quote:

Originally posted by canolafunola:
Basshopper, Can you verify that you ran the test with 60 psi? Your results may be very different if ran closer to the 90 psi limit.
Can you explain the rise at the 9th pass? Do you think the OC-20 is dumping particles into the clean side? How much particulates are you seeing? Did you take any photos?

I have not done anything with my OC-20 yet because I had a bigger fish to fry. I will post my results when I get to it.

quote:

Originally posted by canolafunola:
I agree the human eye cannot see the micron sizes quoted, however, if there is enough of it captured in the CF, then it will be visible as a smear or a lump no?

3passrotorcln.JPG

quote:

Originally posted by Basshopper:
Here is the results from my 2nd run on an OC-20 (thanks Gary) I am less than excited about this as a way to meet my cleanliness specs for my D Max in conlusion I think it will work fine if you run an older Diesel where 10 mic is all you need. The OC-20 does not have the particle holding capacity to run for long periods without throwing off the particulate back into the VO (see the rise in 9 pass). So multiple pass is out of the question. Since I have spent about $100 in testing to get to this point I am going to go back to my original idea of kidney looping through filters to do a final clean up on my WVO so I can run it in my D Max and not be plugging up 2 mic filters every 300 miles. Was a fun leaning though. Possible the larger ones would work better with holding capacity but have no way to verify this. Thanks all for the feedback on this if you have any other conclusions that I have missed let me know Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by JojoJaro:

quote:

Originally posted by Basshopper:
Here is the results from my 2nd run on an OC-20 (thanks Gary) I am less than excited about this as a way to meet my cleanliness specs for my D Max in conlusion I think it will work fine if you run an older Diesel where 10 mic is all you need. The OC-20 does not have the particle holding capacity to run for long periods without throwing off the particulate back into the VO (see the rise in 9 pass). So multiple pass is out of the question. Since I have spent about $100 in testing to get to this point I am going to go back to my original idea of kidney looping through filters to do a final clean up on my WVO so I can run it in my D Max and not be plugging up 2 mic filters every 300 miles. Was a fun leaning though. Possible the larger ones would work better with holding capacity but have no way to verify this. Thanks all for the feedback on this if you have any other conclusions that I have missed let me know Thanks

The increase in particulate is curious. Do you think that you may have contaminated the 9-pass sample during your transfer procedure somewhere? Anything is possible but we did it the same way for all the samples. Even so having done the test 2 different times the rato of reduction between passes is not enought for me to meet the spec with out running it a very long time and I am not into watching it and wondering if some of the particulate as overflowed back into the VO


Maybe the hoses you were using was contaminated. Same hoses never moved any of them during the 3 samples.
Is there a possibility that you may have mislabelled the samples? Had all the labels made out in advance opened 1 bottle at a time with the correct lable put it back in its container(sample bottle in a larger bottle container)

How about your shutdown procedure, you may have contaminated it during shutdown. Shut down happened after the last sample was taken and I took all samples before the end of the pass 75% through the pass.

The increase appears to be unexplainable to me otherwise. As Sun pointed out, the dirt carrying capacity is not the issue. There is enough space in the rotor to hold whatever dirt you have.

quote:

Originally posted by Basshopper:
Would be great to see success with this but at this point I am not a believer.

quote:

Originally posted by SunWizard:
Lab test results are in for the first samples I sent.

Sample 1 was the original VO, sucked from dumpster with 100 mesh screen.
Sample 2 was 1 pass, 55-120F.
Sample 3 was heated, mistwash, 6 passes, 120-180F. I did some calcs. on the particle numbers, % reduction:

>14 micron, >10 micron
1 pass = 60.0%, 32.4%
6 pass = 98.5%, 93.7%

The >10 micron reduction looks very good, and that is the size that most people are filtering to. Although a 10 micron nominal filter won't come close to this, since they often only remove 50% > 10 microns.

I am surprised at the no reductions in <10 micron category. Maybe it was because of the mistwash which I didn't settle out, which put a lot of water in the rotor (4 oz), making the small particles not remove. Or the mistwash broke the particles down to smaller size, or sampling errors.

Interesting results for water reduction. #1= 708ppm, #2= 545ppm, #3=478ppm by Karl Fischer ASTM D6304.

It removed my suspended water, even with 1 pass, when I captured the output at shutdown. This shows the pan test is not detecting water below 545ppm. I ran 2 pan tests on each sample separated by several hours. #1 showed lots of bubbles. #2 and 3 had no bubbles. When I shutdown after 1 pass and captured the output, I tested the captured VO and it was very bad on the pan test (lots of crackles.) This showed it was removing the water by true centrifuge in the rotor, not by evaporative means (which could make the pan test not reliable.)

Here are the # of particles per ml by HIAC HL-1185 method:
sample 1,2,3
06-10, 23483, 29230, 23438
10-14, 18067, 14542, 1560
14-25, 8559, 3482, 129
>25, 132, 58, 5

More testing is needed to determine the best way if you want to remove <10 microns (more passes, leave mistwash water settle?) My truck is a 10 micron stock filter so I am happy with the 94% reduction to 10 micron. We now have more public testing data for this than for any other filter method. I would like to see the same test run on a 2 micron absolute or 10 micron nominal filter as a comparison, but I can't find anyone who has published this data for any fluid, much less VO.

quote:

Originally posted by JojoJaro:
I am speculating that 80-90*F WVO would not flash evaporate and hence, most water would be removed by centrifugal action.
Any thoughts?