Skip to main content

Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity

quote:
Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
Tim, you repeated a re-phrased version the original assertion without providing any of the requested detail. There's no point in responding until you have some news.

'I don't know' is always an acceptable answer when it happens to be the truth. It's always stood me well.
What specifically did you want to know?
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
You still seem to be confused. The larger particles just sit on top of the nanofibers and still allows oil flow around it into the many pores available.


Filters design for water filters is similar to filter design for oil filters. We were talking about activated carbon in class one day and the applications and one of the various applications is making water filters. The Professor talked about surface treating the activated carbon matrix to create macro and then micro pores to allow particles (contaminants) to be trapped in this filter media. During the activation phase the surface of the carbon matrix forms a macro pore opening which goes into the matrix to taper off into a micro pore forming "cracks" on the surface of the matrix. So I asked the Prof what would happen if macro size particles keeps coming into the filter to block the opening and therefore stopping the micro size particles from getting trapped and he said in response that usually you have a multi-stage filtration system so that the macro size particles are trapped before exposing the flow to the micro filtration step.

From my last post I said that the Donaldson discontinued filter uses a multi-stage filtration process within one filter. This would mean that with the limited size available in the filter housing the filter needs to be able to trap larger particles first and then the smaller particles later.



Assuming that the web like design is uniform for the entire synthetic media the multi-stage filtration is then not possible as the large particles would start to clog the "nano" web forcing the filter to go into bypass mode. Large particles would large particles would first bombard the web and then subsequently particles of all sizes would start to find the path of least resistance until more large particles comes along to block up more of the nano webbing. Eventually medium size particles would start to form between large particles, so on and so forth, until the web is so inundated with particles that the filter is forced into bypass.

One way to counter this is to form a media that has cellulose sheath (outer surface) and a progressive nanoweb core (inner surface). This would allow large particles to be filtered before entering the nano web which then allows the nano web to do its advertised job of collecting nano-sized particles. The problem still exists in this case with large size particles filling up the sheath thereby blocking to flow as you move toward the center of the filter. Having a nano sheath and a cellulose core makes no sense so that scenario is thrown out.

Either way it doesn't seem like the nano-web can have a longer than average (25,000 vs claimed 3000 miles) drain interval when it has a fine net that is design to clog fast.

If you don't know please say so and ask the Amsoil engineer politely via e-mail. I know I've done it and I got bogus answers when I did but perhaps you can have better luck with them as you are still a dealer.
Your theory is all wrong. The large particles just sit on the surface of the nanofiber web. Since the nanofiber web has several times the number of pores and surface area compared to a microfiber web, it can trap more particles yet provide more flow. Donaldson has done extended oil filter intervals for 20 years with this design and AMSOIL has marketed extended 25,000 mile oil filter extended change intervals for 5 years for autos, light trucks and up to 15,000 miles in motorcycles. And SouthWest Research Institute in San Antonio has extensively tested these filters. They work as advertised. Thousands of used oil analysis also confirm.
Ebola, can't you see?

Large particles sit on top of the media in a Donaldson paptent amsoil Ea filter. They never bridge or agglonmerate.

You see, they know they're trapped by a magical filter, and they'd never impede flow in any logical way.

It's magic. You need to just press the "I believe" button.

And remember, Eas are good for 25,000. PureOnes for 3,000.

Except when they're not.

You think msoil marketers get togther and sing songs like Mary Kay people do?
I gave this a lot of thought. My guess is in order for the Amsoil filter to last 25,000 miles it isn't filtering as well as a Pure One or Mobil 1 filter. It is not trapping the smaller stuff. Now some might say the smaller stuff is harmless, at least that is what I'd say if I was selling those filters. Me I'd take the filter that traps the most stuff, and change it more often. No point in filtering out big stuff, leaving small stuff so the filter will last longer.

OK flamers, torch me.

LOL
AD
Again I have to call attention to two diagrams:



and Figure 3 on this pdf: http://www.asia.donaldson.com/...talibrary/050272.pdf

2nd picture is twice the magnification of the first but the two looks fundamentally different. If you reduce the size of the Figure 3 from the PDF and transpose or do a side-to side comparison you will find it very difficult to get a good match.

There is also something inconsistent between the graph show on the PDF and Amsoil's numbers in filtration efficiency. Look at Figure 4 on the PDF and compare it to these numbers:



Amsoil is still nominal at 7 microns but here it shows that a nanofiber oil filter is nominal between 0.00 and 0.20 microns. How does that work?
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
No magic. The much smaller nanofibers just filter better than microfibers, hold more particles, and flow better as explained: http://www.asia.donaldson.com/...talibrary/050272.pdf . And patented: http://www.google.com/patents?...v=onepage&q=&f=false .


