I knew it was from England when they say test dust. The @ and greater than @ mean the exact same thing here IMO. The range is 0-120. When say 20 it means all above 20 too. I see no argument or need for one. I would wager there is not one 20 micron particle in the whole cup of powder, or "dust" they throw in. Unless they are using those fancy microspheres. So they import test "dust" from England to test oil filters here, pretty expensive stuff I bet.
Toughguard vs wix
- Thread starter Alltherage
- Start date
- Status
dnewton3
Staff member
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Here's a possibility. Since WIX never says what test standard was used to achieve their efficiency numbers, it could be that it was not ISO 4548-12. Using different test procedures could yield different efficiency numbers.
The "mid 80s @ 20 microns" might be what the WIX filters test out at when using the ISO 4548-12 test standard. If Fram did their own in-house test on competitors filters, they would most likely be using ISO 4548-12.
Has anyone actually found out what test standard WIX is using?
So I just got off the phone with WIX Tech Dept, and I asked the guy if he could tell me what test specification WIX uses to determine their filter efficiencies (beta ratios).
He tells me he can not divulge that information. Hmmmm ... really? What is WIX hiding? I told him other filter manufacturer's divulge that information.
I even said depending on what test spec is used to determine efficiency, you could get a range of different numbers ... he says: "Yes, that it true." Hmmmm, again.
Then I ask him about the "Max Flow Rate" number that WIX uses in their specs ... I asked him "what does that really mean?". He says "That is the maximum amount of oil that will flow through the center hole in the base plate." I'm thinking, what does that have to do with anything relevant. I asked him if WIX has any data on flow rate vs delta-p across the media and again he comes back with "We can't share that information". I'm thinking what is this ... Area 51? LoL
And while I had him on the phone, I asked him about the WIX XP and it's low efficiency number of 50% @ 20 microns. Then he goes into the spiel about how they have to make it lower efficiency so that it won't clog up over the extended use period (10K miles). I asked how come other manufacturers like Fram, Mobil, Purolator, Royal Purple, Donaldson, etc all have extended use full synthetic filters that are rated for at least 10K mile, yet they are way more efficient. He couldn't really tell me why ... another Hummm.
Anyway, for all you guys who think the specs on WIX's website are the "bee's knee" ... they are all pretty nebulous IMO. Fram and Purolator, etc that actually reference ISO 4548-12 as the test spec they base their efficiency numbers on are way more transparent than WIX is.
And now you know why I've said for years that Wix products are still decent, but they customer service approach SUCKS!
Of course, we all have to understand that we (BITOG) are a TINY fraction of the market, and they simply have little (if any) reason to care about what we want or think.
They still make a good product, I use them, and I've never seen anything to make me consider them inferior.
But they suck, and I mean SUCK, at customer service.
BTW - it you want the old, real beta data for Wix products, I believe the FleetFilter site still has the old data. At least they did when I last checked.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Here's a possibility. Since WIX never says what test standard was used to achieve their efficiency numbers, it could be that it was not ISO 4548-12. Using different test procedures could yield different efficiency numbers.
The "mid 80s @ 20 microns" might be what the WIX filters test out at when using the ISO 4548-12 test standard. If Fram did their own in-house test on competitors filters, they would most likely be using ISO 4548-12.
Has anyone actually found out what test standard WIX is using?
So I just got off the phone with WIX Tech Dept, and I asked the guy if he could tell me what test specification WIX uses to determine their filter efficiencies (beta ratios).
He tells me he can not divulge that information. Hmmmm ... really? What is WIX hiding? I told him other filter manufacturer's divulge that information.
I even said depending on what test spec is used to determine efficiency, you could get a range of different numbers ... he says: "Yes, that it true." Hmmmm, again.
Then I ask him about the "Max Flow Rate" number that WIX uses in their specs ... I asked him "what does that really mean?". He says "That is the maximum amount of oil that will flow through the center hole in the base plate." I'm thinking, what does that have to do with anything relevant. I asked him if WIX has any data on flow rate vs delta-p across the media and again he comes back with "We can't share that information". I'm thinking what is this ... Area 51? LoL
And while I had him on the phone, I asked him about the WIX XP and it's low efficiency number of 50% @ 20 microns. Then he goes into the spiel about how they have to make it lower efficiency so that it won't clog up over the extended use period (10K miles). I asked how come other manufacturers like Fram, Mobil, Purolator, Royal Purple, Donaldson, etc all have extended use full synthetic filters that are rated for at least 10K mile, yet they are way more efficient. He couldn't really tell me why ... another Hummm.
