Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
#271
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Retired VIP wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:13:20 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Retired VIP wrote:
>>>> Bill Putney
>>> The oil in the filter media was constantly washed out and replaced by
>>> clean oil from the bath. So the dirt trapped by the oil was deposited
>>> in the oil tank. Remember that the filter media was very course,
>>> somewhat like steel wool, so dry media would be next to useless as an
>>> air filter.
>>>
>>> I would tend to doubt that engine emissions would be effected to any
>>> great amount by oil drawn into the intake manifold. Unless the tank
>>> was over filled, I just don't think enough oil would make it out of
>>> the filter.
>> My question was not the effect of the oil on emissions per-se, but that
>> that oil that got aspirated was carrying dirt that it had filtered out
>> of the incoming air stream - i.e., the purpose of a filter is to prevent
>> the entry of dirt into the engine, yet the very media that captures (and
>> holds?) the dirt is being ingested to some degree.
>
> You really should read my response. I addressed that by saying, and I
> quote myself:
>
> "The oil in the filter media was constantly washed out and replaced
> by clean oil from the bath. So the dirt trapped by the oil was
> deposited in the oil tank."
>
>> Are you saying, or would you say, that (1) The dirt captured by the oil
>> for the most part is not in suspension (i.e., it settles out), and (2)
>> The amount of oil ingested (proportionally containing very little
>> suspended dirt?) is not significant - the total effect being that the
>> dirt entering the engine with the ingested oil is very small - much
>> smaller than would occur with a good paper filter?
>
> What I'm saying is that very, very little oil would make it through
> the filter and into the engine. What little did make it into the
> engine would be relatively clean. All of this presupposes that the
> filter is properly serviced.
>> You're looking at on the order of 97-98% efficiency of a good paper
>> filter. When you're talking a couple of percent, even small amounts
>> getting thru (by ingestion of the oil) could have significant effects on
>> the total efficiency numbers (for oil bath filters). To really know
>> what that is, the typical total ingestion rate (dirt contained in the
>> inadvertently ingested oil drops) would need to be quantified.
>
> When you quantify the efficiency of a filter, you have to spec the
> size of the particles you're talking about. The efficiency of a good
> paper filter would be 0% if you're talking about virus and 100% if
> you're talking about 1/2 inch stones.
in terms of mass, according to the bosch automotive handbook, modern
paper filters are 99.8% efficient for cars, 99.95% for trucks. it also
discusses nanofiber media with fiber diameters down to 30-40nm, but it's
unclear whether this means particles are also filtered to that level or not.
>
> This conversation, while interesting, is rather pointless. No car
> manufactured today uses an oil-bath air cleaner so it's efficiency is
> meaningless.
>
> I would be interested in seeing some scientific tests comparing paper
> filters to oil-bath under real-life conditions. Both regarding
> maximum particle size that makes it through the filter as well as
> total amount of dirt removed during the service life. That would
> answer your questions as well as mine.
>
> Jack
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:13:20 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Retired VIP wrote:
>>>> Bill Putney
>>> The oil in the filter media was constantly washed out and replaced by
>>> clean oil from the bath. So the dirt trapped by the oil was deposited
>>> in the oil tank. Remember that the filter media was very course,
>>> somewhat like steel wool, so dry media would be next to useless as an
>>> air filter.
>>>
>>> I would tend to doubt that engine emissions would be effected to any
>>> great amount by oil drawn into the intake manifold. Unless the tank
>>> was over filled, I just don't think enough oil would make it out of
>>> the filter.
>> My question was not the effect of the oil on emissions per-se, but that
>> that oil that got aspirated was carrying dirt that it had filtered out
>> of the incoming air stream - i.e., the purpose of a filter is to prevent
>> the entry of dirt into the engine, yet the very media that captures (and
>> holds?) the dirt is being ingested to some degree.
>
> You really should read my response. I addressed that by saying, and I
> quote myself:
>
> "The oil in the filter media was constantly washed out and replaced
> by clean oil from the bath. So the dirt trapped by the oil was
> deposited in the oil tank."
>
>> Are you saying, or would you say, that (1) The dirt captured by the oil
>> for the most part is not in suspension (i.e., it settles out), and (2)
>> The amount of oil ingested (proportionally containing very little
>> suspended dirt?) is not significant - the total effect being that the
>> dirt entering the engine with the ingested oil is very small - much
>> smaller than would occur with a good paper filter?
>
> What I'm saying is that very, very little oil would make it through
> the filter and into the engine. What little did make it into the
> engine would be relatively clean. All of this presupposes that the
> filter is properly serviced.
>> You're looking at on the order of 97-98% efficiency of a good paper
>> filter. When you're talking a couple of percent, even small amounts
>> getting thru (by ingestion of the oil) could have significant effects on
>> the total efficiency numbers (for oil bath filters). To really know
>> what that is, the typical total ingestion rate (dirt contained in the
>> inadvertently ingested oil drops) would need to be quantified.