The paper is for air filters. Not directly applicable. else we'd be seeing depth media air filters, but we don't.

As for patents. No proof of workability is required. Perpetual motion machines have patents.

Means nothing.

AND, since the patent covers air filtration, how does it apply to oil?

Is the spun coating tough enough to stand the flow regime?

Compare and contrast:
Velocities
Volume
Fluid dynamics is what I am after

Particle make up

Forces applied by the fluid. (Consider air a fluid in this case)
Last edited by robertc
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
No magic. The much smaller nanofibers just filter better than microfibers, hold more particles, and flow better as explained: http://www.asia.donaldson.com/...talibrary/050272.pdf . And patented: http://www.google.com/patents?...v=onepage&q=&f=false .


The paper is for air filters. Not directly applicable. else we'd be seeing depth media air filters, but we don't.
Similar synthetic nanofiber media. Similar results.

quote:
As for patents. No proof of workability is required. Perpetual motion machines have patents.

Means nothing.
Donaldson has proven the technology 20 years. You can prove it to yourself with extended oil drains and UOA.

quote:
AND, since the patent covers air filtration, how does it apply to oil?
Similar synthetic nanofiber media, similar results. Proven by 20 years of used oil analysis.

quote:
Is the spun coating tough enough to stand the flow regime?
. Of course. Proven for the past 20 years by Donaldson, 5 years by AMSOIL. Tested by Independent World Renown SouthWest Research Institute .

quote:
Compare and contrast:
Velocities
Volume
Fluid dynamics is what I am after

Particle make up

Forces applied by the fluid. (Consider air a fluid in this case)
These are automotive, truck and motorcycle filters. So the fluid dynamics would be in those ranges. Also defined by ISO 4548-12. Donaldson is the expert. The technology has proven itself for 20 years. Contact them for more details.
Last edited by timvipond
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
Donaldson is the expert. The technology has proven itself for 20 years. Contact them for more details.


Aka you don't know. Just say so, contact them on behave of us to find out these questions we raised, post the reply e-mail and be done with it. Is that so hard to do or do you simply not want to admit that you just don't know the answers for which we seek? I am guessing the latter because good ole Lamont B Dumont hasn't chimed in since his last post.
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Tim Vipond:
Donaldson is the expert. The technology has proven itself for 20 years. Contact them for more details.


Aka you don't know. Just say so, contact them on behave of us to find out these questions we raised, post the reply e-mail and be done with it. Is that so hard to do or do you simply not want to admit that you just don't know the answers for which we seek? I am guessing the latter because good ole Lamont B Dumont hasn't chimed in since his last post.
I don't know what? If you want more details than are readily available and might be proprietary, contact the manufacturer of the media (Donaldson). The media has proven itself for 20 years, so I am satisfied it works as advertised. If you aren't, you can contact Donaldson with your specific questions.
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
Amsoil is still nominal at 7 microns but here it shows that a nanofiber oil filter is nominal between 0.00 and 0.20 microns. How does that work?
You seem to be confused again in thinking a nominal rating is 1/2 of the measured efficiency of a filter. Nominal ratings of filters are just the average pore size in the media as measured with a micrometer. Due to poor reproducibility, this measurement is pretty much meaningless.

The AMSOIL full flow synthetic nanofiber oil filter will filter some submicron particles for up to 25,000 miles, the AMSOIL synthetic nanofiber bypass filter will filter more up to 60,000 miles, and the AMSOIL synthetic nanofiber air filter will also filter less than 1 micron particles for up to 100,000 miles.

Have you guys not read the Ea synthetic nanofiber filter brochure at http://www.amsoil.com/lit/g2202.pdf ?
Last edited by timvipond
quote:
Donaldson is the expert


Really, "the" (not "an") expert? So nobody at Pall, Fram, Purolator, Baldwin, Hastings, Parker Hannifin, Wix or any other filter manufacturer knows anything of value about filter media? Their filters are all crap?

I don't deny that Donaldson has some folks who know a little bit about filtration. I just find it more than a little insulting that Tim insists that Donaldson is the ONLY company that knows anything of value.

But that ignorant attitude is consistent with the Amsoil Insecurity. It's not enough to say "This is a good product that, used properly, can extend the life of your engine relative to conventional mineral-based oils." Instead we get bombarded with this sad, needy insistence that "The brand I sell is not only the best, it's the only one that is any good at all!"