Anyway, for all you guys who think the specs on WIX's website are the "bee's knee" ... they are all pretty nebulous IMO. Fram and Purolator, etc that actually reference ISO 4548-12 as the test spec they base their efficiency numbers on are way more transparent than WIX is.
And now you know why I've said for years that Wix products are still decent, but they customer service approach SUCKS!
Of course, we all have to understand that we (BITOG) are a TINY fraction of the market, and they simply have little (if any) reason to care about what we want or think.
They still make a good product, I use them, and I've never seen anything to make me consider them inferior.
But they suck, and I mean SUCK, at customer service.
BTW - it you want the old, real beta data for Wix products, I believe the FleetFilter site still has the old data. At least they did when I last checked.
Originally Posted By: dnewton3
They still make a good product, I use them, and I've never seen anything to make me consider them inferior.
But they suck, and I mean SUCK, at customer service.
Exactly. Fram sells well, particularly up here, because of aggressive marketing. It's not because of magical efficiency or their level of customer service or having the best price bar none. They market it, they're out there on the shelves, and they work. The same goes for Wix up here, or anything else that's relatively widely available.
We might like if a filter company gave us completely transparent efficiency data on every application in their catalog. But, I bet it would appeal almost solely to BITOG types, and that wouldn't be a very lucrative marketing strategy.
They still make a good product, I use them, and I've never seen anything to make me consider them inferior.
But they suck, and I mean SUCK, at customer service.
Exactly. Fram sells well, particularly up here, because of aggressive marketing. It's not because of magical efficiency or their level of customer service or having the best price bar none. They market it, they're out there on the shelves, and they work. The same goes for Wix up here, or anything else that's relatively widely available.
We might like if a filter company gave us completely transparent efficiency data on every application in their catalog. But, I bet it would appeal almost solely to BITOG types, and that wouldn't be a very lucrative marketing strategy.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I knew it was from England when they say test dust. The @ and greater than @ mean the exact same thing here IMO. The range is 0-120. When say 20 it means all above 20 too. I see no argument or need for one. I would wager there is not one 20 micron particle in the whole cup of powder, or "dust" they throw in. Unless they are using those fancy microspheres. So they import test "dust" from England to test oil filters here, pretty expensive stuff I bet.
It doesn't have to be from England, that was just the first site I saw that listed the particle size distribution for ISO Medium Test Dust.
Here's a company in the USA as another example, with the history of test dusts (you do have to flip through several pages to see the full history). Page 3 details the use of ISO Medium Test Dust for automotive oil filters on this site and specifically mentions ISO 4548-12.
http://www.powdertechnologyinc.com/test-dust-contaminants/test-dust-history/
AC Fine Test Dust was the standard when I worked with filtration in petroleum refining & petrochemical applications in the 90's, it's nice to see things are more standardized and no monopoly of supply today.
ZeeOSix - how about picking up the red phone and asking Batman what test dust ISO 4548-12 specifies to use? Might get more info from the Batcave than Area 51.
In Fram's videos on how they test their Oil Filters, it sure looks like particle counts are used in testing, and the > pretty much follows logical sense (see how the test dust fractions are additive / cumulative up to 100% being equal to OR below 120 microns in ISO Medium Test Dust table I previously posted)? It would be like trying to build a vacuum cleaner that only picks up particles of a certain size range into the bag - for example picking up dust but leaving pet hair behind.
I really don't follow the hypothetical where particle size collection at 35 microns is < particle size collection at 40 microns and all particle size distributions are 1:1 the same vs. what the specs are for ISO Medium Test Dust so I can't comment on the hypothetical procedure hypothesized a few posts back (FutureDoc).
I knew it was from England when they say test dust. The @ and greater than @ mean the exact same thing here IMO. The range is 0-120. When say 20 it means all above 20 too. I see no argument or need for one. I would wager there is not one 20 micron particle in the whole cup of powder, or "dust" they throw in. Unless they are using those fancy microspheres. So they import test "dust" from England to test oil filters here, pretty expensive stuff I bet.
It doesn't have to be from England, that was just the first site I saw that listed the particle size distribution for ISO Medium Test Dust.
