Thank you for the links, your feedback and your humor! That's good stuff!
Ed
Ed
Flow versus filtration - where's the balance?
- Thread starter Ed_Flecko
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Skid
https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/upload/CIWMB_Oil_Filters_State_Fleet.pdf
"No differences could be ascertained between the Fram X2 and the standard Car Quest filters performance." X2 is now ultra. Car Quest back then were Wix, I believe.
Can you point me to the page in that study that shows no difference in engine wear or engine protection? It seems all it did was test whether or not higher filtration affected the longevity of the oil with regards to TBN retention. I see no particle count measurements. I see no engine part measurements or comparisons. What page was this supposed information?
https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/upload/CIWMB_Oil_Filters_State_Fleet.pdf
"No differences could be ascertained between the Fram X2 and the standard Car Quest filters performance." X2 is now ultra. Car Quest back then were Wix, I believe.
Can you point me to the page in that study that shows no difference in engine wear or engine protection? It seems all it did was test whether or not higher filtration affected the longevity of the oil with regards to TBN retention. I see no particle count measurements. I see no engine part measurements or comparisons. What page was this supposed information?
Originally Posted By: geeman789
Maybe FLOW is more important than absolute efficiency. Or maybe 50 % efficiency is perfectly adequate.
50% efficiency at what particle size? 50% at 2 micron is likely a fantastic filter at sizes that matter (20+ micron)
Quote:
Maybe lower efficiency reduces by-pass events, which are ZERO efficiency ... unfiltered oil.
Without a pressure differential gauge that compares before & after the filter it'll be hard to know
Quote:
Or maybe it's all just marketing... and the oil filter really does very little. Many people argue that the air filter is 10x more important to engine longevity. Keep the grit out, and the oil filter doesn't have much to do.
I am in this camp, if your fuel and air is clean, your oil filter won't have much to filter out!
Maybe FLOW is more important than absolute efficiency. Or maybe 50 % efficiency is perfectly adequate.
50% efficiency at what particle size? 50% at 2 micron is likely a fantastic filter at sizes that matter (20+ micron)
Quote:
Maybe lower efficiency reduces by-pass events, which are ZERO efficiency ... unfiltered oil.
Without a pressure differential gauge that compares before & after the filter it'll be hard to know
Quote:
Or maybe it's all just marketing... and the oil filter really does very little. Many people argue that the air filter is 10x more important to engine longevity. Keep the grit out, and the oil filter doesn't have much to do.
I am in this camp, if your fuel and air is clean, your oil filter won't have much to filter out!
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: brandini
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Remember that in a classical sense, a filter media (which is really what is being rated here) doesnt do the filtration - it is the cake that forms on the media.
I think we have seen enough cut open filters to recognize that there isnt practically a cake build up of particles on any oil filter. So, in essence, the filter is primarily serving as an intermediate to pick up the big rocks.
You're assuming that oil filters use surface loading (filter cake) vs depth loading (tangled web of innards) without showing any references from manufacturers showing they use one vs the other.
The media depth is quite shallow, and at some point, will load up, IF there are particles in the oil. That may be a very big if, and I have to agree with your comment of:
Originally Posted By: brandini
I am in this camp, if your fuel and air is clean, your oil filter won't have much to filter out!
But at that point, why not just have a screen? There is some tangible risk that there are fine particles that have the potential to do some damage that notionally will get caught. Be they agglomerates of soot, foreign objects that fall in, etc. I dont know the exact design philosophy pushing it... But if Ford will remove a fuel cap from their vehicles, dont you think all the manufacturers would love to get rid of an oil filter if there wasnt a credible risk?
While asking for references, you havent shown any yourself. That's very much the OP's point, is that we dont know the basis of design for OEM vs others.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Remember that in a classical sense, a filter media (which is really what is being rated here) doesnt do the filtration - it is the cake that forms on the media.
I think we have seen enough cut open filters to recognize that there isnt practically a cake build up of particles on any oil filter. So, in essence, the filter is primarily serving as an intermediate to pick up the big rocks.
You're assuming that oil filters use surface loading (filter cake) vs depth loading (tangled web of innards) without showing any references from manufacturers showing they use one vs the other.
