You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
“Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Rich Hampel wrote:
>
> OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
>
> With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> scoreing, etc.
>
> Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> protection.
>
> how's that?
>
> ;-)

 

You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
“Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Rich Hampel wrote:
>
> OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
>
> With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> scoreing, etc.
>
> Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> protection.
>
> how's that?
>
> ;-)

 

Ditto.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

DougW wrote:
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
> --
> DougW

 

Ditto.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

DougW wrote:
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
> --
> DougW

 

Ditto.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

DougW wrote:
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>
> --
> DougW

 

But when I had my SAE 'ticket' the root source that information was
acceptance of the ASTM OSU-F2 method. The beta value given is beta=100
@ 20uM.

;-)

In article <401F1E05.70B1ED74@***.net>, ßill <----------@***.net> wrote:

> You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
> of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
> “Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
> remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
> industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
> and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
> particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> >
> > OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> > qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> > beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> > particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> > an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> > acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> > rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> > those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> > Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
> >
> > With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> > 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> > pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> > greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> > 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> > does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> > retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> > volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> > faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> > deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> > the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> > small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> > 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> > 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> > scoreing, etc.
> >
> > Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> > plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> > pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> > bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> > quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> > protection.
> >
> > how's that?
> >
> > ;-)

 

But when I had my SAE 'ticket' the root source that information was
acceptance of the ASTM OSU-F2 method. The beta value given is beta=100
@ 20uM.

;-)

In article <401F1E05.70B1ED74@***.net>, ßill <----------@***.net> wrote:

> You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
> of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
> “Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
> remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
> industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
> and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
> particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> >
> > OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> > qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> > beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> > particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> > an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> > acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> > rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> > those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> > Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
> >
> > With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> > 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> > pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> > greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> > 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> > does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> > retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> > volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> > faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> > deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> > the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> > small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> > 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> > 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> > scoreing, etc.
> >
> > Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> > plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> > pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> > bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> > quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> > protection.
> >
> > how's that?
> >
> > ;-)

 

But when I had my SAE 'ticket' the root source that information was
acceptance of the ASTM OSU-F2 method. The beta value given is beta=100
@ 20uM.

;-)

In article <401F1E05.70B1ED74@***.net>, ßill <----------@***.net> wrote:

> You would have sounded more informed if you had said "The Society
> of Automotive Engineers approved an industry standard test called the
> “Single Pass Efficiency Test” (SPE) to measure a filter's ability to
> remove contaminants from the engine’s system. The SPE Test is one of the
> industry standards for evaluating and comparing oil filter performance,
> and measures a filter's ability to remove less than 20 micron-sized
> particles of dirt the first time through." -Fram
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Rich Hampel wrote:
> >
> > OK, then let me offer the facts that such oil filters will (or wont)
> > qualify for compliance of the ASTM standard "OSU F-2 test stand" for a
> > beta reduction value of ~100 (logrithm of the influent versus effluent
> > particles) at rated particles per micron (micrometer) size. OSU being
> > an acronymn for Oklahoma State University who designed the currently
> > acccepted oil filter test stand methodology. If such a manufacturer (or
> > rebranded labeler) woudnt comply to these 'industry' standards, then
> > those in competition would be as visciously vocal as Howard Dean versus
> > Kerry, Edwards, Clark, the rest of world, etc.
> >
> > With respect to 'recirculation' filtration the filter media of a more
> > 'open' (larger) retention size will operate under less differential
> > pressure (remaining laminar in throughput) hence filtering a vastlly
> > greater total thoughput and particle capture (on a weight basis) per
> > 'lifetime'. That the larger retention media's capability is larger
> > does not mean less capture effeciency as it still has smaller particle
> > retention capability at a lesser %; but, since is can handle MORE
> > volumetric flow, the net effect of particle removal (per size) will be
> > faster turnover to the desired resident particle distribution that is
> > deemed non-injurious to the bearing, etc. clearances, etc. ... where
> > the typical base line or resident particles deemed to be sufficiently
> > small and non-injurious are at ~1/5 the diameter of the smallest
> > 'equivalent' orfice of the system to be protected - electrostatic
> > 'bridging' of the particles being a principal source of plugging,
> > scoreing, etc.
> >
> > Since the principal function of a hydrodynamic bearing ( oil served
> > plain journal) is to provide 'lift' versus the developed hydrodynamic
> > pressure, the effect of particulate at less than 1/5 the operational
> > bearing clearance is small, hence recirculating oil filtration can be
> > quite 'coarse' and still do a reasonable job of extraneous wear
> > protection.
> >
> > how's that?
> >
> > ;-)

 

DougW wrote:

> Skip did pass the time by typing:
>
>>I hear if you put Mobil 1 into a high miles engine it will introduce leaks
>>in the seals...
>>
>>Opinions???
>
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>

From a practical standpoint, If your engine is in that condition,
there's no point wasting money on expensive synthetic oil, is there?

You're better off sticking with regular oil until a rebuild is required.

Regards,

DAve

 

DougW wrote:

> Skip did pass the time by typing:
>
>>I hear if you put Mobil 1 into a high miles engine it will introduce leaks
>>in the seals...
>>
>>Opinions???
>
>
> What putting a synthetic into an engine will do is
> break down gunk that may be providing a seal and allow
> some oil to leak through. This is an indication you need
> to fix the seal or rebuild since engine seals shouldn't
> rely on crud to prevent leaks.
>

From a practical standpoint, If your engine is in that condition,
there's no point wasting money on expensive synthetic oil, is there?

You're better off sticking with regular oil until a rebuild is required.

Regards,

DAve