Here's a company in the USA as another example, with the history of test dusts (you do have to flip through several pages to see the full history). Page 3 details the use of ISO Medium Test Dust for automotive oil filters on this site and specifically mentions ISO 4548-12.
http://www.powdertechnologyinc.com/test-dust-contaminants/test-dust-history/
AC Fine Test Dust was the standard when I worked with filtration in petroleum refining & petrochemical applications in the 90's, it's nice to see things are more standardized and no monopoly of supply today.
ZeeOSix - how about picking up the red phone and asking Batman what test dust ISO 4548-12 specifies to use? Might get more info from the Batcave than Area 51.
In Fram's videos on how they test their Oil Filters, it sure looks like particle counts are used in testing, and the > pretty much follows logical sense (see how the test dust fractions are additive / cumulative up to 100% being equal to OR below 120 microns in ISO Medium Test Dust table I previously posted)? It would be like trying to build a vacuum cleaner that only picks up particles of a certain size range into the bag - for example picking up dust but leaving pet hair behind.
I really don't follow the hypothetical where particle size collection at 35 microns is < particle size collection at 40 microns and all particle size distributions are 1:1 the same vs. what the specs are for ISO Medium Test Dust so I can't comment on the hypothetical procedure hypothesized a few posts back (FutureDoc).
Last edited:
edit - page 4 of the Powder Technology Link is where ISO 4548-12 (and prior SAE J1858) is mentioned in connection with ISO Medium Test Dust (not page 3)
http://www.powdertechnologyinc.com/test-dust-contaminants/test-dust-history/#tabs-4
http://www.powdertechnologyinc.com/test-dust-contaminants/test-dust-history/#tabs-4
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I knew it was from England when they say test dust. The @ and greater than @ mean the exact same thing here IMO. The range is 0-120. When say 20 it means all above 20 too. I see no argument or need for one. I would wager there is not one 20 micron particle in the whole cup of powder, or "dust" they throw in. Unless they are using those fancy microspheres. So they import test "dust" from England to test oil filters here, pretty expensive stuff I bet.
The "I" in ISO stands for international. Use in England... and the US too.
When they count the particles, they count the size, shape, and number. It is a really cool process where they "see" the particles passing though. It is as easy (or hard) as counting cars on the highway.
They don't just dump a bit of unknown dust in and figure things out, it is actually very much controlled. For testing AT 20um, they have a sample that says XX% lets just say 95% of those particles are going to be within a tolerance window (distribution) Example, X% will be between one standard dev, and another X% will be between two stdev. So, loosely speaking be between (example) about 20.05um and 19.95um and then 21um and 19um specified by the researcher. So, when a filter says it catches 95% AT 20um, it also technically has to catch those 19.99 and lower within the stdev of the test too. That is why the "at" symbol is a lot more precise about what is being tested as the ">" could mean a sum of anything above 20... as you would use the "greater than or equal" if it was 20.001 and above
I knew it was from England when they say test dust. The @ and greater than @ mean the exact same thing here IMO. The range is 0-120. When say 20 it means all above 20 too. I see no argument or need for one. I would wager there is not one 20 micron particle in the whole cup of powder, or "dust" they throw in. Unless they are using those fancy microspheres. So they import test "dust" from England to test oil filters here, pretty expensive stuff I bet.
The "I" in ISO stands for international. Use in England... and the US too.
When they count the particles, they count the size, shape, and number. It is a really cool process where they "see" the particles passing though. It is as easy (or hard) as counting cars on the highway.
They don't just dump a bit of unknown dust in and figure things out, it is actually very much controlled. For testing AT 20um, they have a sample that says XX% lets just say 95% of those particles are going to be within a tolerance window (distribution) Example, X% will be between one standard dev, and another X% will be between two stdev. So, loosely speaking be between (example) about 20.05um and 19.95um and then 21um and 19um specified by the researcher. So, when a filter says it catches 95% AT 20um, it also technically has to catch those 19.99 and lower within the stdev of the test too. That is why the "at" symbol is a lot more precise about what is being tested as the ">" could mean a sum of anything above 20... as you would use the "greater than or equal" if it was 20.001 and above
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
In Fram's videos on how they test their Oil Filters, it sure looks like particle counts are used in testing, and the > pretty much follows logical sense (see how the test dust fractions are additive / cumulative up to 100% being equal to OR below 120 microns in ISO Medium Test Dust table I previously posted)? It would be like trying to build a vacuum cleaner that only picks up particles of a certain size range into the bag - for example picking up dust but leaving pet hair behind.