The media depth is quite shallow, and at some point, will load up, IF there are particles in the oil. That may be a very big if, and I have to agree with your comment of:
Originally Posted By: brandini
I am in this camp, if your fuel and air is clean, your oil filter won't have much to filter out!
But at that point, why not just have a screen? There is some tangible risk that there are fine particles that have the potential to do some damage that notionally will get caught. Be they agglomerates of soot, foreign objects that fall in, etc. I dont know the exact design philosophy pushing it... But if Ford will remove a fuel cap from their vehicles, dont you think all the manufacturers would love to get rid of an oil filter if there wasnt a credible risk?
While asking for references, you havent shown any yourself. That's very much the OP's point, is that we dont know the basis of design for OEM vs others.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: brandini
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Remember that in a classical sense, a filter media (which is really what is being rated here) doesnt do the filtration - it is the cake that forms on the media.
I think we have seen enough cut open filters to recognize that there isnt practically a cake build up of particles on any oil filter. So, in essence, the filter is primarily serving as an intermediate to pick up the big rocks.
You're assuming that oil filters use surface loading (filter cake) vs depth loading (tangled web of innards) without showing any references from manufacturers showing they use one vs the other.
The media depth is quite shallow, and at some point, will load up, IF there are particles in the oil. That may be a very big if, and I have to agree with your comment of:
Originally Posted By: brandini
I am in this camp, if your fuel and air is clean, your oil filter won't have much to filter out!
But at that point, why not just have a screen? There is some tangible risk that there are fine particles that have the potential to do some damage that notionally will get caught. Be they agglomerates of soot, foreign objects that fall in, etc. I dont know the exact design philosophy pushing it... But if Ford will remove a fuel cap from their vehicles, dont you think all the manufacturers would love to get rid of an oil filter if there wasnt a credible risk?
While asking for references, you havent shown any yourself. That's very much the OP's point, is that we dont know the basis of design for OEM vs others.
I haven't shown sources because I'm not making claims.
The claim I will make is, a screen is a surface loading filter and even Amsoil change their oil filters from the nanofiber media to a synthetic (not nanofiber) media due to issues with capacity and flow.
The best part of surface loading an air filter is you can clean it (vacuum most of the crud off) and it's mostly new- not something that you can do/would need to do with an oil filter. So it's likely a case of matching the qualities and cost of the filter to the application.
Originally Posted By: brandini
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Remember that in a classical sense, a filter media (which is really what is being rated here) doesnt do the filtration - it is the cake that forms on the media.
I think we have seen enough cut open filters to recognize that there isnt practically a cake build up of particles on any oil filter. So, in essence, the filter is primarily serving as an intermediate to pick up the big rocks.
You're assuming that oil filters use surface loading (filter cake) vs depth loading (tangled web of innards) without showing any references from manufacturers showing they use one vs the other.
The media depth is quite shallow, and at some point, will load up, IF there are particles in the oil. That may be a very big if, and I have to agree with your comment of:
Originally Posted By: brandini
I am in this camp, if your fuel and air is clean, your oil filter won't have much to filter out!
But at that point, why not just have a screen? There is some tangible risk that there are fine particles that have the potential to do some damage that notionally will get caught. Be they agglomerates of soot, foreign objects that fall in, etc. I dont know the exact design philosophy pushing it... But if Ford will remove a fuel cap from their vehicles, dont you think all the manufacturers would love to get rid of an oil filter if there wasnt a credible risk?
While asking for references, you havent shown any yourself. That's very much the OP's point, is that we dont know the basis of design for OEM vs others.
I haven't shown sources because I'm not making claims.
The claim I will make is, a screen is a surface loading filter and even Amsoil change their oil filters from the nanofiber media to a synthetic (not nanofiber) media due to issues with capacity and flow.
The best part of surface loading an air filter is you can clean it (vacuum most of the crud off) and it's mostly new- not something that you can do/would need to do with an oil filter. So it's likely a case of matching the qualities and cost of the filter to the application.
Last edited:
Two points of view I guess I'll never understand:
1) "Use any filter you want, it doesn't matter because thousands of engines last plenty long with bulk oil and filters."
2) "Use nothing but filters.
I've said it before: risk/cost analysis.
For the manufacturer, the biggest risk to profits is using a part that's more expensive than necessary. A substantial number of failures can occur before it equals the cost of using a more expensive part on the whole production run.
