electrostatic oil cleaning system

Actually Electrostatic units have had negligible changes over the past decade. What we are now seeing is a few rogue companies using others patented technologies, this is often a recipe for disaster since they have no idea how the this process works. The media they are working with can easily destroy the oil by removing the necessary additives that are designed to protect it. We constantly inform people to talk to other end users and not just accept a few references they offer you and ensure you deal with someone who is truly knowledgeable on oil and can perform on site testing, this is probably the most important. I can’t even tell you how many times we have gone behind and repaired infected oils for customers that were originally promised it would be cleaned up.

Jeff Chapin
Fluitec International
j.chapin@fluitec.com
Paul, I am merely stating facts. I am not insinuating anything towards you or your company and am sorry if you had taken it that way. This is what I find difficult about posts and or emails, they are often taken out of context. Please don’t take the prior post personal.
Which "Facts" are you referring too? I'm curious! You should get your facts straight before you make comments and claims you cannot back up...

You should use forums to talk about the benefits and features of your products to help peoples problems and issues, not make up things and post false claims about other companies and their products. Things you know nothing about by the way!

I just had to put my $0.02 in on what I call "snake oil" salesmen techniques and don't appreciate the comments about technologies and companies you know nothing about...
I somewhat take issue with the idea of using a machinery supplier to do onsite testing. The results often come out in the favor of the company doing the testing and against the competitor. This happened to us last year.

We got a call from GE saying we destroyed the additives in a power plant in one year with our machine. We have never had an issue with additives so we investigated. It seems a salesman had a hand held device for testing oil he was demonstrating and he got results that showed the additives were at 35% remaining useful life. The oil company got the same call and started their own investigation.

Results from out reading of their data indicated the results were read wrong. It should be 82%. The oil company got 81.6% using RPVOT. This made me wonder if the results were misread and it was truly a mistake by an under-trained technician, or was it more malicious.

Had the power plant manager not gone to GE to see what was going on, he may have ordered an oil change of 6200 gallons on each of the 7 turbines. This would have been a million dollar mistake. I can only hope that the salesman learned something from this error.

I would recommend always using a third party for testing who is not associated with the person selling the machine. If the machinery company wants to pay for the test, that's ok, but the testing company should be independent. I think it would be great to be able to walk into a plant, test the oil and declare that the competitor's machine is causing a problem, but ethics dictate against this sort of action. This is why I have never developed the ability to test oil outside my company, except with reputable third party testing.
I see my previous post was deleted. I guess truth hurts. In that post I copied a post from a few years ago by a senior staff member at fluitec that stated, "Electrostatic oil cleaning does not remove soluble additives. There is tremendous research backing this up".
This clearly is counter to the statement above. You know, the internet never forgets.
That's too bad that Ray's post gets deleted and not the crazy comments from Jeff...

One thing i would like to add to this "soluble varnish" term that is getting widely used throughout the industry. There is no such thing as Soluble Varnish, technically it is a first stage acid build up in the oil that will show up in a Membrane Varnish Patch test when the oil cools down....One thing to remember is "Soluble Varnish" has nothing to do with removing varnish build-up from internal metal parts and reducing contamination particles. Absolutely nothing! Now the "Soluble Varnish" filters can make a lower QSA patch score and lower acid numbers, that's about it...turns out these acids will manipulate the varnish patch test used in the industry today.

One other thing to remember, Electrostatic filters do not remove additives from oil. Additives are "soluble" in solution and simply making the oil pass through an energy field doesn't change the chemical formulation or remove additives.

Please remember one thing. When testing for Varnish, the QSA or MPC patch tests are not ASTM approved and they have limits. When looking for varnish the best test is to simply look inside your system at metal parts. You should use patch tests as part of varnish prevention program, but add several other tests like particle count, FTIR measurements on Anti-Oxidation additives compared with the NEW oil samples, contamination testing, and keep doing your routing oil analysis through OEM lubricant supplier support. Varnish is complicated and it takes more than just a number on a QSA or MPC patch test to identify and properly remove. These test do not tell you anything about varnish build-up on metal surfaces. They only measure the levels of varnish in the oil at that present time.
Soluble varnish or first stage acid build up?

Either way, are we still talking about the stuff that agglomerates after a few days?

That stuff needs to go. Period. Unless there is some hidden benefit to it?

I agree that it doesn't measure build up on machines. But I've seen build up on spools that are causing grief with high MPCs in the oil. So I have at least some correlation. Enough to convince me that MPC/QSA is a useful tool.