Data is cherry-picked to 'support' the wild claims and anyone who brings conflicting data forward is demonized.

It's a bit like applying the techniques of a store-front Fundamentalist preacher to lubricant sales: "Buy this oil lest you condemn your engine to everlasting damnation!"
EaO filters are fine filters. I have them on all three cars for extended OCI's. I sell a fair number. Other than that, I don't really don't do filter battles. Too many ambiguous measuring methods, too many claims from Fram. It's a freaking disposable oil filter, not a portable thermonuclear device or an immobile heart monitor.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:
quote:
Donaldson is the expert


Really, "the" (not "an") expert?
Really. Donaldson is the expert on their synthetic nanofiber filters. You really think someone at Fram knows as much about Donaldson's synthetic nanofiber filters as Donaldson?
quote:
I don't deny that Donaldson has some folks who know a little bit about filtration. I just find it more than a little insulting that Tim insists that Donaldson is the ONLY company that knows anything of value.
Please show where I've ever insisted that.

quote:
But that ignorant attitude is consistent with the Amsoil Insecurity.
Never heard of that one before. Why would AMSOIL be insecure? They make the best oil with the longest extended parts and labor warranty in the business. No one else comes close or proven otherwise. AMSOIL is the "First in Synthetics" The others fall behind. They increase sales every year while the others lose sales.
quote:
It's not enough to say "This is a good product that, used properly, can extend the life of your engine relative to conventional mineral-based oils." Instead we get bombarded with this sad, needy insistence that "The brand I sell is not only the best, it's the only one that is any good at all!"
I've never heard that the other brands were no good at all. I've always maintained that if you follow the manufactures specifications for oil and filters, you'll be fine. But if you want to extend you oil and filter changes, then AMSOIL has the longest and best parts and labor warranty in the business and really the only game in town.

quote:
Data is cherry-picked to 'support' the wild claims and anyone who brings conflicting data forward is demonized.
What data was cherry picked? None of the other oil or filter companies have mentioned this or said AMSOIL's data was incorrect.

quote:
It's a bit like applying the techniques of a store-front Fundamentalist preacher to lubricant sales: "Buy this oil lest you condemn your engine to everlasting damnation!"
Never heard of this from AMSOIL, but the AMSOIL haters usually say this when they run out of arguments against the product.
Last edited by timvipond
Tim - Fred Astair had nothing on you; you dance dance around, hitting your intended marks and avoiding the soft spots at will. Donaldson is the best because they know the most about their own technology? Fram is no good because they aren't experts on Donaldson's technology?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that makes you sound?

While there's been darn little useful information presented, I do enjoy your Daffy-esque sputtering gyrations, they are quite entertaining.

Definitely "Duck Season".
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:
Originally posted by RobertC:
Amsoil is very smart.

Thay never publish data where they can be criticized.

They also don't seem to publish the raw data.

That is cherry picking.


And this differs from any other oil company in what way?


they aren't on here trying to dispute it.


So then you admit that Amsoil DOES indeed cherry pick data!
quote:

So then you admit that Amsoil DOES indeed cherry pick data!


I never said that. AND You know it.

Tell me this, why is it that Amsoil bugs you so much? Such hatred? Just pure hate. Give it a rest. If you don't like the product, don't use it. Arguing about a product you will never use is about as dumb as a bag of hammers.
quote:
Originally posted by Pablo:
quote:

So then you admit that Amsoil DOES indeed cherry pick data!


I never said that. AND You know it.

Tell me this, why is it that Amsoil bugs you so much? Such hatred? Just pure hate. Give it a rest. If you don't like the product, don't use it. Arguing about a product you will never use is about as dumb as a bag of hammers.


First of all I suggest that you read the entire thread before making such remarks. If you did you should know that I used to be a Amsoil dealer myself primarily because I wanted the discount rates. I quit because I don't believe what I sell and I don't believe it is a economical solution for the claimed benefits when one has to pay a membership fee, shipping and state sales tax.

Secondly, if the consumers blindly accept marketing statements without question, which is what you are implying, then we would be in a heap of trouble. It isn't about love or hate but proof of statements and the pursuit of truth. If the endeavor for truth is considered hatred then I guess in this age of discovery and science we are truly a hate filled society!

Finally, if you notice the last part of the quote was written by RobertC and my reply was to his remark not yours. I am saying that he admits that all companies cherry pick numbers for marketing and Amsoil is no different which is why he believes that "we" aren't arguing against YOUR statement of "And this differs from any other oil company in what way? " Who wouldn't cherry pick numbers for marketing claims?
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:


First of all I suggest that you read the entire thread before making such remarks. If you did you should know that I used to be a Amsoil dealer myself primarily because I wanted the discount rates. I quit because I don't believe what I sell and I don't believe it is a economical solution for the claimed benefits when one has to pay a membership fee, shipping and state sales tax.