For an individual owner, the "low probability of occurrence but high cost if it does occur" branch of the decision tree matters, and usually justifies spending slightly more for a highly reliable filter.
1) "Use any filter you want, it doesn't matter because thousands of engines last plenty long with bulk oil and filters."
2) "Use nothing but filters.
I've said it before: risk/cost analysis.
For the manufacturer, the biggest risk to profits is using a part that's more expensive than necessary. A substantial number of failures can occur before it equals the cost of using a more expensive part on the whole production run.
For an individual owner, the "low probability of occurrence but high cost if it does occur" branch of the decision tree matters, and usually justifies spending slightly more for a highly reliable filter.
what is it then??
Im with you ed i am a flow over filtration person also i like the way the ultra looks but i like the way most oem filters flow.. If i was sure the fram ultra flowed as well as some of the oem filters that would be my go to filter. Synthetic or not i believe the filters that catch the most dirt flow the worst and flow is the more important thing. Like i always say dirty oil lubricates no oil does not!
Looking at the ultra it seems to be a well made filter maybe one of the best but im not so sure about its flow ability Looking at the oil holes they seem smaller.
Looking at the ultra it seems to be a well made filter maybe one of the best but im not so sure about its flow ability Looking at the oil holes they seem smaller.
Originally Posted By: Skid
Here's a study (short mileage though) from the State of California, June 2008: Evaluation of High Efficiency Oil Filters in the State Fleet
https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/upload/CIWMB_Oil_Filters_State_Fleet.pdf
"No differences could be ascertained between the Fram X2 and the standard Car Quest filters performance." X2 is now ultra. Car Quest back then were Wix, I believe.
Interesting article. I thought this was worth noting from the article. If most of the over 200 articles claimed less engine wear with a higher efficiency oil filter, then can they all be wrong? As many have said, using a high efficiency oil filter isn't going to harm anything, except maybe take a few dollars out of you wallet - one less Starbuck's per year.
"Staff reviewed over 200 articles concerning HE oil filter technology and extended oil drain
intervals. Most articles had descriptions of reduction in engine wear, operating costs, and waste
generation with HE filter usage. Because most wear results from particles in the 5-20 micrometer
size range (the oil film’s thickness between moving parts), numerous studies documented a
correlation between filtration efficiency and engine wear.
The HE filters used in this study claimed filtration of particles to 1-2 microns, much better than
standard filters of 30-50 microns. Using standard filters is one reason that motor oil needs to be
changed; it gets dirty with small particles which results in engine wear. In this regard, standard
filters have not improved over the years compared to significant improvements in motor oil
quality. The oil change interval set in warranties is a result of standard filters being the limiting
factor, not the motor oil quality. Hence, higher quality filters will help to extend motor oil life to
it s full potential."
Here's a study (short mileage though) from the State of California, June 2008: Evaluation of High Efficiency Oil Filters in the State Fleet
https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/PollutionPrevention/upload/CIWMB_Oil_Filters_State_Fleet.pdf
"No differences could be ascertained between the Fram X2 and the standard Car Quest filters performance." X2 is now ultra. Car Quest back then were Wix, I believe.
Interesting article. I thought this was worth noting from the article. If most of the over 200 articles claimed less engine wear with a higher efficiency oil filter, then can they all be wrong? As many have said, using a high efficiency oil filter isn't going to harm anything, except maybe take a few dollars out of you wallet - one less Starbuck's per year.
"Staff reviewed over 200 articles concerning HE oil filter technology and extended oil drain
intervals. Most articles had descriptions of reduction in engine wear, operating costs, and waste
generation with HE filter usage. Because most wear results from particles in the 5-20 micrometer
size range (the oil film’s thickness between moving parts), numerous studies documented a
correlation between filtration efficiency and engine wear.
The HE filters used in this study claimed filtration of particles to 1-2 microns, much better than
standard filters of 30-50 microns. Using standard filters is one reason that motor oil needs to be
changed; it gets dirty with small particles which results in engine wear. In this regard, standard
filters have not improved over the years compared to significant improvements in motor oil
quality. The oil change interval set in warranties is a result of standard filters being the limiting
factor, not the motor oil quality. Hence, higher quality filters will help to extend motor oil life to
it s full potential."
