Microgreen 13k

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by DuckRyder
So scientifically you don't see an issue with filtering out data which doesn't support your hypothesis (that ISO ~ PC) for your comparison? You know I collected the sample with a sample pump, and you know the filter wasn't loaded up because it is here cut open and there is no evidence is was bypassing or defective in any way. Additionally there are 2 particle counts on the same filter with essentially the same result.


Why do you think your PCs didn't follow the same trend? Still a possibility something was not right with the filters or the PC test itself. Why did both of Patrick's repeat and come out like expected knowing the efficiency rating? Both Microgreens repeated, and weren't even on the same vehicle (probably not the same filter model either). Why does the less efficient Boss show a worse ISO Code as expected? Go gleen PC data in the UOA forum and look at the trends. There might be some outliers, but the ISO efficiency to ISO PC correlation is obviously there in most cases.

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
So scientifically you don't see an issue with filtering out data which doesn't support your hypothesis (that ISO ~ PC) for your comparison? You know I collected the sample with a sample pump, and you know the filter wasn't loaded up because it is here cut open and there is no evidence is was bypassing or defective in any way. Additionally there are 2 particle counts on the same filter with essentially the same result.


Why do you think your PCs didn't follow the same trend? Still a possibility something was not right with the filters or the PC test itself. Why did both of Patrick's repeat and come out like expected knowing the efficiency rating? Both Microgreens repeated, and weren't even on the same vehicle (probably not the same filter model either). Why does the less efficient Boss show a worse ISO Code as expected? Go gleen PC data in the UOA forum and look at the trends. There might be some outliers, but the ISO efficiency to ISO PC correlation is obviously there in most cases.


You did not answer my question.

I don't know why mine don't follow the same trend, nor do I know if there might be examples of the others that don't follow the trend. Assuming there is a trend...

My point is, you seem to want to select data that supports your belief and disregard data that doesn't... if you want to figure out the deal put all the data in the plot ...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
So scientifically you don't see an issue with filtering out data which doesn't support your hypothesis (that ISO ~ PC) for your comparison? You know I collected the sample with a sample pump, and you know the filter wasn't loaded up because it is here cut open and there is no evidence is was bypassing or defective in any way. Additionally there are 2 particle counts on the same filter with essentially the same result.

Why do you think your PCs didn't follow the same trend? Still a possibility something was not right with the filters or the PC test itself. Why did both of Patrick's repeat and come out like expected knowing the efficiency rating? Both Microgreens repeated, and weren't even on the same vehicle (probably not the same filter model either). Why does the less efficient Boss show a worse ISO Code as expected? Go glean PC data in the UOA forum and look at the trends. There might be some outliers, but the ISO efficiency to ISO PC correlation is obviously there in most cases.

You did not answer my question.

I don't know why mine don't follow the same trend, nor do I know if there might be examples of the others that don't follow the trend. Assuming there is a trend...

My point is, you seem to want to select data that supports your belief and disregard data that doesn't... if you want to figure out the deal put all the data in the plot ...


Part of "figuring out the deal" is to look into why a filter rated at 99% @ 20u shows a PC that's no better or worse than one rated at 99% @ 40u when there is other data showing that's not true.

People can believe what ever they want when seeing the data laid out, but saying your PC is accurate and many others that trend to the IOS efficiency rating are not accurate, then I'd say that's being blind and not asking why is that happening. Go do your own research before you claim the trends are bogus. If you think this kind of data is bogus, then any UOA or PC is totally worthless and shouldn't even be discussed on this chat board because there are always some outliers going on for whatever reasons. You really think there is no correlation between the lab tested efficiency of an oil filter and how it performs to keep oil to some corresponding level of cleanliness in real life use?

You see any similarities between the measured filter efficiency and the PC data in this SAE study data?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Pinoak
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
The sample size is too small. There are Ultra PC counts that are not as good as the representations on the plot.

