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.
Read our primer articles on High Mileage Oil, Synthetic Oil and Kinematic Viscosity
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?
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?
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 .
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?
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 RobertC:
It's magic. You need to just press the "I believe" button.
You mean this?
No, Easy buttons actually do what we think they do.
(cheap entertainment.)
(cheap entertainment.)
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)
Similar synthetic nanofiber media. Similar results.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.
Donaldson has proven the technology 20 years. You can prove it to yourself with extended oil drains and UOA.quote:As for patents. No proof of workability is required. Perpetual motion machines have patents.
Means nothing.
Similar synthetic nanofiber media, similar results. Proven by 20 years of used oil analysis.quote:AND, since the patent covers air filtration, how does it apply to oil?
. Of course. Proven for the past 20 years by Donaldson, 5 years by AMSOIL. Tested by Independent World Renown SouthWest Research Institute .quote:Is the spun coating tough enough to stand the flow regime?
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.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)
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: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.
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.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?
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 ?
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!"
Yup.
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:Originally posted by Lamont B Dumont:quote:Donaldson is the expert
Really, "the" (not "an") expert?
Please show where I've ever insisted that.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.
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:But that ignorant attitude is consistent with the Amsoil Insecurity.
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: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!"
What data was cherry picked? None of the other oil or filter companies have mentioned this or said AMSOIL's data was incorrect.quote:Data is cherry-picked to 'support' the wild claims and anyone who brings conflicting data forward is demonized.
Never heard of this from AMSOIL, but the AMSOIL haters usually say this when they run out of arguments against the product.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!"
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.
Thay never publish data where they can be criticized.
They also don't seem to publish the raw data.
That is cherry picking.
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?
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".
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 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.
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.