expect it to "buzz" like that.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
andquote:
This is interesting. When you add up all the area provided by the bearing clearances in something like a Honda V6 you get ~.5 in^2 not including the VTEC system, and all those bearings you claim can be supplied by ~.02 in^2 of area provided by your two 7/64 holes.
You think it didn't shock the heck out of me ???
I installed it with the two holes ..felt it warm up in a short time at idle..patted myself on the back and did a little jig. Drove to get fuel (there's a big price dip over the county line that made the 8 mile trip worth it) ..got out ..popped the hood ...stone cold. As the viscosity approached operating thickness ..it was easier for the oil to just increase in velocity going through the two small holes than it was to make the trip through the 1um filter.
From the observed events ..you can now see how I formed this "change in velocity in the presense of apparent restrictions" theory.
Beats the crap outta me
Since the filter did warm initially ..and didn't get any flow after the oil reached a certain temperature, one could assume that viscoisity had a decent impact on the event. I was using a 20 weight at the time.
1793 Single filter mount with 1/2" NPT(int) ports right and left. 13/16"-16 thread.
Yep, that looks like a winner!
btw- I had a dual Chevy installed on my 4.0 before I ever got to BITOG. Used two of the BIG filters on it. Never considered (or knew of) the bypass valves (in block or on the fitler). No troubles whatsoever. Ignorance is bliss
Okay ..so they approach getting the um rating a couple of ways (at the same time). Varied diameter of the string ..and tension when being spooled/spun. Interesting. I can't wait to use the 3.5" 1um filters. I've still got mileage left (a good bit it looks like) on the 2.5" that I have though
Gary..Yep..that's about how they're wound.
I can get you a plant tour..
I can get you a plant tour..
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
I'm still confused. Your setup allows another path for the oil to flow from the oil pump to the engine besides the 1um filter, namely these two 7/64 holes?
If what I just wrote above is true, your experience above doesn't surprise me. As you drove the cold airflow caused the oil to thicken in the 1um filter, and in positive feedback fashion, oil flow was virtually stopped to the 1um filter.
At this point I'm not comfortable with drawing any conclusion given some of the unknown/unconstrained variables here. IMHO, I believe until we use just a spin-on adapter and a single remote mount with a typical full flow filter, with gauges before and after the filter where all the oil is forced through the filter, were all just guessing what is actually happening.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Okay ..
FIRST INSTALL: 2 7/64th holes = didn't work after warm up.
SECOND INSTALL: no holes = works fine.
Any further referrence was to "future" use of THAT (the one with the holes in it) Permacool ..where I would plug the holes and solder the poppet shut (I'm not going to do that to the fully intact and functional one) ..to eliminate any possibility of bypassing the filter.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Missed this part of Ugly3's question:
I'm moving two electrical gauges inside the passenger compartment so I can read them there. I don't have a tach ..but I think revving it after warm up yields little more than the 38 psi reading.
The startup pressure is 82/80 via the gauges that you see in the above image. After initial warmup ..this drops to about 38/36 (as you see). If idled long enough ..it may drop into the 20's.
I'm moving two electrical gauges inside the passenger compartment so I can read them there. I don't have a tach ..but I think revving it after warm up yields little more than the 38 psi reading.
- Status