>
> When you quantify the efficiency of a filter, you have to spec the
> size of the particles you're talking about. The efficiency of a good
> paper filter would be 0% if you're talking about virus and 100% if
> you're talking about 1/2 inch stones.
in terms of mass, according to the bosch automotive handbook, modern
paper filters are 99.8% efficient for cars, 99.95% for trucks. it also
discusses nanofiber media with fiber diameters down to 30-40nm, but it's
unclear whether this means particles are also filtered to that level or not.
>
> This conversation, while interesting, is rather pointless. No car
> manufactured today uses an oil-bath air cleaner so it's efficiency is
> meaningless.
>
> I would be interested in seeing some scientific tests comparing paper
> filters to oil-bath under real-life conditions. Both regarding
> maximum particle size that makes it through the filter as well as
> total amount of dirt removed during the service life. That would
> answer your questions as well as mine.
>
> Jack
#272
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:48:14 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> he said pendantically...
>>
>> You could if you were smart enough to figure the angle.
>>
>> Kinda looks like you don't have too many friends in the Honda group,
>> either. Ever wonder why that is?
>>
>> When did Honda start making Camrys?
>>
>> Bozo...
>>
>>
>>
> eh?
Go have a look in the Honda group. What kind of balance shaft does a '91
Accord have?
"...you must be thinking about a Toyota Camry..."
(Paraphrasing
"Gee, I didn't know I spent 6 years and 225,000 miles driving a Toyota
Camry I thought was a Honda Accord..."
Looks like you don't know your *** from a hole in the wall in the Honda
group, either...
>> he said pendantically...
>>
>> You could if you were smart enough to figure the angle.
>>
>> Kinda looks like you don't have too many friends in the Honda group,
>> either. Ever wonder why that is?
>>
>> When did Honda start making Camrys?
>>
>> Bozo...
>>
>>
>>
> eh?
Go have a look in the Honda group. What kind of balance shaft does a '91
Accord have?
"...you must be thinking about a Toyota Camry..."
(Paraphrasing
"Gee, I didn't know I spent 6 years and 225,000 miles driving a Toyota
Camry I thought was a Honda Accord..."
Looks like you don't know your *** from a hole in the wall in the Honda
group, either...
#273
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:51:34 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> No, I don't know how to design circuits. But I know how to analyze and
>> come up with conclusions. That's how I got the job after only 6 months
>> as an electronics tech. Something you don't seem to be able to do very
>> well.
>
> that's a classic! you don't know what you're looking at, but you're
> qualified to comment on it! you could /definitely/ talk your way into
> nasa with that one buddy!
At least I can tell the difference between an Accord and a Camry, Bozo.
What kind of balance shaft does a '91 Accord have, numbnutz?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> i can't help you right now though of course - i kinda have my
>>> tentacles full...
>>
>> Yeah, it's kinda tough keeping up the bullshit line, isn't it?
>
> tough keeping up /with/ the bullshit you mean? yep, sure is! maybe i
> need to evolve another couple of hundred tentacles 'cos you're pretty
> damned productive tonight...
Naw, it's sifting through your own you're having the trouble with,
Jackass.
>> No, I don't know how to design circuits. But I know how to analyze and
>> come up with conclusions. That's how I got the job after only 6 months
>> as an electronics tech. Something you don't seem to be able to do very
>> well.
>
> that's a classic! you don't know what you're looking at, but you're
> qualified to comment on it! you could /definitely/ talk your way into
> nasa with that one buddy!
At least I can tell the difference between an Accord and a Camry, Bozo.
What kind of balance shaft does a '91 Accord have, numbnutz?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> i can't help you right now though of course - i kinda have my
>>> tentacles full...
>>
>> Yeah, it's kinda tough keeping up the bullshit line, isn't it?
>
> tough keeping up /with/ the bullshit you mean? yep, sure is! maybe i
> need to evolve another couple of hundred tentacles 'cos you're pretty
> damned productive tonight...
Naw, it's sifting through your own you're having the trouble with,
Jackass.
#274
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:40:04 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> Push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try something.
>>
>> Hey, here's something else you won't believe, too. I actually got
>> better mileage when I switched from 89 octane to 93 octane. That was
>> documented in the book too. And the sheet I made from the data
>> indicated I actually saved ~$220 in fuel by using premium gas.
>
> classic! a car that doesn't have the sensors necessary for an ignition
> timing adjustment strategy, or compression ratio necessary to take
> advantage of high octane, but it gives higher mileage!!! tell me, 'cos
> i'm dying to know, exactly how does that work then?
What do you mean, 'doesn't have the sensors"? Of course it has the
sensors, Jackass. '95 Twin Cam EFI.
And compression ratio doesn't have a lot to do with it. But you wouldn't
know that.
>
>
>
>
>> Now, tell me why that's wrong, Genius...
>
> er, well, if i may be so bold as to copy your argument style, "because
> it is". how was that?
I had it all down in the book in the glove box. See, other than talking
out of my ***, I actually make notes of changes (cause) and results
(effect). That way I can make statements as to my observations, instead
of just pulling statements out of my ***.
"But I have data showing that can't work!" Yeah, and I have Real World
data that shows you're wrong, Jackass.
>> Push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try something.
