Microgreen - possibly stunning development!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
1,512
Location
CA
Found this review on Amazon by Norbert M Assion:

Quote:
Because of doubts on the filters claimed 99% efficiency and claimed unbeatable extraordinary filter performance far beyond the capabilities of traditional filters, the filter has now been tested again after SOMS refused since 2013 to prove its assertions with results of carried out tests. In fact the filter does not meet the promised expectations. The filters real efficiency is 99.65% @ 40 microns and 81.78% @ 20 microns (ISO 4548-12 multiple pass) and is thus merely an average filter. With claiming 99% efficiency and without disclose also the rating number, the customer is deliberately misled and deceived. The filter purchaser believe and trust that the filter would capture 99% of all harmful particles. However, it is also true, until 2012 the oil cleanliness performance of all SOMS spin-on filter models was unrivaled. Then SOMS altered the original licensed design because of economic reasons, and the filter performance collapsed since then. The filters full-flow media as well as its micro filter media were evaluated as Absolute Rating 20µm. Usually a 20 micron rated filter makes it impossible to capture large numbers of particles substantially smaller than 20 microns. Consequently a lot of these harmful particles remain in the oil. Undoubtedly roughly the same is happen with the spin-on filters of below listed brands:
Bosch: 99.0% @ 20μm, Pennzoil: 97.0% @ 20μm, Purolator: 99.0% @ 20μm, Mobil-1: 99.6% @ 25μm, Royal Purple: 99.0% @ 25μm, WIX: 99.0% @ 25μm. (Source: Providers documents) And for comparing: The efficiency of SOMS Spin-on filter models before 2013 was 99% @ 5µm after 10,000 road miles additional testing and not only after some 45 minutes labor testing at ISO 4548-12 multiple pass.
Questions? Norbert M. Assion / [email protected]


https://www.amazon.com/microGreen-MG-421-8-Oil-Filter/product-reviews/B007USGLCQ

Who is Norbert M Assion?

Well he holds patents on the hybrid filter, worked with two others at SOMS Technologies where it was developed, has an article in Machinery Lubrication about the hybrid filter and was one of the authors of this paper:

http://www.wsppn.org/pdf/fleets/SOMS_Clean_Technology_2009_Abstract_Submission.pdf

Looks like there was a falling out. Nevertheless, it seems like the lack of information from Microgreen has been explained.
 
This is why people shouldn't believe claims of filter efficiency without data from a known industry use test spec like ISO 4548-12. Way better than believing the company becuse "they said it was so".

I'm not totally sure what his point is about other high efficiency oil filters, but he makes it sound like they can't hold alot of smaller particles, but that's normal if he's ever seen a particle size vs efficiency curve like produced during an ISO 4548-12 test. Thanks for the info.
 
I wonder if Mr. Assion received a cease and desist letter in early November of 2016?
Good info to have, assuming it's all true. Sounds like maybe a promising product idea was not really economically viable and the company punted and resorted to selling the same ol' thing with exaggerated marketing claims based on earlier performance results.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
This is why people shouldn't believe claims of filter efficiency without data from a known industry use test spec like ISO 4548-12. Way better than believing the company becuse "they said it was so".

I'm not totally sure what his point is about other high efficiency oil filters, but he makes it sound like they can't hold alot of smaller particles, but that's normal if he's ever seen a particle size vs efficiency curve like produced during an ISO 4548-12 test. Thanks for the info.


"This is why people shouldn't believe claims of filter efficiency without data" Five stars review for you.

That review on Amazon sounds bogus. It wasn't written by an English as first language writer. Mine isn't the best but it's still my first language. Then there are efficiencies in 1/100%'s and other red flags. All I know is a 2 micron pore disk filters out all greater than 2 micron particles, and that's the idea behind a bypass filter. Only a nut would put their email in an Amazon review.
 
My big gripe with the MicroGreen is "oil will flow along the path of least resistance"

and I just couldn't see how any measurable flow can occur through the "disc"
when all those porous pleats are right there......
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All I know is a 2 micron pore disk filters out all greater than 2 micron particles, and that's the idea behind a bypass filter.


I don't see how it's possible to get the pore disc to see any appreciable flow to make any difference.
 
Interesting find - so it worked as described till they economized it.

Also sounds like a falling out between partners/ employees.

Should I believe Cummins?



UD
 
Last edited:
That inventor of the MG must have been reading here, because it has all the talking points against the MG down pat. Reading it the second time, bogus as the moon is made of swiss cheese. It's really bad.
 
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
That inventor of the MG must have been reading here, because it has all the talking points against the MG down pat. Reading it the second time, bogus as the moon is made of swiss cheese. It's really bad.


