Skip to main content

Reply to "Varnish filtration options"

quote:
Originally posted by OILKLEEN:
...I must disagree with John on the following statement: "Electrostatics filters are the answer at higher temp, where they are more effective of capturing individual varnish particles...."


What I meant ws, if the oil is constantly at higher temp, then the electrostatic filters are more effective in capturing varnish particles than a cellulose fiber type filters. On the other hand, if the oil is cooled down below 75 degrees C (hopefully not in the freezing range) than the both technologies are comparatively effective (they both easier and effectively deal with agglomerated varnish particle due to cooler conditions). However, cellulose fiber filters are not only cheaper to buy and maintain, but, contrary to the electrostatic technology, they will take out reasonable amount of water out of the oil (condensation water). I may be wrong, but my statement is based on our personal experience with both technologies, being set side by side (hooked on two adjacent governor sumps), ran, and their efficiencies observed and documented with lab test data (both systems cleaned oil down to 13/12/10 (c) and maintained this level, which is satisfactory for hydroturbine application). Both systems were used off-line for filtering of governors’ R&O ISO 68 oil. Cost of units was the primary reason why we decided to buy cellulose fiber filters for our application. Things may be different if targeted cleanliness level is much lower. Again, I only tried IMHO to answer amy’s request
quote:
I was wondering if anyone one has any experience or information regarding either of the two options.
, and with no intent to use “wide brush stokes”. Also, I am not a dealer or rep of any product or company, including the ones discussed.
×
×
×
×