>>
>> Hey, here's something else you won't believe, too. I actually got
>> better mileage when I switched from 89 octane to 93 octane. That was
>> documented in the book too. And the sheet I made from the data
>> indicated I actually saved ~$220 in fuel by using premium gas.
>
> classic! a car that doesn't have the sensors necessary for an ignition
> timing adjustment strategy, or compression ratio necessary to take
> advantage of high octane, but it gives higher mileage!!! tell me, 'cos
> i'm dying to know, exactly how does that work then?
What do you mean, 'doesn't have the sensors"? Of course it has the
sensors, Jackass. '95 Twin Cam EFI.
And compression ratio doesn't have a lot to do with it. But you wouldn't
know that.
>
>
>
>
>> Now, tell me why that's wrong, Genius...
>
> er, well, if i may be so bold as to copy your argument style, "because
> it is". how was that?
I had it all down in the book in the glove box. See, other than talking
out of my ***, I actually make notes of changes (cause) and results
(effect). That way I can make statements as to my observations, instead
of just pulling statements out of my ***.
"But I have data showing that can't work!" Yeah, and I have Real World
data that shows you're wrong, Jackass.
#275
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:33:36 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> I'm an !
>>
>> He's an , what an !
>>
>>> I'm an !
>>
>> He's the world's biggest !
>>
>>> I'm an and proud of it!
>>
>> Yeah, we can tell...
>>
>>
> here, let me reinsert what you clipped:
>
> "b.s."
>
> there you go.
Yeah, you're correct. Everything you post is b.s.
>>> I'm an !
>>
>> He's an , what an !
>>
>>> I'm an !
>>
>> He's the world's biggest !
>>
>>> I'm an and proud of it!
>>
>> Yeah, we can tell...
>>
>>
> here, let me reinsert what you clipped:
>
> "b.s."
>
> there you go.
Yeah, you're correct. Everything you post is b.s.
#276
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:20:09 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>> Now, this was on a Tercel with a whopping 1.5L, 108 HP engine.
>>
>> What I noticed was a better throttle response off the line (it
>> certainly didn't turn it into a fire-breating monster! But you could
>> feel the difference) and the increase in gas mileage.
>
> Better throttle response, or more noise? I sometimes think the two are
> related. It is possible throttle response was improved but it seems
> unlikely. To be honest, I am not even sure what improved throttle
> response means.
>
> Ed
Here's the intake I installed on the car:
http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.c..._2003_63837953
Here's an OEM style:
http://www.car-stuff.com/store/image...s/beck_arnley/
BA-0421515-1.jpg
You can see the outside diameter of the Pilot 'performance' air filter
pretty much covers the area of the entire OEM style filter.
Then you have the cone section, which adds about another 1/3.
Now, for example, let's say the OEM allows 8 CFM airflow. The performance
filter is ~1/3 larger, so should allow ~11 CFM. (These numbers are
arbitrary.)
For any given throttle plate opening, there will be more air trying to
get to the combustion chambers with the high-flow filter than with the
stock filter. More air entering the chamber should provide better
performance, that's why most people looking for performance try to get
more air into the intake plenum.
With a higher airflow at any given throttle plate opening, more air is
going to pass through with a less restrictive filter. Also, the tube is
smooth rather than fluted like the stock intake, since noise really isn't
an issue, so airflow is straight through and not interrupted by the
fluting used to damp the sound.
Also the tube was designed to place the opening in the end of the new
filter at the hole in the fender where outside air is drawn into the
stock airbox, and had a heat shield to try to block engine heat. It was
also well away from the exhaust manifold and plumbing, so the engine was
being allowed to intake cooler air faster.
Also, while doing all this I pulled the fuse to the ECM, for about 20+
minutes, so when the car was started the parameters were reset to take
into account the increased air flow.
Flashing the prom would have taken even more advantage of the increased
airflow, but I wasn't trying to turn a 1.5 liter engine into a Boy Racer,
I was just looking for a little better performance than stock.
>> Now, this was on a Tercel with a whopping 1.5L, 108 HP engine.
>>
>> What I noticed was a better throttle response off the line (it
>> certainly didn't turn it into a fire-breating monster! But you could
>> feel the difference) and the increase in gas mileage.
>
> Better throttle response, or more noise? I sometimes think the two are
> related. It is possible throttle response was improved but it seems
> unlikely. To be honest, I am not even sure what improved throttle
> response means.
>
> Ed
Here's the intake I installed on the car:
http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.c..._2003_63837953
Here's an OEM style:
http://www.car-stuff.com/store/image...s/beck_arnley/
BA-0421515-1.jpg
You can see the outside diameter of the Pilot 'performance' air filter
pretty much covers the area of the entire OEM style filter.
Then you have the cone section, which adds about another 1/3.
Now, for example, let's say the OEM allows 8 CFM airflow. The performance
filter is ~1/3 larger, so should allow ~11 CFM. (These numbers are
arbitrary.)
For any given throttle plate opening, there will be more air trying to
get to the combustion chambers with the high-flow filter than with the
stock filter. More air entering the chamber should provide better
performance, that's why most people looking for performance try to get
more air into the intake plenum.
