On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:02:22 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

Please appreciate that I dont want to appear to be an arrogant
know-it-all after being in on and around critical filtration/separation
most of my working life ...

Sounds good to me...

/// Whats wrong with TP, etc. is that the material used to filter
is not bonded, can digest (make more particles) in the presence of
water --- thus to do the exact opposite of what you are trying to do.

Perhaps a test at home would be helpful.

Take a kitchen collender, A seive or funnel would also work well.
Place a sheet of kitchen roll in the aperture, pleated once to fit.
Spray the surface with Pam, olive oil, or soybean oil or any other oil
Momma has on hand. Make sure the paper is saturated.

Now pour water onto the surface.
Let me know how many particles break loose.
We'll compare notes if you like...
///
My objection to TP - very poor efficiency, migrates particles, migrates
fibers
\////
You either believe the folks who say that depth filters have saved
their fine surface filters from blocking, or you don't.
If you do believe that they are reporting honestly, then I imagine
you would say that at the operational level, that's the kind of
efficiency they prefer?

The home test may (or may not) demonstrate that an oil-soaked paper
tissue does not migrate particles or fibers.
I expect you will let us know if this is misconceived...

DO NOT depend on filters to remove the crud in your system.
////

Or in the version I prefer, referring only to the surface filters that
you use and prefer:
DO NOT depend on fine surface filters to remove crud in your system -
they will certainly block: fast.

Respectfully,

Brian Whatcott