Also are all the filters on the plot the same cross reference?

I'd like the see the Microgreen rise again in a well manufactured and true to patent design.

Yeah the graph, while maybe a good effort I guess (possibly motive driven) is not much to draw any conclusions from do time it's very limited scope.


Just comparing real PC data - no motive other than showing and comparing test results.

Uh huh, no bias or handpicking there, right? Lol
I always get a good laugh out of you silly fella.

Buy any more of those "99% @ 5u" motorcycle filters lately that you were so exited about and believed in their claim with absolutely no data to back it up? You probably do believe the Microgreen PC data on the plot though, right?

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
So scientifically you don't see an issue with filtering out data which doesn't support your hypothesis (that ISO ~ PC) for your comparison? You know I collected the sample with a sample pump, and you know the filter wasn't loaded up because it is here cut open and there is no evidence is was bypassing or defective in any way. Additionally there are 2 particle counts on the same filter with essentially the same result.

Why do you think your PCs didn't follow the same trend? Still a possibility something was not right with the filters or the PC test itself. Why did both of Patrick's repeat and come out like expected knowing the efficiency rating? Both Microgreens repeated, and weren't even on the same vehicle (probably not the same filter model either). Why does the less efficient Boss show a worse ISO Code as expected? Go glean PC data in the UOA forum and look at the trends. There might be some outliers, but the ISO efficiency to ISO PC correlation is obviously there in most cases.

You did not answer my question.

I don't know why mine don't follow the same trend, nor do I know if there might be examples of the others that don't follow the trend. Assuming there is a trend...

My point is, you seem to want to select data that supports your belief and disregard data that doesn't... if you want to figure out the deal put all the data in the plot ...


Part of "figuring out the deal" is to look into why a filter rated at 99% @ 20u shows a PC that's no better or worse than one rated at 99% @ 40u when there is other data showing that's not true.

People can believe what ever they want when seeing the data laid out, but saying your PC is accurate and many others that trend to the IOS efficiency rating are not accurate, then I'd say that's being blind and not asking why is that's happening. Go do your own research before you claim the trends are bogus. If you think this kind of data is bogus, then any UOA or PC is totally worthless and shouldn't even be discussed on this chat board because there are always some outliers going on for whatever reasons. You really think there is no correlation between the lab tested efficiency of an oil filter and how it performs to keep oil to some corresponding level of cleanliness in real life use? I think you've been around here long enough and you're a little more knowledgeable than that about filtration.

You see any similarities between the measured filter efficiency and the PC data in this SAE study data?


I never said your trend was bogus, I said you don't have enough data to call it a trend. You probably need about 384 unique random samples to determine something with a high (95+) percent certainty using standard confidence calculators on a fairly large target population.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by DuckRyder
I never said your trend was bogus, I said you don't have enough data to call it a trend. You probably need about 384 unique random samples to determine something with a high (95+) percent certainty using standard confidence calculators on a fairly large target population.


Guess the SAE study data is bogus/useless too since they didn't conduct 384 unique test cases. It's more than just a "coincidence" that higher rated filters result in better PC measurements as seen on a lot of PCs posted on BITOG and from other info sources, even it it's not hundreds of data points. If a PC falls way out of excepted results then I'd venture to say there's probably a reason for it. Can you find any official filtration information source (SAE, Machinery Lubrication, Donaldson, etc) that says more efficient filters don't give a better PC? From everything I've read, they all say the ISO cleanliness level is directly related to the level of filtration.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Some people can't grasp or understand the data anyway, so they would rather go by and believe unfounded claims (like 99% @ 5μ for example) with nothing to verify it. I could give a rat's behind if anyone thinks it's accurate or useful info or not - especially when they can't come up with a good reason why it's not.

You believe those Microgreen PCs since you're using them? If not, then do you think they are better or worse than the PC data shows, and why? Are you using them because of their efficiency and performance claims, or what?