With a higher airflow at any given throttle plate opening, more air is
going to pass through with a less restrictive filter. Also, the tube is
smooth rather than fluted like the stock intake, since noise really isn't
an issue, so airflow is straight through and not interrupted by the
fluting used to damp the sound.
Also the tube was designed to place the opening in the end of the new
filter at the hole in the fender where outside air is drawn into the
stock airbox, and had a heat shield to try to block engine heat. It was
also well away from the exhaust manifold and plumbing, so the engine was
being allowed to intake cooler air faster.
Also, while doing all this I pulled the fuse to the ECM, for about 20+
minutes, so when the car was started the parameters were reset to take
into account the increased air flow.
Flashing the prom would have taken even more advantage of the increased
airflow, but I wasn't trying to turn a 1.5 liter engine into a Boy Racer,
I was just looking for a little better performance than stock.
#277
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:42:43 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>> When you quantify the efficiency of a filter, you have to spec the size
>> of the particles you're talking about. The efficiency of a good paper
>> filter would be 0% if you're talking about virus and 100% if you're
>> talking about 1/2 inch stones.
>
> in terms of mass, according to the bosch automotive handbook, modern
> paper filters are 99.8% efficient for cars, 99.95% for trucks. it also
> discusses nanofiber media with fiber diameters down to 30-40nm, but it's
> unclear whether this means particles are also filtered to that level or
> not.
WTF is Bosch going to say, "Our filters suck"?
>> When you quantify the efficiency of a filter, you have to spec the size
>> of the particles you're talking about. The efficiency of a good paper
>> filter would be 0% if you're talking about virus and 100% if you're
>> talking about 1/2 inch stones.
>
> in terms of mass, according to the bosch automotive handbook, modern
> paper filters are 99.8% efficient for cars, 99.95% for trucks. it also
> discusses nanofiber media with fiber diameters down to 30-40nm, but it's
> unclear whether this means particles are also filtered to that level or
> not.
WTF is Bosch going to say, "Our filters suck"?
#278
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:32:19 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:53:05 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> hachiroku wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:59 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I had forgotten that.
>>>>> Perhaps it's the velocity of the air, but you'd think the vaves would
>>>>> restrict that, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our
>>>>> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I
>>>>> just know it worked!
>>>> you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better
>>>> than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your
>>>> old schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you.
>>> Was it not determined that the vehicle he's talking about was
>>> carbureted, in which case the mileage could have been affected?
>>
>> Actually, the 82HP 1.5 liter in 1994 was carbureted. The 1995 93HP 1.5
>> liter engine was injected.
>
>wow, that's got to be one of the last carburetted cars on the road! for
>north america at any rate.
>
>
>
Yup. It was an electronic feedback constant vacuum carb.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:53:05 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> hachiroku wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:59:59 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>>>>> Yes, I had forgotten that.
>>>>> Perhaps it's the velocity of the air, but you'd think the vaves would
>>>>> restrict that, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> All I know is, after adding the CAI, the mileage went up! Unlike our
>>>>> friend jim beam, I'm not wasting a lot of time figuring why, I
>>>>> just know it worked!
>>>> you just spent your weekend arguing with people that know a lot better
>>>> than you, and this is all you have to say? time you went back to your
>>>> old schools and burned them down - they seriously failed you.
>>> Was it not determined that the vehicle he's talking about was
>>> carbureted, in which case the mileage could have been affected?
>>
>> Actually, the 82HP 1.5 liter in 1994 was carbureted. The 1995 93HP 1.5
>> liter engine was injected.
>
>wow, that's got to be one of the last carburetted cars on the road! for
>north america at any rate.
>
>
>
Yup. It was an electronic feedback constant vacuum carb.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#279
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:33:15 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>as an aside, it's odd to see that a paint shop is supposed use a water
>baffle for hydrocarbon vapors - many of which are not typically regarded
>as water soluble are they?
Not water soluable, but they get trapped very efficiently none the
less. It WORKS and that's what matters.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>as an aside, it's odd to see that a paint shop is supposed use a water
>baffle for hydrocarbon vapors - many of which are not typically regarded
>as water soluble are they?
Not water soluable, but they get trapped very efficiently none the
less. It WORKS and that's what matters.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#280
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 04:41:31 GMT, hachiroku <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:25:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:51:13 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole?
>>>>>
>>>>> Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> what do you want me to post? i haven't made bullshit claims about air
>>>> filters decreasing fuel consumption, so you're the one that needs to be
>>>> posting data.
>>>
>>>
>>> You said you have data showing the difference between oiled filters and
>>> paper filters. So, where is it, *MOUTH*? Did you forget you said that?
>>>
>>> I'm beginning to believe who the actual bullshitter is here. Put up or
>>> shut up.
>>
>> whoops, busted, no books here on planet bulldetector either!
>>
>> and the conversation with clare is for "oil", not "oiled". thanks.
>
>
>> The best air filter yet is still the old oil bath type - where the
>> ironcurls soaked in oil trapped the dirt. NOTHING filters better than a
>> properly serviced oil bath cleaner.
>>> 2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's
>>> why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the
>>> same regardless of flow rate.