I really don't follow the hypothetical where particle size collection at 35 microns is < particle size collection at 40 microns and all particle size distributions are 1:1 the same vs. what the specs are for ISO Medium Test Dust so I can't comment on the hypothetical procedure hypothesized a few posts back (FutureDoc).
With Fram 99% > 20, to validate that claim, you need to know the efficiency of the filter at various levels (how efficient is it at 20, 30, 40, and up to 80). Because the number (N) of each particle is a known range, you can validate the cumulative efficiency. In laymans terms, you need to know what they are counting (the particle size) and how many (distribution of the particle size... which is provided in the dust example). This is not random capture, it is a capture of a known quantity at a know level.
For the vacuum example, we can say 99% at 20um because it was a sterile rug and we only sprinkled 20um size particles or a mix with a known number of 20um particles and deduct the rest. Fram is saying they captured 99% at dust and dog-hair but not giving us how much of each is in that vacuum bin before and after. We do not know the dust-to-doghair amounts. Worse, they could be weighting the dust/doghair and since dog-hair is heavier it would count more. Although this is less likely, it is a plausible scenario just as WIX "could be" using something that is not ISO 4548-12.
In Fram's videos on how they test their Oil Filters, it sure looks like particle counts are used in testing, and the > pretty much follows logical sense (see how the test dust fractions are additive / cumulative up to 100% being equal to OR below 120 microns in ISO Medium Test Dust table I previously posted)? It would be like trying to build a vacuum cleaner that only picks up particles of a certain size range into the bag - for example picking up dust but leaving pet hair behind.
I really don't follow the hypothetical where particle size collection at 35 microns is < particle size collection at 40 microns and all particle size distributions are 1:1 the same vs. what the specs are for ISO Medium Test Dust so I can't comment on the hypothetical procedure hypothesized a few posts back (FutureDoc).
With Fram 99% > 20, to validate that claim, you need to know the efficiency of the filter at various levels (how efficient is it at 20, 30, 40, and up to 80). Because the number (N) of each particle is a known range, you can validate the cumulative efficiency. In laymans terms, you need to know what they are counting (the particle size) and how many (distribution of the particle size... which is provided in the dust example). This is not random capture, it is a capture of a known quantity at a know level.
For the vacuum example, we can say 99% at 20um because it was a sterile rug and we only sprinkled 20um size particles or a mix with a known number of 20um particles and deduct the rest. Fram is saying they captured 99% at dust and dog-hair but not giving us how much of each is in that vacuum bin before and after. We do not know the dust-to-doghair amounts. Worse, they could be weighting the dust/doghair and since dog-hair is heavier it would count more. Although this is less likely, it is a plausible scenario just as WIX "could be" using something that is not ISO 4548-12.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
In Fram's videos on how they test their Oil Filters, it sure looks like particle counts are used in testing, and the > pretty much follows logical sense (see how the test dust fractions are additive / cumulative up to 100% being equal to OR below 120 microns in ISO Medium Test Dust table I previously posted)? It would be like trying to build a vacuum cleaner that only picks up particles of a certain size range into the bag - for example picking up dust but leaving pet hair behind.
I really don't follow the hypothetical where particle size collection at 35 microns is < particle size collection at 40 microns and all particle size distributions are 1:1 the same vs. what the specs are for ISO Medium Test Dust so I can't comment on the hypothetical procedure hypothesized a few posts back (FutureDoc).
With Fram 99% > 20, to validate that claim, you need to know the efficiency of the filter at various levels (how efficient is it at 20, 30, 40, and up to 80). Because the number (N) of each particle is a known range, you can validate the cumulative efficiency. In laymans terms, you need to know what they are counting (the particle size) and how many (distribution of the particle size... which is provided in the dust example). This is not random capture, it is a capture of a known quantity at a know level.
The ISO 4548-12 test breaks down the efficiency at different particle sizes. Since the ISO 4548-12 test spec certainly calls out to use ISO test dust (most likely the ISO 12103-1, A3 Medium Test Dust), I don't see how Fram or anyone else who uses/references ISO 4548-12 can fudge the test result numbers. It's either 99% efficient to remove all the test dust particles >20 microns or not. If the filter can remove 99% of all particles that are 20.001 microns or larger, then it's essentially "99% @ 20 microns" efficient.
And naturally how filters work, they are more efficient at removing larger particles, so even if the ">20 microns" statement it used and if the efficiency at 20, 30, 40, 50, etc was listed, you would see that the filter would be more efficient at the larger particle sizes. If it was 99% @20 microns then it would most certainly be 100% at some of the larger sizes of particles.