The issues caused by the Group II change have the potential to be far reaching, I'm battling some odd stuff right now. I MUST rely on testing instread of machine inspection (Note previous paragraph), because the only way I get into some of my machines faster than every 2 years is because we have an expensive forced outage.


My approach is evolving, but right now MPC/QSA is a tool I can use. Maybe later something else will come around. I'm also adding other physical tests to the standard suite to target specific performance areas.

Not everthing I am doing is ASTM normal, some of it is in process, some may never be ASTM.

I must make that judgement.

Meanwhile, the G II issues demand a cautiously out of the box approach.

As for remediation techniques, I have developed criteria. Show me data that you have a reasonable chance of meeting them, and you get to try.

Do it real world in my plant and you have can make the shorter list for getting a new customer.

I have sent several vendors packing, and researched and dismissed many more, because they didn't 'believe' that the solubles were a concern. I think they were just trying to sell their current tech. When I need new tech.

end rant
Hello Robert

I agree with your comment that the varnish must be removed and we have seen that the amounts of varnish can be very significant. This brings up a very interesting question with the electrostatic and related technologies that we do not see any data or any means of storing any amount of varnish, so where does it go if it truly is removed.

When the CJC elements are removed each elemet can contain 8 to 16 pounds of varnish and each turbine system has from 8 to 16 elements. That is a lot of varnish but I do not see similar quantities or results from other systems. Our results are backed up by substantial test data that can be viewed on our website.

With the celulose filters the varnish is mostly adsorbed (not absorbed)in the fibers and not just filtered out. Elements saturated with varnish show minimal change on differential pressure at operating temperature and make it difficult to determine when to change elements. Temperature is definitely a factor in the removal process.

So far on this post they have been shooting with blanks and hot air so lets see if they have some hard facts to shoot back and forth.

Thanks
Harv,

Good question, the varnish and contamination must go somewhere in order for a system to work? Right? The OILKLEEN technology uses a unique 18 multiple electrostatic fields with a special depth media between each field. As the oil is forced through all 18 energy fields the contamination will take a charge and then bond to the depth media inside the filter. This unique design will remove almost 20 pounds /9kg of material. The OILKLEEN filter is a light GREEN color and will turn a nasty black tar color once the element is full. You can visually see the change!
Any person looking to purchase an oil purification system that will clean the oil, strip varnish build up, and prevent varnish from coming back should find a supplier that will prove their technology before purchasing to show the difference between technologies and not waste customers money!

OILKLEEN has been offering this for the last 3 years, and still offer a DEMO program to prove desired results to customers. To date, the OILKLEEN GREEN MACHEEN "DEMO" program has never failed in providing successful results and ultimately selling our systems. Not a single "DEMO" was ever returned without the customer buying 1 or multiple systems. If you are looking at a potential supplier who will not prove their technology first, then you shouldn't risk spending the money for products that may or may not work.

Please send me an email if you are interested solving varnish and fluid contamination issues once and for all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLRavNbgEPY

paul@oilkleen.com
Guenter 121, I presented a paper at PowerGen on the experiences of a major Southeastern power plant with our machines. Their 7 GE turbines are now at 50,000 run hours. Their oil is cleaner than the best new oil available today. They sent their servo valves out for inspection at about 48,000 hours, 9 years. the servo valves had some wear, but they were functioning ok. The oil in the tanks was so clear, I could look through the oil with a flashlight and see everything inside like looking through distilled water.

You can read about it here.

http://www.isopur.com/Cases/50...n_Hours_Same_Oil.pdf
Just completed studying all the posts made under this topic. I'd like to know what is the beta ratio for the EOC. Moreover, how does EOC address unloading of contamination collected??? How much qty of contaminants it can remove before saturation (in kgs).

I represent ETL's Cardev filtration. It's a depth filter and it removes 2.5 kgs of contaminants & 780 ml of water. It has beta ration of 250 and clean oil to NAS 6 and lesser (upto NAS 3). How this product can be compared to EOC? Your comments are highly valuable to me. Thanks.
Dear Friends,
I am a student studying last year engineering , an planning to make a project on electrostatic oil cleaner.I have starting working on the project and now stuck on the electrical part. I am confused on the source of the DC Power supply generation "how does the low AC supply can produce high voltage DC power". I am a Mechanical Student and have very less knowledge of Electrical. Therefore I request you all to help me in clearing the confusion on the high voltage supply.

Regards

NJ

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×