Which oil filter, not so simple!

[customboss]

[txab]

I like graphs!

[customboss]

Just now, txab said:

I like graphs!

Pics worth a thousand words. 

[customboss]

@Grumpy Bear rip it up and spit it out. 

[Grumpy Bear]

On 2/16/2025 at 12:36 PM, customboss said:

@Grumpy Bear rip it up and spit it out. 

 

Man that was over 250 Characters. Attention span exceeded. Kidding  

 

First impression on a light once over reading. I'll go deeper as I reread and digest. 

 

There is allot of good information in this booklet. There is a minimum of "not quite on the money interchange between the information and the application". But some does exists. It's a sales tool.  

 

This is one of the few post I've read that makes note that not just a particles size matters but it's HARNESS as well. And this is one of those interchange moments.  Most of the 'matter' in oil is "Relatively SOFT nucleated carbonaceous materials that have amalgamated. That is they are softer than the things they are trying to abrade. At least at reasonable OCI's and in a healthy motor. Elemental carbon is about 0.5 on the Mohs scale while gray iron is about 4.0 Mohs (softest cylinder bore). Silicon however is 6.5 Mohs (air born sand). Keep those air filters sealed and in good service. 

 

Still the point, if a bit misapplied, is still valid within the 'stated context'. I have to reread the 'reference a few more times' cause it seems to imply that most of the debris over the oils life cycle is introduced by the incoming combustion air. True in 1925, not in 2025. More the point is that the device will rid you of something a cartridge will not and while true on the face of it, would only matter if it were present. 

 

It also agrees with the earlier GM wear studies of cartridge filters using a similar method. Introduced know quantities and compositions of materials. 

 

Important, BOTH studies introduce particles for the express purpose of wearing the components in a rapid manor to accelerate the study. Not a lot of aluminum oxide or silica generated in a motor. 

 

That said both studies indicated similar rates of wear at similar cleanliness levels and actual road miles have born both to be true. So I could pick some nits (just did) but on whole....Yea, that was a good'n. 

 

 

 

 

[customboss]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Man that was over 250 Characters. Attention span exceeded. Kidding  

 

First impression on a light once over reading. I'll go deeper as I reread and digest. 

 

There is allot of good information in this booklet. There is a minimum of "not quite on the money interchange between the information and the application". But some does exists. It's a sales tool.  

 

This is one of the few post I've read that makes note that not just a particles size matters but it's HARNESS as well. And this is one of those interchange moments.  Most of the 'matter' in oil is "Relatively SOFT nucleated carbonaceous materials that have amalgamated. That is they are softer than the things they are trying to abrade. At least at reasonable OCI's and in a healthy motor. Elemental carbon is about 0.5 on the Mohs scale while gray iron is about 4.0 Mohs (softest cylinder bore). Silicon however is 6.5 Mohs (air born sand). Keep those air filters sealed and in good service. 

 

Still the point, if a bit misapplied, is still valid within the 'stated context'. I have to reread the 'reference a few more times' cause it seems to imply that most of the debris over the oils life cycle is introduced by the incoming combustion air. True in 1925, not in 2025. More the point is that the device will rid you of something a cartridge will not and while true on the face of it, would only matter if it were present. 

 

It also agrees with the earlier GM wear studies of cartridge filters using a similar method. Introduced know quantities and compositions of materials. 

 

Important, BOTH studies introduce particles for the express purpose of wearing the components in a rapid manor to accelerate the study. Not a lot of aluminum oxide or silica generated in a motor. 

 

That said both studies indicated similar rates of wear at similar cleanliness levels and actual road miles have born both to be true. So I could pick some nits (just did) but on whole....Yea, that was a good'n. 

 

 

 

 

Wait there's more here: 

 

[lineman1234]

[customboss]

2 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

 

Man that was over 250 Characters. Attention span exceeded. Kidding  

 

First impression on a light once over reading. I'll go deeper as I reread and digest. 

 

There is allot of good information in this booklet. There is a minimum of "not quite on the money interchange between the information and the application". But some does exists. It's a sales tool.  

 

This is one of the few post I've read that makes note that not just a particles size matters but it's HARNESS as well. And this is one of those interchange moments.  Most of the 'matter' in oil is "Relatively SOFT nucleated carbonaceous materials that have amalgamated. That is they are softer than the things they are trying to abrade. At least at reasonable OCI's and in a healthy motor. Elemental carbon is about 0.5 on the Mohs scale while gray iron is about 4.0 Mohs (softest cylinder bore). Silicon however is 6.5 Mohs (air born sand). Keep those air filters sealed and in good service. 