FutureDoc, I appreciate your effort to look for every angle possible to explain away the ">20 microns" statement, but since certified ISO test dust is used in the ISO efficiency test, I just don't see how using ">20 microns" is going to change anything different than saying "@20 microns".
You did read this, which was linked earlier? It gives some good information.
Oil Filter Efficiency Testing
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
In Fram's videos on how they test their Oil Filters, it sure looks like particle counts are used in testing, and the > pretty much follows logical sense (see how the test dust fractions are additive / cumulative up to 100% being equal to OR below 120 microns in ISO Medium Test Dust table I previously posted)? It would be like trying to build a vacuum cleaner that only picks up particles of a certain size range into the bag - for example picking up dust but leaving pet hair behind.
I really don't follow the hypothetical where particle size collection at 35 microns is < particle size collection at 40 microns and all particle size distributions are 1:1 the same vs. what the specs are for ISO Medium Test Dust so I can't comment on the hypothetical procedure hypothesized a few posts back (FutureDoc).
With Fram 99% > 20, to validate that claim, you need to know the efficiency of the filter at various levels (how efficient is it at 20, 30, 40, and up to 80). Because the number (N) of each particle is a known range, you can validate the cumulative efficiency. In laymans terms, you need to know what they are counting (the particle size) and how many (distribution of the particle size... which is provided in the dust example). This is not random capture, it is a capture of a known quantity at a know level.
The ISO 4548-12 test breaks down the efficiency at different particle sizes. Since the ISO 4548-12 test spec certainly calls out to use ISO test dust (most likely the ISO 12103-1, A3 Medium Test Dust), I don't see how Fram or anyone else who uses/references ISO 4548-12 can fudge the test result numbers. It's either 99% efficient to remove all the test dust particles >20 microns or not. If the filter can remove 99% of all particles that are 20.001 microns or larger, then it's essentially "99% @ 20 microns" efficient.
And naturally how filters work, they are more efficient at removing larger particles, so even if the ">20 microns" statement it used and if the efficiency at 20, 30, 40, 50, etc was listed, you would see that the filter would be more efficient at the larger particle sizes. If it was 99% @20 microns then it would most certainly be 100% at some of the larger sizes of particles.
FutureDoc, I appreciate your effort to look for every angle possible to explain away the ">20 microns" statement, but since certified ISO test dust is used in the ISO efficiency test, I just don't see how using ">20 microns" is going to change anything different than saying "@20 microns".
You did read this, which was linked earlier? It gives some good information.
Oil Filter Efficiency Testing
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I knew it was from England when they say test dust. The @ and greater than @ mean the exact same thing here IMO. The range is 0-120. When say 20 it means all above 20 too. I see no argument or need for one. I would wager there is not one 20 micron particle in the whole cup of powder, or "dust" they throw in. Unless they are using those fancy microspheres. So they import test "dust" from England to test oil filters here, pretty expensive stuff I bet.
The "I" in ISO stands for international. Use in England... and the US too.
When they count the particles, they count the size, shape, and number. It is a really cool process where they "see" the particles passing though. It is as easy (or hard) as counting cars on the highway.
They don't just dump a bit of unknown dust in and figure things out, it is actually very much controlled. For testing AT 20um, they have a sample that says XX% lets just say 95% of those particles are going to be within a tolerance window (distribution) Example, X% will be between one standard dev, and another X% will be between two stdev. So, loosely speaking be between (example) about 20.05um and 19.95um and then 21um and 19um specified by the researcher. So, when a filter says it catches 95% AT 20um, it also technically has to catch those 19.99 and lower within the stdev of the test too. That is why the "at" symbol is a lot more precise about what is being tested as the ">" could mean a sum of anything above 20... as you would use the "greater than or equal" if it was 20.001 and above
I think you're probably over analyzing it. At and greater are two different things, but in this case the vagaries of language and people describing the same test different ways meaning the same thing. Like the table shows, 100% are under 120, or some might say 100% at 120. I see it as just terminology. I never hear abrasives called dust in America, we usually say abrasive powders.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I knew it was from England when they say test dust. The @ and greater than @ mean the exact same thing here IMO. The range is 0-120. When say 20 it means all above 20 too. I see no argument or need for one. I would wager there is not one 20 micron particle in the whole cup of powder, or "dust" they throw in. Unless they are using those fancy microspheres. So they import test "dust" from England to test oil filters here, pretty expensive stuff I bet.
