What is the truth on agglomeration?

quote:

Originally posted by Harv:
The process of agglomeration uses an electrostatic charge applied to the varnish particles to get them to join up into larger particles until they are large enough to filter out mechanically. Correct?

Well, this to me generates some real concerns. First you need a substantial amount of varnish in the system just to get the particles close enough to join up. Now you have these larger particles floating in your oil looking for more particles to join up with all the while giving them also time to settle in other parts of the system. By the time they are big enough to filter out you have accumulated a lot of varnish in the system. Also I see a problem in getting the varnish content below what is needed for the agglomeration to work and this amount of varnish in the system will still affect the oil quality and degeneration.

Logical?

Very logical!
I would just add that the described process is particularly correct for low temperature systems and poorly oil mixed systems. However, I doubt one could see agglomeration happening in higher temp systems, because the kinematic (bouncing around) energy of varnish particles at temp above 50 degrees C is much higher than the energy of their "charge", which is supposed to cause their agglomeration. Flows higher than 20 gpm would also inhibit agglomeration.

Thanks John for those comments

Here is a quote from an earlier post:

"ISOPur, Kleentek and several other companies supply machinery for what is being called "electrostatic cleaning". All of these technologies work, we feel our works best. We are not alone in this appraisal of the technologies, because GE chose Balanced Charge Agglomeration as the technology they sell and install on their systems after testing all competing companies."


Does GE realize they have chosen a system that needs a substantial amount of varnish in the oil for this agglomeration process to even begin to operate? I thought it was critical to the reliability of the turbine and the life of the oil to keep the varnish potential near zero.

Harv

I don't know particular technique "Balanced Charge Agglomeration” process is based on, but it could be effective if, for example, where an additional amount of energy is added to varnish particles in this process, so the resulting charge would overcome their kinetic energy threshold at some point, and facilitate agglomeration.

Harv - You are correct! at OILKLEEN we have done extensive reasearch on agglomeration and the effects it has on lube systems. One thing I would like to point out is that charged particles, either dirt, varnish, oxidation by-products, and decomposed additives all will take a charge.

The only reason agglomeration even removes varnish and oxidation by products from a lube oil is because these particles are sub-micron and even a molecule will take a charge. Once charged in the BCA technology it makes these sub micron particles agglomerate. It also make any large particles agglomerate and it will do it evenly throught the system.

The scary thing about this technology as we have discovered is that it will push particles throughout your system until something catches them. They would like you to believe that all these agglomerated particles come out in your filters but they dont. They will lodge in small component orfices, valves, servo pre-filters, ant then finally filters.

GE did give a part number to BCA technology, but I think in the near future they will also add a true electrostatic oil cleaner.

In a true electrostatic oil cleaner, like the OILKLEEN technology it is still recommended by GE just not sold through them. The OILKLEEN technology will remove all sub micron particles to 0.001 micron inside our 16 electrostatic fields. There is NO agglomeration and all particles will be removed through our filter cartridge.

You made some great observations HARV, and I just wanted to share some of our research that we have done at OILKLEEN.

Paul Jarvis

I thought this Forum was not supposed to be used for product bashing from one company to another...I know we certainly don't do it between labs, I am surprised to see it between hardware manufacturers....

The Isopur, BCA product, was tested by GE and was found to be the fastest system for removal of varnish and submicron particles. Our construction methods and quality control systems were inspected and found to be good enough for GE. No other company can say this.

Regardless of the rumors and half-truths being spread, Customers are satisfied with our machinery and its performance in removing varnish, sludge and submicron particles. We have machines that have been on turbines in one plant for nine years now. It has reduced oil related breakdowns to zero and their oil is cleaner than new oil. Who else in this business can say that?

Andy and Ray

Asking for an answer to a legitimate question is not bashing and if we make claims we should be able to back them up and I welcome any questions about our product. This is a forum for industry learn about available technologies and compare results. If there is miss-information about a product I am sure everyone would like to see some facts not just claims.

You operate a lab and sell Isopur so you should be able to tell us how much varnish is needed before the varnish particles are big enough to be filtered out by a conventional filters. There is obviously a minimum limit that this technology can achieve especially if the varnish is continually produced.

A lot of testing and product development has achieved by many different manufacturers since the TIL you reference came out. To claim that no one else can do a better job is only an invitation for others to respond with real proof. With CC Jensen equipment we can consistantly provide better results, have a look at the results for yourself. Check out our Oxidation brochure to see the technology CJC filter elements use (the varnish is not filtered out)to remove varnish and achieve extremely low levels.

I am sure other manufacturers have some recent developments and results which everyone would enjoy seeing and comparing.

Thanks
Harv

I tend to agree with Andy. The forums unfortunately have become "battle ground" for equipment manufacturers.

How about sticking to the SCIENCE of keeping oil clean.

It has been a long time since these comments were made about BCA, Balanced Charge Agglomeration. We have sold a lot of machines and set a lot of records using our BCA machines during that time. GE has continued to buy our machines, and companies like GM, Ford, Parker, Colfax, Alstom, have found them to be effective in both varnish and submicron particle removal.

There is no contamination threshold for operation, as suggested above. Best results on gas turbines are obtained when our purifier is put on a new machine with new oil. The new oil does not get contaminated with submicron material and varnish, so the additives do not deplete. It is possible that the oil would last the life of the machine by using BCA.

During the past few years we have seen competitors make a lot of false claims about the advantages and disadvantages of BCA based machines, all of them have proven to be wrong.

Of particular note is the claim that BCA does not work at high temperatures. Our information, based on actual information and not theoretical misinformation, is that it works well on gas turbines in tropical locations where the ambient temperatures reach 50 degrees C. In fact, companies in Saudi Arabia are reporting great results using BCA on turbines and large compressors.

We also discovered that the results posted by filtration-only solution companies suffer from the same unusual phenomena that affect BCA systems. When lube oil gets very clean, the oil becomes a better solvent. This is what causes oil to clean the interior of machines. It also causes oil to clean the filters. The result is a leveling off of the cleaning process as the cleaning of the oil is offset by the cleaning of the filter. Equilibrium of cleaning and removal of contaminants results when a filter is left in the system. Eventually the filter will no longer work, even though it is not "full" and the differential pressure across the filter is not high. Varnish and contamination increase even though the filters are relatively new.

Changing the filter frequently results in a renewed cleanup of contamination and a drop in varnish potential and contamination. Frequent time-based rather than infrequent differential pressure based filter changes, produces cleaner oil. Since BCA systems use lower priced filters, they get changed more often and with less customer complaints about filter costs.

The case studies done by ISOPur on long term results indicate that oil can be kept cleaner than new in old lubrication systems, thus avoiding frequent oil changes and flushing. This has saved our customers millions of dollars just in oil changes. Also, these companies report that they don't have to change servo valves for extremely long periods of time. Companies without an effective purification system change servo valves as often as monthly. The company in our case study repaired their servo valves in their ninth year of operation. High servo valve reliability resulted in having no oil related turbine trips, saving millions of dollars for these companies in power grid fines and lost generating capacity.

When the millions of dollars saved in increased reliability, oil changes, flushing, and machine life is compared to the low cost of effective oil purification systems, it is difficult to understand why using oil purification is still being debated. It works as claimed, it saves enormous amounts of money, reduces oil use, oil disposal, and it does its small part in saving our planet. These results show, I believe, oil purification should be required on all large lubrication systems to improve reliability. Those individuals, that have debated using a purification system for years, have lost a lot of money for their companies.