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
Im with you ed i am a flow over filtration person also i like the way the ultra looks but i like the way most oem filters flow.. If i was sure the fram ultra flowed as well as some of the oem filters that would be my go to filter. Synthetic or not i believe the filters that catch the most dirt flow the worst and flow is the more important thing. Like i always say dirty oil lubricates no oil does not!
Looking at the ultra it seems to be a well made filter maybe one of the best but im not so sure about its flow ability Looking at the oil holes they seem smaller.
Really the Ultra is probably one of the best flowing filters on the market based on the date Motorking posted after I asked him if he could get flow data from Fram. I linked to that thread in some other posts.
Im with you ed i am a flow over filtration person also i like the way the ultra looks but i like the way most oem filters flow.. If i was sure the fram ultra flowed as well as some of the oem filters that would be my go to filter. Synthetic or not i believe the filters that catch the most dirt flow the worst and flow is the more important thing. Like i always say dirty oil lubricates no oil does not!
Looking at the ultra it seems to be a well made filter maybe one of the best but im not so sure about its flow ability Looking at the oil holes they seem smaller.
Really the Ultra is probably one of the best flowing filters on the market based on the date Motorking posted after I asked him if he could get flow data from Fram. I linked to that thread in some other posts.
Purolator gives you both ...........
1) 99.9% efficiency - the highest efficiency filter on the market
2) Prone to tearing - the highest flow rate filter on the market
Problem is you don't know which one you'll be getting.
Should they rename it the "Jekyll & Hyde" filter?
1) 99.9% efficiency - the highest efficiency filter on the market
2) Prone to tearing - the highest flow rate filter on the market
Problem is you don't know which one you'll be getting.
Should they rename it the "Jekyll & Hyde" filter?
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Purolator gives you both ...........
1) 99.9% efficiency - the highest efficiency filter on the market
2) Prone to tearing - the highest flow rate filter on the market
Problem is you don't know which one you'll be getting.
Should they rename it the "Jekyll & Hyde" filter?
I don't even think they're 99.9% efficient! Their website says 99% "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001" (Source: http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx ) versus the Ultra at 20 microns (Source: http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/fram-ultra-synthetic-oil-filter.aspx#1)
Ed
Purolator gives you both ...........
1) 99.9% efficiency - the highest efficiency filter on the market
2) Prone to tearing - the highest flow rate filter on the market
Problem is you don't know which one you'll be getting.
Should they rename it the "Jekyll & Hyde" filter?
I don't even think they're 99.9% efficient! Their website says 99% "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001" (Source: http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx ) versus the Ultra at 20 microns (Source: http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/fram-ultra-synthetic-oil-filter.aspx#1)
Ed
Originally Posted By: Ed_Flecko
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Purolator gives you both ...........
1) 99.9% efficiency - the highest efficiency filter on the market
2) Prone to tearing - the highest flow rate filter on the market
Problem is you don't know which one you'll be getting.
Should they rename it the "Jekyll & Hyde" filter?
I don't even think they're 99.9% efficient! Their website says 99% "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001" (Source: http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx ) versus the Ultra at 20 microns (Source: http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/fram-ultra-synthetic-oil-filter.aspx#1)
Ed
I think he is referring to the PureONE filter, not the synthetic.
Originally Posted By: aa1986
Purolator gives you both ...........
1) 99.9% efficiency - the highest efficiency filter on the market
2) Prone to tearing - the highest flow rate filter on the market
Problem is you don't know which one you'll be getting.
Should they rename it the "Jekyll & Hyde" filter?
I don't even think they're 99.9% efficient! Their website says 99% "Based on ISO 4548-12 at 25 microns on PSL30001" (Source: http://www.purolatorautofilters.net/products/oil_filters/Pages/SyntheticOilFilters.aspx ) versus the Ultra at 20 microns (Source: http://www.fram.com/oil-filters/fram-ultra-synthetic-oil-filter.aspx#1)
Ed
I think he is referring to the PureONE filter, not the synthetic.
Did motorking give the flow rates of the xg2 ?? If he did i did not see that. Im pretty sure it does not flow as good as say the Motorcraft but i would love to know how it does in real world applications anyway.
I know no matter what anyone says or thinks the few pureones i used in the past were restrictive. (around 2011-12) If they changed since i don't know.