>>>
>>>
>> No, the reason oil bath cleaners are no longer used boils down to
>> expense. The labour required to properly service them and the expense of
>> disposing of the "toxic waste" produced by that service.
>
>sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
>paper is better for the reasons stated.
>
>Let's see. "The best air filter yet is the old oil bath type..."
>
>Oil? Oiled? Again, you don't seem to know WTF you're talking about.
>
>But, we've grown accustomed to that, he said pendantically...
>
>
Do you know what an OIL BATH air filter is?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:25:21 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:51:13 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Well, why don't you post your data, Blowhole?
>>>>>
>>>>> Make some use of yourself other than being the backside of a mule.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> what do you want me to post? i haven't made bullshit claims about air
>>>> filters decreasing fuel consumption, so you're the one that needs to be
>>>> posting data.
>>>
>>>
>>> You said you have data showing the difference between oiled filters and
>>> paper filters. So, where is it, *MOUTH*? Did you forget you said that?
>>>
>>> I'm beginning to believe who the actual bullshitter is here. Put up or
>>> shut up.
>>
>> whoops, busted, no books here on planet bulldetector either!
>>
>> and the conversation with clare is for "oil", not "oiled". thanks.
>
>
>> The best air filter yet is still the old oil bath type - where the
>> ironcurls soaked in oil trapped the dirt. NOTHING filters better than a
>> properly serviced oil bath cleaner.
>>> 2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's
>>> why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the
>>> same regardless of flow rate.
>>>
>>>
>> No, the reason oil bath cleaners are no longer used boils down to
>> expense. The labour required to properly service them and the expense of
>> disposing of the "toxic waste" produced by that service.
>
>sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
>paper is better for the reasons stated.
>
>Let's see. "The best air filter yet is the old oil bath type..."
>
>Oil? Oiled? Again, you don't seem to know WTF you're talking about.
>
>But, we've grown accustomed to that, he said pendantically...
>
>
Do you know what an OIL BATH air filter is?
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#281
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 06:13:20 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
wrote:
>Retired VIP wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:58:50 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>>>
>>>> More:
>>>> Oil Bath:
>>>> An oil bath air cleaner consists of a round base bowl containing a
>>>> pool of oil, and a round insert which is filled with fibre, mesh,
>>>> foam, or another coarse filter media. When the cleaner is assembled,
>>>> the media-containing body of the insert sits a short distance above
>>>> the surface of the oil pool. The rim of the insert overlaps the rim of
>>>> the base bowl. This arrangement forms a labyrinthine path through
>>>> which the air must travel in a series of U-turns: up through the gap
>>>> between the rims of the insert and the base bowl, down through the gap
>>>> between the outer wall of the insert and the inner wall of the base
>>>> bowl, and up through the filter media in the body of the insert. This
>>>> U-turn takes the air at high velocity across the surface of the oil
>>>> pool. Larger and heavier dust and dirt particles in the air cannot
>>>> make the turn due to their inertia, so they fall into the oil and
>>>> settle to the bottom of the base bowl. Lighter and smaller particles
>>>> are trapped by the filtration media in the insert, which is wetted by
>>>> oil droplets aspirated thereinto by normal airflow.
>>>>
>>>> Oil bath air cleaners were very widely used in automotive and
>>>> small-engine applications until the wide industry adoption of
>>>> the paper filter in the early 1960s. Such cleaners are still used in
>>>> off-road equipment where very high levels of dust are encountered, for
>>>> oil bath air cleaners can sequester a great deal of dirt relative to
>>>> their overall size, without loss of filtration efficacy or airflow.
>>>> However, the liquid oil makes cleaning and servicing such air cleaners
>>>> messy and inconvenient, they must be relatively large to avoid
>>>> excessive restriction at high airflow rates, and they tend to increase
>>>> exhaust emissions of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when
>>>> used on spark-ignition engines.
>>>>
>>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>> I drove a '65 International Travelall with the oil bath air filter from
>>> my mid teens until the early 80's when I sold it, so I am familiar with
>>> this type of filter.
>>>
>>> You had me at "More:", but did you shoot your argument for its efficacy
>>> in the foot when you said "and they tend to increase exhaust emissions
>>> of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when used on
>>> sark-ignition engines", being that that oil that would thus be aspirated
>>> would have been the medium that contains all the dirt that was caught?
>>> I think I see the answer to my question in your explanation, but I want
>>> to see what you will say. This is a very intersting discussion.
>>>
>>> Bill Putney
>>
>> The oil in the filter media was constantly washed out and replaced by
>> clean oil from the bath. So the dirt trapped by the oil was deposited
>> in the oil tank. Remember that the filter media was very course,
>> somewhat like steel wool, so dry media would be next to useless as an
>> air filter.
>>
>> I would tend to doubt that engine emissions would be effected to any
>> great amount by oil drawn into the intake manifold. Unless the tank
>> was over filled, I just don't think enough oil would make it out of
>> the filter.
>
>My question was not the effect of the oil on emissions per-se, but that
>that oil that got aspirated was carrying dirt that it had filtered out
>of the incoming air stream - i.e., the purpose of a filter is to prevent
>the entry of dirt into the engine, yet the very media that captures (and
>holds?) the dirt is being ingested to some degree.