Secondly, if the consumers blindly accept marketing statements without question, which is what you are implying, then we would be in a heap of trouble. It isn't about love or hate but proof of statements and the pursuit of truth. If the endeavor for truth is considered hatred then I guess in this age of discovery and science we are truly a hate filled society!

Finally, if you notice the last part of the quote was written by RobertC and my reply was to his remark not yours. I am saying that he admits that all companies cherry pick numbers for marketing and Amsoil is no different which is why he believes that "we" aren't arguing against YOUR statement of "And this differs from any other oil company in what way? " Who wouldn't cherry pick numbers for marketing claims?


1) I've actually read the entire thread. Long, and loony. If you don't believe in a product, fine. I don't get the state sales tax thing, others oils/companies don't charge tax in your state, but Amsoil does?

2) I never said you should "blindly accept marketing statements", I just think people should pursue truth equally. It seems as if statements such as RobertC's aren't applied across the board - seems like extra special scrutiny on Amsoil. Far more crazy claims are made by Pennzoil, Castrol, etc....

3) Gotcha - I took that wrong. I thought you were responding to my comment. Sorry.
Robert & Ebola - I admire your valiant efforts, but at a certain point you have to tell yourself: "Amsoil is not just a compounder-blender; it is also a cult and these guys clearly drank the Kool-Aid and are currently sucking on the ice cubes they fished from the pitcher."

I personally just tweak them out of morbid curiousity and for my personal amusement.
IMO if you're looking to filter the oil and get the most junk out go with either a Pure One or a Mobil 1 filter. If you want to run oil for 25,000 miles use the Amsoil filter. Just be careful if you have a Toyota engine running an Amsoil filter too long, it appears there is a TSB about it. At least I read that somewhere.

I'd rather get the most dirt out of my engine so I pass on the Amsoil filters. JMO

AD
Particle Count Data Point: P1 vs EaO
Ericm Offline


Registered: 02/21/05
Posts: 53
Loc: CA
Another particle count data point.
I ran a Pure One filter for 4000 miles. I pulled an oil sample, then changed to an EaO filter without adding any new oil. I ran the EaO for 549 more miles and pulled the second sample.

IMPORTANT NOTE: IT LOOKS AS IF THE EaO SAMPLE MAY HAVE BEEN MISTAKENLY CONTAMINATED WITH ADDTIONAL DIRT BASED ON A HIGH SILICON READING.
(More Details at end of post.)

Filter__P1___________EaO

Miles
on
Filter_4042___________549

Miles
On Oil_4042__________4591

Make up
Oil_____1.0 qt________none

Particle
Count
(microns)
>5u____17159_______19501
>10u_____427_________474
>15u______49__________60
>20u______20__________25
>25u______11__________15
>50u_______2___________2
>75u_______0___________0
>100u______0___________0

Fe
Debris_____15__________15

ISO______21/13_______21/13

Particle
Volume_____2__________2

Anti
Freeze____Pos*_______Trace*

Water_____Pos**_______Neg

Fuel_______Neg________Neg

Elements
PPM
Cu_____1____________1
Fe_____2____________2
Cr_____0____________0
Ni_____0____________0
Ti_____0____________0
V______0___________0
Ag_____0___________0
Pb_____4___________2
Sn_____3___________0
Al______2___________2
Si______5__________16
Na_____3___________5
K_______0___________0
Mo____118__________96
B_____109_________116
Ba______0___________2
Ca___1994________1856
Mg______0___________0
Mn______2___________2
P_____946_________898
Sb______2___________7
Zn___1093________1005

Viscosity: 16.0 cst
Oil type: Chevron Supreme 20w-50

* According to Butler Cat Lab the glycol test is extremely sensitive and may be a false positive.
** According to Lab the presence of water was low enough for a particle count to be taken. Water is counted as particles and will add to PC.

A laser type particle counter was used. (The lab did not dilute the samples for particle counting).

Vehicle is 1993 Geo Metro XFi. Total mileage at end of test was approx. 270,072.
Filters were extra large oversize: Purolator PL30001 and EaO 15.