I know no matter what anyone says or thinks the few pureones i used in the past were restrictive. (around 2011-12) If they changed since i don't know.
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: mjoekingz28
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Oh, good! This again ...
When someone shows me conclusive data that shows a statistical correlation indicating that this topic actually matters, then I'll give a darn.
Is it important to have a filter? Yes.
Is it important to worry about flow and efficiency? No!
How do we know this? There are bazillions of engines world-wide that have no access to an anal-retentive BITOG frequent flyer card, and they survive just fine.
Did I mention this?
How do you kind of people know this stuff? Ive heard it alot on here, "there are literally thousands of cars running bulk oil with no name filters running 300k miles on 5k OCIs. How do you KNOW this? Simply, i dont think you do. It is just an assumption to make you sound smart and put the person who is trying to take care of their ride at ease.
I advise you, who use numbers to make a decision, to rely less on the statistics and more on what you can see. Study the can's integrity, gasket, threads and if available, the cut open filters. I learned that there is alot of lying in Autos. I learned this in the hp game and got hooked....the car audio lies didnt affect me THAT much, but it did almost ruin/is ruining a great industry, and now the maintenance game. I dont think ive ever bought a WIX labeled filter, but I wouldnt put much stock in their claim as you shouldnt in any orher company's claim: whether it be high or low.
How do I know this?
Well - because I, for one, operate several of them.
- 1995 Villager had over 240k miles when sold; still see it running around town by current owner. Dino oil essentially it's whole life, and a test subject for extended OCIs with normal products; UOAs posted here as proof.
- 2000 Gallant has 215k miles; my daughter still drives it. No UOAs yet, but in the planning stages because it's maint schedule recommends FCIs every other OCI. Looking forward to the data! Bought it used from a personal friend; know it's whole history as I was the one whom helped maintain it.
- 2005 Grand Marquis has 185K miles on it; my wife still drives it every day. Runs GREAT and has had a steady diet of dino oil it's whole life; I know the PO. These 4.6L Panthers are coveted by taxi companies for a very good reason; they run forever with just routine maintenance.
- 1987 Taurus has over 300k miles on it; haven't spoke with current owner in a while but it was the subject of my "normalcy" article. Well documented story there.
Considering there are literally many hundreds of thousands of cars in North America alone, it is a very rational and reasonable statement to say there are thousands of cars on the road that survive well on normal products with normal O/FCIs.
I see LOTS of high-mileage vehicles, and many of them use "normal" oil and filters.
I don't know how you cannot believe this to be true.
I agree that visual observations are a useful tool. But as you suggesting that I not look at numbers? I will not ignore numbers; I embrace them. I do statistical process quality control for a living. I am a mechanical engineer by education. These disciplines put men on the moon, build a better mousetrap in nearly every conceivable product on the shelf, and make life safer in generally every aspect. Yeah - I'm not ignoring numbers.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
Oh, good! This again ...
When someone shows me conclusive data that shows a statistical correlation indicating that this topic actually matters, then I'll give a darn.
Is it important to have a filter? Yes.
Is it important to worry about flow and efficiency? No!
How do we know this? There are bazillions of engines world-wide that have no access to an anal-retentive BITOG frequent flyer card, and they survive just fine.
Did I mention this?
How do you kind of people know this stuff? Ive heard it alot on here, "there are literally thousands of cars running bulk oil with no name filters running 300k miles on 5k OCIs. How do you KNOW this? Simply, i dont think you do. It is just an assumption to make you sound smart and put the person who is trying to take care of their ride at ease.
I advise you, who use numbers to make a decision, to rely less on the statistics and more on what you can see. Study the can's integrity, gasket, threads and if available, the cut open filters. I learned that there is alot of lying in Autos. I learned this in the hp game and got hooked....the car audio lies didnt affect me THAT much, but it did almost ruin/is ruining a great industry, and now the maintenance game. I dont think ive ever bought a WIX labeled filter, but I wouldnt put much stock in their claim as you shouldnt in any orher company's claim: whether it be high or low.
How do I know this?
Well - because I, for one, operate several of them.
- 1995 Villager had over 240k miles when sold; still see it running around town by current owner. Dino oil essentially it's whole life, and a test subject for extended OCIs with normal products; UOAs posted here as proof.