>
>Are you saying, or would you say, that (1) The dirt captured by the oil
>for the most part is not in suspension (i.e., it settles out), and (2)
>The amount of oil ingested (proportionally containing very little
>suspended dirt?) is not significant - the total effect being that the
>dirt entering the engine with the ingested oil is very small - much
>smaller than would occur with a good paper filter?
>
>You're looking at on the order of 97-98% efficiency of a good paper
>filter. When you're talking a couple of percent, even small amounts
>getting thru (by ingestion of the oil) could have significant effects on
>the total efficiency numbers (for oil bath filters). To really know
>what that is, the typical total ingestion rate (dirt contained in the
>inadvertently ingested oil drops) would need to be quantified.
>
>Bill Putney
>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with the letter 'x')
The oil injested would be from the surface of the oiled media. The
VAST majority of the captured dirt settles in the "sump". The injested
oil is basically "vapour" - and as I stated is almost unmeasurable -
insignificant. Particals of dirt would be such a low fraction of that
extremely small amount that it would be barely a blip on the radar.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
wrote:
>Retired VIP wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 17:58:50 -0400, Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada wrote:
>>>
>>>> More:
>>>> Oil Bath:
>>>> An oil bath air cleaner consists of a round base bowl containing a
>>>> pool of oil, and a round insert which is filled with fibre, mesh,
>>>> foam, or another coarse filter media. When the cleaner is assembled,
>>>> the media-containing body of the insert sits a short distance above
>>>> the surface of the oil pool. The rim of the insert overlaps the rim of
>>>> the base bowl. This arrangement forms a labyrinthine path through
>>>> which the air must travel in a series of U-turns: up through the gap
>>>> between the rims of the insert and the base bowl, down through the gap
>>>> between the outer wall of the insert and the inner wall of the base
>>>> bowl, and up through the filter media in the body of the insert. This
>>>> U-turn takes the air at high velocity across the surface of the oil
>>>> pool. Larger and heavier dust and dirt particles in the air cannot
>>>> make the turn due to their inertia, so they fall into the oil and
>>>> settle to the bottom of the base bowl. Lighter and smaller particles
>>>> are trapped by the filtration media in the insert, which is wetted by
>>>> oil droplets aspirated thereinto by normal airflow.
>>>>
>>>> Oil bath air cleaners were very widely used in automotive and
>>>> small-engine applications until the wide industry adoption of
>>>> the paper filter in the early 1960s. Such cleaners are still used in
>>>> off-road equipment where very high levels of dust are encountered, for
>>>> oil bath air cleaners can sequester a great deal of dirt relative to
>>>> their overall size, without loss of filtration efficacy or airflow.
>>>> However, the liquid oil makes cleaning and servicing such air cleaners
>>>> messy and inconvenient, they must be relatively large to avoid
>>>> excessive restriction at high airflow rates, and they tend to increase
>>>> exhaust emissions of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when
>>>> used on spark-ignition engines.
>>>>
>>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>> I drove a '65 International Travelall with the oil bath air filter from
>>> my mid teens until the early 80's when I sold it, so I am familiar with
>>> this type of filter.
>>>
>>> You had me at "More:", but did you shoot your argument for its efficacy
>>> in the foot when you said "and they tend to increase exhaust emissions
>>> of unburned hydrocarbons due to oil aspiration when used on
>>> sark-ignition engines", being that that oil that would thus be aspirated
>>> would have been the medium that contains all the dirt that was caught?
>>> I think I see the answer to my question in your explanation, but I want
>>> to see what you will say. This is a very intersting discussion.
>>>
>>> Bill Putney
>>
>> The oil in the filter media was constantly washed out and replaced by
>> clean oil from the bath. So the dirt trapped by the oil was deposited
>> in the oil tank. Remember that the filter media was very course,
>> somewhat like steel wool, so dry media would be next to useless as an
>> air filter.
>>
>> I would tend to doubt that engine emissions would be effected to any
>> great amount by oil drawn into the intake manifold. Unless the tank
>> was over filled, I just don't think enough oil would make it out of
>> the filter.
>
>My question was not the effect of the oil on emissions per-se, but that
>that oil that got aspirated was carrying dirt that it had filtered out
>of the incoming air stream - i.e., the purpose of a filter is to prevent
>the entry of dirt into the engine, yet the very media that captures (and
>holds?) the dirt is being ingested to some degree.
>
>Are you saying, or would you say, that (1) The dirt captured by the oil
>for the most part is not in suspension (i.e., it settles out), and (2)
>The amount of oil ingested (proportionally containing very little
>suspended dirt?) is not significant - the total effect being that the
>dirt entering the engine with the ingested oil is very small - much
>smaller than would occur with a good paper filter?
>
>You're looking at on the order of 97-98% efficiency of a good paper
>filter. When you're talking a couple of percent, even small amounts
>getting thru (by ingestion of the oil) could have significant effects on
>the total efficiency numbers (for oil bath filters). To really know
>what that is, the typical total ingestion rate (dirt contained in the
>inadvertently ingested oil drops) would need to be quantified.