What Im reading here is the version they were paying him for absolutely met spec.

The cheapened version (users all saw the change) does not (likely they stopped paying him when they stopped using his design) and he's laying down payback.

Sound like retribution but either way Ill keep mine on the shelf till I hear more.

UD
 
Last edited:
Because Im a data driven guy and just for snicks here's my last UOA using a Microgreen mg101-7 on the wifes vans diesel genset.

Note: Blackstones commentary, and the insoluble measurement.

UD



 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
My big gripe with the MicroGreen is "oil will flow along the path of least resistance"

and I just couldn't see how any measurable flow can occur through the "disc"
when all those porous pleats are right there......



A small pressure delta across the tighter media insures there is some " flow" or at least mild pressure against the secondary media.

Same basic way the cummins strata pour venturi works with its dual media and stacked disk bypass portion(it also has no 4548-12)





Im curious what bitogger feedback to me will be because my situation is interesting.

Do I keep going with what Ive tested and proven myself ?

Or do I believe what any third party says be it good or bad?



UD
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

A small pressure delta across the tighter media insures there is some " flow"


If that were true, the main pleated element should have higher efficiency.

I still wouldn't like the idea of a "more restrictive" full flow element
to try to generate some delta P "so the disc gets some flow", too...
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

A small pressure delta across the tighter media insures there is some " flow"


If that were true, the main pleated element should have higher efficiency.

I still wouldn't like the idea of a "more restrictive" full flow element
to try to generate some delta P "so the disc gets some flow", too...


thats probably more accurate than what I said - the disk gets "some" flow- but it passes much less than even that.



If Norb is to be believed he answered many questions we all had.

"The efficiency of SOMS Spin-on filter models before 2013 was 99% @ 5µm after 10,000 road miles additional testing and not only after some 45 minutes labor testing at ISO 4548-12 multiple pass."

This is Interesting because thats the claim MG made when they wrote to a couple of us in private mails. So MG is still claiming the same as Norbs design.


The way I read that is it takes 10K miles to scrub a sump down to 5M - meaning its incredibly slow - as he says not a 45 minute 4548-12 run - do you guys read this the same as I am?

Probably another reason they don't call it out.


If we believe Norb.......



UD
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

Do I keep going with what Ive tested and proven myself ?


Repeat the same exact test with a different brand filter?
 
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

Do I keep going with what Ive tested and proven myself ?


Repeat the same exact test with a different brand filter?


Ill do just that -

- but lets agree the MG UOA is about as good as they get -

After this current 101-7 run to 250 on the MG - Ill switch back to an Ultra and run a 169 hour run and see what I get.

This genset gets tons of hours in the summer.



UD
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
"This is why people shouldn't believe claims of filter efficiency without data"

Five stars review for you.

A better review than saying "their claims must be true because they said so" which we've heard from you.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
That review on Amazon sounds bogus. It wasn't written by an English as first language writer.


Maybe English isn't the guy's first language, but it doesn't automatically make it bogus. Are you being discriminatory?
 
Originally Posted By: UncleDave

If Norb is to be believed he answered many questions we all had.

"The efficiency of SOMS Spin-on filter models before 2013 was 99% @ 5µm after 10,000 road miles additional testing and not only after some 45 minutes labor testing at ISO 4548-12 multiple pass."

This is Interesting because thats the claim MG made when they wrote to a couple of us in private mails. So MG is still claiming the same as Norbs design.


The way I read that is it takes 10K miles to scrub a sump down to 5M - meaning its incredibly slow - as he says not a 45 minute 4548-12 run - do you guys read this the same as I am?

Probably another reason they don't call it out.


If we believe Norb.......



UD


I read that to mean they also proved the rating after 10,000 miles in actual use, not only in the lab. I think he is proud of his original design and not happy with the company.

Also, as far as I can see, he posted his review only against one filter model. Has he tested several models for his economising claims?
 
Originally Posted By: UncleDave
- but lets agree the MG UOA is about as good as they get -

After this current 101-7 run to 250 on the MG - Ill switch back to an Ultra and run a 169 hour run and see what I get.

This genset gets tons of hours in the summer.



UD


Wouldn't particle counts prove or disprove a microgreen's filter claims?

We might need people to report date codes from the filters too.
 
I may have photo'd the tops of my last batch I sometimes do as I frequently cut looking for changes ......


A particle count at 10K miles or similar hours would be interesting.

An insoluble number is also a good indicator of filter effectiveness.


Im reading this as they used a minor design change as a reason to deny him royalty/ employment / bennies or something of the like - and the rework inst as effectives as the original design.
Good questions though - which models were tested, and where , have their been subsequent changes?




UD
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top