Anyway, back to the thing here, is there any data to suggest that the filter life for the L&W is materially worse than other competing compressors in the same size range? Most of the small, portable compressors have a short filter column, which leads to an extremely poor filter life.
Finally back on topic thanks.
And yes I think there are a number of design considerations that L&W didnt employ non of which I will discuss. As for my document evidence on this specific product it was as follows
1. The chemical filter life at 35C of five hours life. The document I referenced was from the workshop manual.
2. The metal filter tower for 300 bar filling needing replacing at 1100 hours. Again from L&W documents. Regarding maximum load cycle questions calculations page 65
3. Ditto for the oil contents and varied changes for oil life from 500 hours back to 250 also from L&W documents
4. Ditto for the pricing discount of 30% also from L&W documents.
As for your question on the chemical used by L&W itself Good point this is also worth investigating,
Molecular sieve 13X or commonly known as zeolite is a pure clear white structure and is brilliant white. The more it is "cut" the darker "Tan" coloured it becomes. Those darker colours show that "Binders" have been used in the process and the supply with the most binders is most evident from zeolite imported from China and the far east.
These binders are carcinogenic so much that even Bauer have warnings printed on the filter cartridge used in the P41 and P61 large filter towers.
In addition to the carcinogenic properties the binders can be up to 30% by volume of the total chemical weight thus in effect making the chemical "charge" at least 30% less efficient when compared to other grade molecular sieve used in say oil free medical hyperbaric chamber compressors, pure air compressors and military missile guidance air compressors all use alternative 100% zeolite (pure white) with no binder, no inert carcinogen material and put another way gain 30% more efficient weight for weight (we have discussed this before).
The filter design itself is also worth investigating including the chemical grain size against the diameter of the cartridge internal diameter and length to evaluate what is called dwell time again something we should discuss in detail on another separate post IMHO
The other considerations are back pressure settings and the filter cartridge "Jet Effect"
As for the compressor chemical filter design there is a little known gem called the 'Kepler Principle" but that is way above the requirements of divers in a public forum IMHO
Everything else is fair game.