 

[Pinoak]

If you didn't care what I think, you wouldn't be arguing with me lol, oh rats!

 

[kschachn]

Oh I think it's possible they can grasp it, I'm not convinced they are quite that mentally incapable. I think it is because they are just trolls at heart and only wish to stir up dissent on the board. This is their mission in life, not the actual discussion of facts and a search for information.

Look at it this way - people get banned on here due on their behavior and instead of taking that as a hint that they aren't wanted here, they instead make (multiple) new user names just to perpetuate their nonsense. They shows you their real intent right there. Their life is so meaningless without trolling Bitog that they simply must continue to do so.

What's amusing is that they think no one will catch on.

 

[DuckRyder]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
I never said your trend was bogus, I said you don't have enough data to call it a trend. You probably need about 384 unique random samples to determine something with a high (95+) percent certainty using standard confidence calculators on a fairly large target population.


Guess the SAE study data is bogus/useless too since they didn't conduct 384 unique test cases. It's more than just a "coincidence" that higher rated filters result in better PC measurements as seen on a lot of PCs posted on BITOG and from other info sources, even it it's not hundreds of data points. If a PC falls way out of excepted results then I'd venture to say there's probably a reason for it. Can you find any official filtration information source (SAE, Machinery Lubrication, Donaldson, etc) that says more efficient filters don't give a better PC? From everything I've read, they all say the ISO cleanliness level is directly related to the level of filtration.


You seem to be missing the point and putting words in my mouth. I never said bogus and I never said coincidence. I also never said it was impossible you are right, I just said your chart is too small a sample to draw a conclusion from with any confidence. I also said you are filtering data to exclude results that don't support your hypothesis. I stand behind both statements.

If in fact there are "a lot of PC posted on BITOG and other sources" supporting your hypothesis then why not put all the data on your plot?

 

[DBMaster]

It was with sadness yesterday that I put my last MG filter on the Mazda. At least I had enough to get through this last 30K mile OCI. It'll take me about 8-9 months to accumulate 10K more miles. Who knows, maybe another company will take over MG and continue the "mission."

 

[Pinoak]

Originally Posted by DBMaster
It was with sadness yesterday that I put my last MG filter on the Mazda. At least I had enough to get through this last 30K mile OCI. It'll take me about 8-9 months to accumulate 10K more miles. Who knows, maybe another company will take over MG and continue the "mission."

Hope so

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Pinoak
Originally Posted by DBMaster
It was with sadness yesterday that I put my last MG filter on the Mazda. At least I had enough to get through this last 30K mile OCI. It'll take me about 8-9 months to accumulate 10K more miles. Who knows, maybe another company will take over MG and continue the "mission."

Hope so


You "hope so" because you see the Microgreen PC data looks pretty good on the plot - get the point that you never addressed? Who's biased - lol. Yeah kschachn, not hard to see how the trolls work around here.

 

[Pinoak]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Pinoak
Originally Posted by DBMaster
It was with sadness yesterday that I put my last MG filter on the Mazda. At least I had enough to get through this last 30K mile OCI. It'll take me about 8-9 months to accumulate 10K more miles. Who knows, maybe another company will take over MG and continue the "mission."

Hope so


You "hope so" because you see the Microgreen PC data looks pretty good on the plot - get the point that you never addressed? Who's biased - lol. Yeah kschachn, not hard to see how the trolls work around here.

Oh my gosh!

It's because I've seen the info, NOT provided by you, that indicates they work as advertised.
Now, moving on.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by DuckRyder
If in fact there are "a lot of PC posted on BITOG and other sources" supporting your hypothesis then why not put all the data on your plot?