>
>Bill Putney
>(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with the letter 'x')
The oil injested would be from the surface of the oiled media. The
VAST majority of the captured dirt settles in the "sump". The injested
oil is basically "vapour" - and as I stated is almost unmeasurable -
insignificant. Particals of dirt would be such a low fraction of that
extremely small amount that it would be barely a blip on the radar.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#282
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:16:52 GMT, Hachiroku +O+A+m+/
<Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:40:04 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> Push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try something.
>>>
>>> Hey, here's something else you won't believe, too. I actually got
>>> better mileage when I switched from 89 octane to 93 octane. That was
>>> documented in the book too. And the sheet I made from the data
>>> indicated I actually saved ~$220 in fuel by using premium gas.
Not sure which car he's talking about here, but the Tercel was known
to run better/give better gas mileage on premium IN SOME CASES.
Driven consistantly hard there was no advantage. But the little
buggers were "cokers" if babied, and the carbon buildup in the cyls of
a lightly driven Tercel DID increase the octane requirement
significantly.
We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard
at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake)
and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well.
BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on
hightest, and left running fine on regular.
Pinging really kills the fuel mileage, as well as power (and
eventually the engine)
>>
>> classic! a car that doesn't have the sensors necessary for an ignition
>> timing adjustment strategy, or compression ratio necessary to take
>> advantage of high octane, but it gives higher mileage!!! tell me, 'cos
>> i'm dying to know, exactly how does that work then?
>
>What do you mean, 'doesn't have the sensors"? Of course it has the
>sensors, Jackass. '95 Twin Cam EFI.
>
>And compression ratio doesn't have a lot to do with it. But you wouldn't
>know that.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now, tell me why that's wrong, Genius...
>>
>> er, well, if i may be so bold as to copy your argument style, "because
>> it is". how was that?
>
>I had it all down in the book in the glove box. See, other than talking
>out of my ***, I actually make notes of changes (cause) and results
>(effect). That way I can make statements as to my observations, instead
>of just pulling statements out of my ***.
>
>"But I have data showing that can't work!" Yeah, and I have Real World
>data that shows you're wrong, Jackass.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
<Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:40:04 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>> Push yourself back from the keyboard and actually try something.
>>>
>>> Hey, here's something else you won't believe, too. I actually got
>>> better mileage when I switched from 89 octane to 93 octane. That was
>>> documented in the book too. And the sheet I made from the data
>>> indicated I actually saved ~$220 in fuel by using premium gas.
Not sure which car he's talking about here, but the Tercel was known
to run better/give better gas mileage on premium IN SOME CASES.
Driven consistantly hard there was no advantage. But the little
buggers were "cokers" if babied, and the carbon buildup in the cyls of
a lightly driven Tercel DID increase the octane requirement
significantly.
We used to routinely decarbonise tercels we knew were not driven hard
at each major service (spray combustion chamber cleaner in the intake)
and we used BG Supercharge in the gas on every major service as well.
BG44K was reserved for the real bad ones. Some came in pinging on
hightest, and left running fine on regular.
Pinging really kills the fuel mileage, as well as power (and
eventually the engine)
>>
>> classic! a car that doesn't have the sensors necessary for an ignition
>> timing adjustment strategy, or compression ratio necessary to take
>> advantage of high octane, but it gives higher mileage!!! tell me, 'cos
>> i'm dying to know, exactly how does that work then?
>
>What do you mean, 'doesn't have the sensors"? Of course it has the
>sensors, Jackass. '95 Twin Cam EFI.
>
>And compression ratio doesn't have a lot to do with it. But you wouldn't
>know that.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Now, tell me why that's wrong, Genius...
>>
>> er, well, if i may be so bold as to copy your argument style, "because
>> it is". how was that?
>
>I had it all down in the book in the glove box. See, other than talking
>out of my ***, I actually make notes of changes (cause) and results
>(effect). That way I can make statements as to my observations, instead
>of just pulling statements out of my ***.
>
>"But I have data showing that can't work!" Yeah, and I have Real World
>data that shows you're wrong, Jackass.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#283
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Ed White wrote:
> "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:gQl3k.273$ul.157@trndny08...
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:14:23 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>> Look back at your log book
>>> - does the fuel economy decrease measurably between cleanings of the
>>> oiled
>>> gauze filter?
>>
>> Nope. Stayed a steady 43-45 MPG.
>
> Don't you think that is unusual, assuming that changing the air filter was
> the readon for a large increase in fuel economy? If reducing the air filter
> restriction could increase fuel economy by 10%, don't you think you should
> see the fuel economy decrease as the filter accumulates dirt and the filter
> restriction increases? I know you said your filter was not a K&N, but I
> assume it is similar. K&Ns own data shows a substantial increase in the
> filter restricition as it accumulates dirt. K&N shows a dirty K&N filter to
> be more restricitive than a clean paper filter. It seems to me you can't get
> a 10% increase in fuel economy by changing to a less restricitive filter and
> not also get a measurable decrease in fuel economy as that filter loads up
> with dirt.