- 2000 Gallant has 215k miles; my daughter still drives it. No UOAs yet, but in the planning stages because it's maint schedule recommends FCIs every other OCI. Looking forward to the data! Bought it used from a personal friend; know it's whole history as I was the one whom helped maintain it.
- 2005 Grand Marquis has 185K miles on it; my wife still drives it every day. Runs GREAT and has had a steady diet of dino oil it's whole life; I know the PO. These 4.6L Panthers are coveted by taxi companies for a very good reason; they run forever with just routine maintenance.
- 1987 Taurus has over 300k miles on it; haven't spoke with current owner in a while but it was the subject of my "normalcy" article. Well documented story there.
Considering there are literally many hundreds of thousands of cars in North America alone, it is a very rational and reasonable statement to say there are thousands of cars on the road that survive well on normal products with normal O/FCIs.
I see LOTS of high-mileage vehicles, and many of them use "normal" oil and filters.
I don't know how you cannot believe this to be true.
I agree that visual observations are a useful tool. But as you suggesting that I not look at numbers? I will not ignore numbers; I embrace them. I do statistical process quality control for a living. I am a mechanical engineer by education. These disciplines put men on the moon, build a better mousetrap in nearly every conceivable product on the shelf, and make life safer in generally every aspect. Yeah - I'm not ignoring numbers.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
Did motorking give the flow rates of the xg2 ?? If he did i did not see that. Im pretty sure it does not flow as good as say the Motorcraft but i would love to know how it does in real world applications anyway.
I know no matter what anyone says or thinks the few pureones i used in the past were restrictive. (around 2011-12) If they changed since i don't know.
The XG2 is a pretty good sized filter, the can is 3.66" dia x 3.98" long.
The XG2 specs are here ---> Ultra XG2 Specs
The filter Motorking referenced in the thread link below was a XG10060, which has a can size of 3.00" dia x 3.33" long. So the XG2 is a bit larger filter.
The XG10060 specs are here ---> Ultra XG10060 Specs
So the XG2 might have even better flow than the slightly smaller XG10060. In any case, my bet is that the FU is going to out flow a similar sized Motorcraft any time, any place.
Read this thread from here ---> Link
Go put that FU on you car and tell us what your flow calibrated ears say.
Did motorking give the flow rates of the xg2 ?? If he did i did not see that. Im pretty sure it does not flow as good as say the Motorcraft but i would love to know how it does in real world applications anyway.
I know no matter what anyone says or thinks the few pureones i used in the past were restrictive. (around 2011-12) If they changed since i don't know.
The XG2 is a pretty good sized filter, the can is 3.66" dia x 3.98" long.
The XG2 specs are here ---> Ultra XG2 Specs
The filter Motorking referenced in the thread link below was a XG10060, which has a can size of 3.00" dia x 3.33" long. So the XG2 is a bit larger filter.
The XG10060 specs are here ---> Ultra XG10060 Specs
So the XG2 might have even better flow than the slightly smaller XG10060. In any case, my bet is that the FU is going to out flow a similar sized Motorcraft any time, any place.
Read this thread from here ---> Link
Go put that FU on you car and tell us what your flow calibrated ears say.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
I will not ignore numbers; I embrace them. I do statistical process quality control for a living. I am a mechanical engineer by education. These disciplines put men on the moon, build a better mousetrap in nearly every conceivable product on the shelf, and make life safer in generally every aspect. Yeah - I'm not ignoring numbers.
I think putting men on the moon might have required a few more disciplines than just those two, but for sure, numbers would have been at the heart of many of them.
Ever seen the Deep Space Nine episode "Statistical Probabilities"?
I will not ignore numbers; I embrace them. I do statistical process quality control for a living. I am a mechanical engineer by education. These disciplines put men on the moon, build a better mousetrap in nearly every conceivable product on the shelf, and make life safer in generally every aspect. Yeah - I'm not ignoring numbers.
I think putting men on the moon might have required a few more disciplines than just those two, but for sure, numbers would have been at the heart of many of them.
Ever seen the Deep Space Nine episode "Statistical Probabilities"?
Im not sure anyone made it to the moon the first time but who cares anyway...lol (im pretty sure it was a hoax after looking at all the evidence)
Had to add this...
Had to add this...
- Status
Similar threads