The hypothesis is that the PC data will typically correlate to the rated ISO efficiency rating - simple as that. There will always be outliers because of factors already mentioned. Obviously data posted in the UOA forum here might not always be from a totally controlled source because of many possible variables that could skew the PC data - but it's at least real use data. The data from the SAE study was under more controlled conditions, so that data is a good baseline example of how filter efficiency should correlate to PC data. The 5 filters in my plot show the same basic correlation. If people don't believe that the data is representative then they can start their own research project and post it up.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Pinoak
Oh my gosh!

It's because I've seen the info, NOT provided by you, that indicates they work as advertised.
Now, moving on.


Exactly what info was that? Are you believing claims like "99% @ 5μ" again? You think those Microgreen PCs are an accurate representation of how they perform, even though it's only two examples not knowing the sourch of the dats or which filter models they were?

 

[ZeeOSix]

Back peddler with lame responses, can't hang with the questions and debate matter - no surprise. Maybe you should send out for a PC or two on those Microgreens.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by Pinoak
There are some guys on this site that have provided their own personal data. You've seen it. You know it. Not people just hand picking data to use and try to pass off some silly graph as scientifically sound.like you.
Really now, obviously most aren't buying it this time, so move on for real now.


"Some guys that provided their own personal data" ... so exactky what personal data is that, please link it up. So you believe "personal data" but not lab test data or other personal data?

So what "personal data" convinced you they did what they claimed? Was there at least a few hundred instances of this personal data to make it convincingly valid? Was it recent personal data, or data before the designer of Microgreens spilled the beans on the design? You think a PC on the Microgreens you used will repeat the PC data I plotted on the two filters done back in 2017? Seriously, you should do a couple of PCs to convince yourself.

 

[DuckRyder]

I've got a microgreen, I'm changing oil this weekend and will probably keep the Civic around a while, so maybe I'll just see... assuming it doesn't let all the oil run out like the last one...

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Maybe I'll do the mother of PC tests here to see exactly where Zee's chart falls on the truth scale... and I'm betting it's probably pretty accurate.

I've got a new Amsoil fill in my 2007 Impreza w/EJ253, and a brand new Fram Ultra 7317 on it. I don't know how long it will go, but certainly not likely to break 20k miles on that fill. I already plan on sucking a dipstick tube sample at 10k to see how the oil is doing and basing my remaining (if any) time to run it out before draining.

So, instead of the dipstick sample, I will add about a cup of Amsoil SS a week or so before the 10k mark to ensure it's all mixed up well. When I hit the 10k mark, I will then remove the FU and get my UOA sample from what's in the center tube of the filter. This should be the cleanest oil in the engine, since it just passed thru the filter and has not yet been contaminated by anything inside the engine, correct? I will then place my last remaining MG201-7 filter on the car dry, and then run it out either until the first UOA comes back and says the oil needs to be changed immediately, until the "end" of my Amsoil experiment at wherever I feel comfortable with based on the UOA results, or until I hit 20k total (10k on each filter).

I will have a PC done on the first 10k with the FU, and then do another PC with the MicroGreen UOA and post both UOAs here. It will be very elementary to see if an MG is better than FU if the ISO codes are lower, but moot since MG is no longer in business. In addition, if anything, this test will favor the FU because it gets all of the oil all of the time, and if the drain interval for the MG is very short due to oil issues, the PTFE disk will not have had much time to do its work, and I think we all agree without a doubt that the main element on the MG is nowhere near the level of the element on the FU in regards to filtering efficiency and build quality. If the MG makes it all the way to 10k, it still likely favors the FU because at 20k total there will be additional oil breakdown that has accumulated during that time.

So, short and long of it: Same car, same oil fill, two different filters with the favorite first and the obsolete filter trying to clean up after the champ, with hard data from an unbiased lab with proven PC testing. Should put an end to the swordfighting and show if Zee's research proves out. If the ISO codes are lower for the MG, PTFE disk is a win. If the numbers are even, it shows the disk merely makes the paper filter perform equally to the synthetic media of the Ultra. If the numbers are worse, it shows the MG filter in its most recently produced form was not worth the money from the get-go.