>
> Ed
I'm puzzled about one thing that i used to experience sort of related to
this, so I'll pose it here: In the late 80's/early 90's, I lived in
Colorado - periodic emissions inspections were required. I had an '86
MPFI turbocharged Subaru station wagon at the time. On two occasions,
it failed the emissions isnpection - and both times the technician asked
if the air filter had been changed recently. On those two occasions,
the answer was 'no'. I changed the filter both times, and it passed the
re-test with flying colors. After that, I made sure to replace the
filter just before taking it for inspection if it had not been changed
recently, and it always passed with no problem.
So my question is: If the computer can compensate for the slightly
clogged filter for normal driving, why can't it do so for emissions
measurements (idling situation)?
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> "hachiroku" <Trueno@ae86.GTS> wrote in message
> news:gQl3k.273$ul.157@trndny08...
>> On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:14:23 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>> Look back at your log book
>>> - does the fuel economy decrease measurably between cleanings of the
>>> oiled
>>> gauze filter?
>>
>> Nope. Stayed a steady 43-45 MPG.
>
> Don't you think that is unusual, assuming that changing the air filter was
> the readon for a large increase in fuel economy? If reducing the air filter
> restriction could increase fuel economy by 10%, don't you think you should
> see the fuel economy decrease as the filter accumulates dirt and the filter
> restriction increases? I know you said your filter was not a K&N, but I
> assume it is similar. K&Ns own data shows a substantial increase in the
> filter restricition as it accumulates dirt. K&N shows a dirty K&N filter to
> be more restricitive than a clean paper filter. It seems to me you can't get
> a 10% increase in fuel economy by changing to a less restricitive filter and
> not also get a measurable decrease in fuel economy as that filter loads up
> with dirt.
>
> Ed
I'm puzzled about one thing that i used to experience sort of related to
this, so I'll pose it here: In the late 80's/early 90's, I lived in
Colorado - periodic emissions inspections were required. I had an '86
MPFI turbocharged Subaru station wagon at the time. On two occasions,
it failed the emissions isnpection - and both times the technician asked
if the air filter had been changed recently. On those two occasions,
the answer was 'no'. I changed the filter both times, and it passed the
re-test with flying colors. After that, I made sure to replace the
filter just before taking it for inspection if it had not been changed
recently, and it always passed with no problem.
So my question is: If the computer can compensate for the slightly
clogged filter for normal driving, why can't it do so for emissions
measurements (idling situation)?
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#284
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
jim beam wrote:
> ...it also
> discusses nanofiber media with fiber diameters down to 30-40nm, but it's
> unclear whether this means particles are also filtered to that level or
> not.
Not inherently. Fiber diameter is fiber diameter. Particle size
implies the space between the fibers. But there would be a connection
between small fiber size and getting minimum filtered particle size down
while at the same time *not* causing undue restriction levels, IOW a
very low particle size-restriction product (product as in multiplication).
If filtered particle size is decreased but fiber size remains the same,
restriction levels goes up - a tradeoff. So smaller fiber size relaxes
that tradeoff and gives you a competitive advantage.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> ...it also
> discusses nanofiber media with fiber diameters down to 30-40nm, but it's
> unclear whether this means particles are also filtered to that level or
> not.
Not inherently. Fiber diameter is fiber diameter. Particle size
implies the space between the fibers. But there would be a connection
between small fiber size and getting minimum filtered particle size down
while at the same time *not* causing undue restriction levels, IOW a
very low particle size-restriction product (product as in multiplication).
If filtered particle size is decreased but fiber size remains the same,
restriction levels goes up - a tradeoff. So smaller fiber size relaxes
that tradeoff and gives you a competitive advantage.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#285
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:36:16 -0400, clare at snyder dot ontario dot canada
wrote:
>>sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
>>paper is better for the reasons stated.
>>
>>Let's see. "The best air filter yet is the old oil bath type..."
>>
>>Oil? Oiled? Again, you don't seem to know WTF you're talking about.
>>
>>But, we've grown accustomed to that, he said pendantically...
>>
>>
> Do you know what an OIL BATH air filter is?
I sure do. I used to work in farming and in industrial environments when
I was in high school and college, and oil bath air filters were in use a
lot on the diesel motors used in a lot of the equipment.
One thing I will say: a poor design for the filter was a friggin' MESS!
There are still some on the market for older diesel engines. Wix still
makes them and sells them through CarQuest, or they did 6 years ago.
wrote:
>>sorry, not so. i have some filtration data - i just have to find it.
>>paper is better for the reasons stated.
>>
>>Let's see. "The best air filter yet is the old oil bath type..."
>>
>>Oil? Oiled? Again, you don't seem to know WTF you're talking about.
>>
>>But, we've grown accustomed to that, he said pendantically...
>>
>>
> Do you know what an OIL BATH air filter is?
I sure do. I used to work in farming and in industrial environments when
I was in high school and college, and oil bath air filters were in use a
lot on the diesel motors used in a lot of the equipment.
One thing I will say: a poor design for the filter was a friggin' MESS!
There are still some on the market for older diesel engines. Wix still
makes them and sells them through CarQuest, or they did 6 years ago.