Sampling procedure: Used rigid polyethylene tubing, otherwise the same as:
http://theoildrop.server101.co.../s...true#Post866529

I think dirt contamination was introduced into the EaO sample possibly during the filter change due to wind blown dust (it took a while to pour oil from P1 filter into the EaO).
I don’t think contamination occurred during sampling because I believe this would have raised the particle count of the larger particles in the 50, 75, and 100 micron range as well as the smaller sizes. It looks to me as though the EaO filter removed these larger sizes before sampling.

Sorry about that. I got impatient and changed over to the EaO filter on a windy afternoon. Should have waited for a calm weekend morning, when I normally change oil.

Comments welcome.
quote:
Originally posted by Big Bear:
Particle Count Data Point: P1 vs EaO
Ericm Offline


Registered: 02/21/05
Posts: 53
Loc: CA
Another particle count data point.
I ran a Pure One filter for 4000 miles. I pulled an oil sample, then changed to an EaO filter without adding any new oil. I ran the EaO for 549 more miles and pulled the second sample.

IMPORTANT NOTE: IT LOOKS AS IF THE EaO SAMPLE MAY HAVE BEEN MISTAKENLY CONTAMINATED WITH ADDTIONAL DIRT BASED ON A HIGH SILICON READING.
(More Details at end of post.)

Filter__P1___________EaO

Miles
on
Filter_4042___________549

Miles
On Oil_4042__________4591

Make up
Oil_____1.0 qt________none

Particle
Count
(microns)
>5u____17159_______19501
>10u_____427_________474
>15u______49__________60
>20u______20__________25
>25u______11__________15
>50u_______2___________2
>75u_______0___________0
>100u______0___________0

Fe
Debris_____15__________15

ISO______21/13_______21/13

Particle
Volume_____2__________2

Anti
Freeze____Pos*_______Trace*

Water_____Pos**_______Neg

Fuel_______Neg________Neg

Elements
PPM
Cu_____1____________1
Fe_____2____________2
Cr_____0____________0
Ni_____0____________0
Ti_____0____________0
V______0___________0
Ag_____0___________0
Pb_____4___________2
Sn_____3___________0
Al______2___________2
Si______5__________16
Na_____3___________5
K_______0___________0
Mo____118__________96
B_____109_________116
Ba______0___________2
Ca___1994________1856
Mg______0___________0
Mn______2___________2
P_____946_________898
Sb______2___________7
Zn___1093________1005

Viscosity: 16.0 cst
Oil type: Chevron Supreme 20w-50

* According to Butler Cat Lab the glycol test is extremely sensitive and may be a false positive.
** According to Lab the presence of water was low enough for a particle count to be taken. Water is counted as particles and will add to PC.

A laser type particle counter was used. (The lab did not dilute the samples for particle counting).

Vehicle is 1993 Geo Metro XFi. Total mileage at end of test was approx. 270,072.
Filters were extra large oversize: Purolator PL30001 and EaO 15.

Sampling procedure: Used rigid polyethylene tubing, otherwise the same as:
http://theoildrop.server101.co.../s...true#Post866529

I think dirt contamination was introduced into the EaO sample possibly during the filter change due to wind blown dust (it took a while to pour oil from P1 filter into the EaO).
I don’t think contamination occurred during sampling because I believe this would have raised the particle count of the larger particles in the 50, 75, and 100 micron range as well as the smaller sizes. It looks to me as though the EaO filter removed these larger sizes before sampling.

Sorry about that. I got impatient and changed over to the EaO filter on a windy afternoon. Should have waited for a calm weekend morning, when I normally change oil.

Comments welcome.


To have run an accurate test,the amsoil filter should have had the same/similar milage. You pulled it with only 549 miles. You are comparing a semi loaded P1 media with a new relative clean media. The new amsoil media filtered particulates almost as good as a loaded P1 media. The P1 also restricts more as well.

Over the long haul, the Donaldson/amsoil is superior! Imagine what it is doing at its half life. Moreover,why even bother with the P1,why not use the Bosch distance instead,...rated at 300% capacity and 99% efficient. Yes, it costs more up front like the amsoil.

The Amsoil is a microglass depth filter, and the P1/bosch is synthetic and does not flow as well.

These filters are two different animals,with the glass being far superior!
quote:
Originally posted by Ebolamonkey:
quote:
Originally posted by ADFD1:
Trying to learn so go easy fellas. If the results were mistakenly contaminated what good are the test results?

AD


P1>>EaO

The metals aside from Fe and Al are just additives in the oil. On particle count P1 beats EaO.

On the BITOG thread Mobil 1 beats EaO. P1 will be tested next.


No it doesn't. All you've done is just prove your bias for all to read. Please precisely and clearly HOW YOU came to that conclusion.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×