Particle Counts on three filters & one car

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have been following this thread with interest but after a while it is like watching a tennis match. I cannot tell where the thing disintegrated, it seems to get a bit fuzzy somewhere alone the way, but I hate to see it get to this point and someone leave. I think Filter Guy was a good resource and obviously has a lot of experience with filters to share. It is so easy in written communications to convey the wrong idea and someone takes offense. I think it sad when anyone decides to leave the forum based on what another member has posted. I think everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt and no one should start calling someone stupid or ignorant. We are all here to learn and share info. IMHO

I made a post earlier where I talked about ultra cleaned sample bottles, and someone replied that you could rinse out the bottles with alcohol. It isn't that easy. When we cleaned our own containers in the lab you couldn't count on reagent grade solvents being clean enough, you had to first filter them through a 0.45 micron membrane filter before using them to rinse the containers.
 
This sounds like a job for Millipore man (cue superhero music)


In our environmental lab, they had two taps. One was labeled as "The real millipore water" ..the other was labeled "The Imposter".

I don't know how much you have to correct for the static background noise that might occur with uncleaned bottles. The particulate matter would probably be of a composition that won't show up on a UOA. Now in PC ..you don't know what particle is what ..so it could make a difference.

We're already way too anal already ..but go ahead ..add a new dimension to it
grin.gif
 
This (typical)issue with F.G. goes back a couple years, this is just a recent flareup. There are other examples if you search back. Not a huge loss here, BITOG actually has several excellent contributors. BITOG will do just fine, or even better.
My thoughts on the particle counts in this case-
In theory a clean filter (air filter in this case) lets in more contaminant than a dirty one...particles at a given size per a given volume of air...ok fine.
In reality however, I think it would be next to impossible to compare a 5kmile interval with another 5kmile interval- too many variables- this point was made in the earlier posts. Different types of dust (not every particle comes from dirt, there is also pollen/smoke/pieces of unlucky bugs etc. that contain no silicon, but plenty of carbon..
5kmiles at 60mph takes in a lot less air that 5kmiles at 35mph, the same filter in that case might perform equally (efficiency wise) but would allow more contaminant in the 35mph case just because so much more air would have been ingested. Lots of short drives (cold starts) vs longer drives. That's just 3 possibilities, and those silicon counts were very low as SWHEAT pointed out, looked to me like the air filter change really didn't upset the party too much actually.

Using the silicon count is NOT the same as plain old particle count...the engine produces carbon every time the cylinder files, and the actual particle count is the only way to actually gauge the oil filter performance....all it does is filter particles out of the oil.
 
Probably the reasoning is that you're never going to be able to do 5k at a constant 35mph. Therefore you will be completing 5k at a much higher average rpm with a wider opened throttle from starting and stopping. The cfm you move should be higher.
 
As an engineer, I know decisions must be made with limited information.

The "data" presented by SWHeat is just that, data. It doesn't prove anything.

The data provided supports my thinking that PureONE media is better at filtration than K&N. Other information makes me think that K&N has better flow rate than the PureONE.

Nothing here is proven. I'm just trying to make a decision.

Based on information available do I want great flow or better particulate count ? And how much will this benefit cost me ?
 
Quote:

Quote:

5kmiles at 60mph takes in a lot less air that 5kmiles at 35mph,

Click to expand...


Anyone care to explain how this can be?
liar.gif
?
pat2.gif
?
pat2.gif
?
pat2.gif
?
pat2.gif
?
pat2.gif
?

Click to expand...


At least two possibilities.
1) Running time. Engine runs for a shorter time at 60 versus 35 to achieve 5K miles. Less time = Less air.
2) Gas mileage. Takes less gas for vehicle to accumulate 5k miles at 60 than 35. Less gas = Less air.
 
Quote:

Based on information available do I want great flow or better particulate count ? And how much will this benefit cost me ?

Click to expand...


Well that question gets back to the fact that oil pumps in cars are ideally considered positive displacement pumps. And since the engine itself provides the majority of the restriction, flow through the different oil filters shouldn't be much different unless the bypass valve is activated. And given the data provided from Grease's study and Gary Allen's real world test, that doesn't happen unless the oil temp is substantially below room temps and/or the engine is near redline RPMs.

Still, some claim that high flow filters show some advantage. I'm at a loss to understand why that may be the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
Beta Ratio and how and why to use it instead of efficiency rating
Replies
8
Views
2K
ZeeOSix
T
Oil Filter Media Efficiency Spec's
Replies
15
Views
4K
RagnarokCamaro
Mewbs
Donaldson P551132 Cut open - New
Replies
10
Views
2K
DGXR
B
Latest Fram Ultra Synthetic oil filter as of 2023 January - Is it still a good choice?
9 10 11
Replies
213
Views
52K
yardbird
F
UOA, GM AF40-6 (Aisin tf80sc) ATF, 35K Mi
Replies
1
Views
668
fantastic
Back
Top