Knowledge Base

“Pull force”is not a standard measurement of magnetic effectiveness and can be manipulated in many ways depending upon how the test is performed. It might be of some value if you wanted to know how much weight you could pick up with a magnet.

At FilterMag we have done plenty of testing but our goal is to effectively attract and hold the most damaging ferrous particles from your oil, not pick up blocks of steel. To do this, we have used extremely complex computer modeling to design a powerful, focused magnetic field that will penetrate the wall of your oil filter and capture particles in the 1 to 20 micron size range. The curved surfaces of our magnets, combined with their individual and group geometries work together with our specialized high temperature magnetic alloys to remove the wear causing steel particles that oil filters simply cannot capture. Our patented FluxCon shielding helps to focus and multiply the magnetic field while restricting magnetism to the inside of the filter. Not even a paper clip will stick to the outside of a FilterMag.

And just to make sure we provide the best magnetic filtration products in the world, we built a test stand with inline particle counters before and after an oil filter to measure and verify what the computer models tell us. We inject known quantities of ferrous particles into hot flowing oil, just like your engine, and measure the capture rate. What we know is that its not just about magnetic power. To effectively attract and capture microscopic particles moving in a high viscosity, dynamic fluid environment takes a specialized magnetic field capture system. Since 1999 FilterMag has pioneered and constantly improved upon this concept to provide our customers with the most effective magnetic filtration system available.

The answer is maybe. It depends on the origin, amount, and make up of the wear metals in a specific system.

Explanation: Wear metals that are measured in a used oil analysis are extremely small. All are less than 8 um and averaging 2-4um in size. The laboratory machines that measure wear metals (usually ICP) mostly count particles smaller than those measured in a standard ISO 4406 particle count. While FilterMags capture particles in this size range, they are of course not 100% effective so the effect will vary with each piece of equipment. FilterMag may change baseline readings depending upon many factors, so it is necessary to note when FilterMags are installed to know if a baseline changes. Iron may go down. Other metals (Cu, Sn, Pb etc.) may also decrease if some of the normal wear is being caused by the iron particles coming into contact with these other metals in load bearing areas.

How much change is relative. A 50% reduction from 10 to 5ppm may not be considered a baseline shift because the numbers are so small but changing from 200 to 100ppm might be considered a shift in baseline. A new baseline should be noted in the same manner as when putting a new, rebuilt or modified piece of equipment into service.

The answer is no.

Explanation: If a piece of equipment starts an “evolutionary failure” the theory is that it will produce these extremely small ferrous particles in larger quantities. Fe counts then become a lagging, trending indicator determined by changes from baseline. If FilterMag was 100% effective it would capture all of the particles and iron counts would always be zero. Obviously this is not the case.

Even if the Fe baseline has shifted down, increases will still be seen as a percentage of the overall increase and the counts will go up. The only significant difference is that FilterMag may mitigate some of the collateral damage by capturing much of the shed metal before it can do additional damage. In many cases, this may cause the rate of change to be lower than what has previously been seen on a particular piece of equipment.

Overall this yields three noteworthy points:

1. In the event of a “failure in progress,” Fe counts should still go up even with FilterMags in place.

2. Because of the mitigation of damage effect, the time from predictability to failure (P-F Curve) may be extended.

3. The rate of increase for Fe (slope of the plot) may be lower than previously experienced.