 

Still the point, if a bit misapplied, is still valid within the 'stated context'. I have to reread the 'reference a few more times' cause it seems to imply that most of the debris over the oils life cycle is introduced by the incoming combustion air. True in 1925, not in 2025. More the point is that the device will rid you of something a cartridge will not and while true on the face of it, would only matter if it were present. 

 

It also agrees with the earlier GM wear studies of cartridge filters using a similar method. Introduced know quantities and compositions of materials. 

 

Important, BOTH studies introduce particles for the express purpose of wearing the components in a rapid manor to accelerate the study. Not a lot of aluminum oxide or silica generated in a motor. 

 

That said both studies indicated similar rates of wear at similar cleanliness levels and actual road miles have born both to be true. So I could pick some nits (just did) but on whole....Yea, that was a good'n. 

 

 

 

 

Focus more on rings study, I can't remember but we saw something there. The additive was developed for that in post 2 on CMOC 

[customboss]

30 minutes ago, lineman1234 said:

Hang in there. 

[Grumpy Bear]

3 hours ago, customboss said:

Focus more on rings study, I can't remember but we saw something there. The additive was developed for that in post 2 on CMOC 

 

Read the supplied CMOC article. Noted the 'Discussion' section after reading. They raise some valid concerns about the study and yet there seems to be some 'there there'.

 

In the discussion the second push back concerned the amount of wear vs the length of study. As I noted earlier 'accelerated rate' studies are common and have a basis in reality but they do look WEIRD 

 

So this third study echo's the first two "directionally" and I know how you feel about that word "Directionally" but it is a good word when we compare apple to oranges. That is, fuel, oil and CMOC which brings me to a question you will be in a better position to speak to and that it......

 

XOM and Shell's Premium fuel 'friction modifiers' which Lake Speed and the Total Seal Team have evaluated and confirmed after the Shell study...are these in addition too or a part of CMOC's. Kind'a get the idea they are not the same but...... A bit past my sell date  

 

Now, that said and noting these CMOC's are "friction" activated and have a "finite life" due to concentration, thus have a critical OCI highlights the need to be vigilant in our oil maintenance programs and make wise fuel and operating condition choices. 

 

Between these two exchanges I would offer this....

 

There is so much more that could be done and yet, due to greed, is not. We know "Directionally" which way to go. Which fluids to use and how long to use them. We know what 'else' we could be doing and what effect those efforts will have. We know and yet we don't regardless of the proof set before us because??????

 

It takes so long to reap the reward we grow weary and give up. 

 

I learn on my first fuel stop with my Enfield Bullet 500 which took the better part of a hour that people LIKE the idea of buying one for a lifetime and yet have no patients for the effort it takes to reap that result. See how long it takes at the dock to fill a Crist Craft or a 1952 Cadillac 62 and you will understand how people value 'beauty' and how little patients they have to hold it in their hands. 

 

 

[Grumpy Bear]

The rest of the story?

 

Studies like the ones under discussion are done in environments and under states of construction we do not experience in production machines for the intended purpose of accelerating the study to a manageable length and cost. Wear out is done in hours in limited cycles and not years and hundreds of thousands of miles. Studies are meant to make a point and deliver a result that you get to reap the benefit of for a very long time. 

 

Just an interesting link with some insights into current ring coatings and experimental yet to be. 

http://pnrsolution.org/Datacenter/Vol3/Issue5/53.pdf

 

 

 

[customboss]

On 2/18/2025 at 4:33 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

The rest of the story?

 

Studies like the ones under discussion are done in environments and under states of construction we do not experience in production machines for the intended purpose of accelerating the study to a manageable length and cost. Wear out is done in hours in limited cycles and not years and hundreds of thousands of miles. Studies are meant to make a point and deliver a result that you get to reap the benefit of for a very long time. 

 

Just an interesting link with some insights into current ring coatings and experimental yet to be. 

http://pnrsolution.org/Datacenter/Vol3/Issue5/53.pdf

 

 

 

link ain't working but could be my brave brwser. CMOC was a code for something I can't remember. I have suspicions but with current brain issues I can't remember and my reading comprehension is impaired.