The "I" in ISO stands for international. Use in England... and the US too.
When they count the particles, they count the size, shape, and number. It is a really cool process where they "see" the particles passing though. It is as easy (or hard) as counting cars on the highway.
They don't just dump a bit of unknown dust in and figure things out, it is actually very much controlled. For testing AT 20um, they have a sample that says XX% lets just say 95% of those particles are going to be within a tolerance window (distribution) Example, X% will be between one standard dev, and another X% will be between two stdev. So, loosely speaking be between (example) about 20.05um and 19.95um and then 21um and 19um specified by the researcher. So, when a filter says it catches 95% AT 20um, it also technically has to catch those 19.99 and lower within the stdev of the test too. That is why the "at" symbol is a lot more precise about what is being tested as the ">" could mean a sum of anything above 20... as you would use the "greater than or equal" if it was 20.001 and above
I think you're probably over analyzing it. At and greater are two different things, but in this case the vagaries of language and people describing the same test different ways meaning the same thing. Like the table shows, 100% are under 120, or some might say 100% at 120. I see it as just terminology. I never hear abrasives called dust in America, we usually say abrasive powders.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
edit - page 4 of the Powder Technology Link is where ISO 4548-12 (and prior SAE J1858) is mentioned in connection with ISO Medium Test Dust (not page 3)
http://www.powdertechnologyinc.com/test-dust-contaminants/test-dust-history/#tabs-4
Good find ... thanks for you inputs.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
ZeeOSix - how about picking up the red phone and asking Batman what test dust ISO 4548-12 specifies to use? Might get more info from the Batcave than Area 51.
LOL ...
Looking at the test dust link you provided, I'd venture to guess it would be the "ISO 12103-1, A3 Medium Test Dust is nominal 0-80 micron size."
edit - page 4 of the Powder Technology Link is where ISO 4548-12 (and prior SAE J1858) is mentioned in connection with ISO Medium Test Dust (not page 3)
http://www.powdertechnologyinc.com/test-dust-contaminants/test-dust-history/#tabs-4
Good find ... thanks for you inputs.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
ZeeOSix - how about picking up the red phone and asking Batman what test dust ISO 4548-12 specifies to use? Might get more info from the Batcave than Area 51.
LOL ...
Looking at the test dust link you provided, I'd venture to guess it would be the "ISO 12103-1, A3 Medium Test Dust is nominal 0-80 micron size."
FutureDoc - did you miss these specs for the test dust for the ISO 4548-12 test Fram and Purolator and Champion Labs (but not Wix) reference in their efficiency testing?
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Here are the specs for ISO Medium Test Dust, which is typically used to test filtration efficiency in the 5 to 80 micron range.
ISO 12103-1 A3 Medium - (view spec)
Particle Size Distribution by Volume %
http://www.particletechnology.com/test-dust
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
edit - page 4 of the Powder Technology Link is where ISO 4548-12 (and prior SAE J1858) is mentioned in connection with ISO Medium Test Dust (not page 3)
http://www.powdertechnologyinc.com/test-dust-contaminants/test-dust-history/#tabs-4
If not how does the sprinkling of one select particle size on a sterile rug to vacuum analogy apply at all to data reported via ISO 4548-12 (and it predecessor SAE J1858 test)?
Although Wix could be using a different test, doesn't the Champion Labs ISO 4548-12 test data indicate reasonable values for Wix published efficiency for Wix / NG and additionally entry level now-made-by-Wix Microguard (and WIX unpublished efficiency in the entry level Wix 'made-fors' such as napa proselect, Pro-tec, and at the time in 2007 including Carquest), even though the Champion Labs testing was reported at 25 microns (and obviously above examining the specs for ISO Medium Test Dust?
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Why not use the ISO 4548-12 test results for Wix and Wix made-fors on the second page of this document?
http://www.mobil.com/Shared-Files-LCW/mobil-1-ep-oil-filter-design_amer_en.pdf
Have you ever watched this video from the Batcave? Look around 2:30.
It shows a specific amount of test dust being weighed to add to the oil - the most likely reasonable reason is to meet a spec in the ISO 4548-12 protocol in terms of Mass concentration of ISO Medium Test Dust in the slurry / liquid being supplied to the inlet of the filter (and from the other posted links, the powder must conform to the particle size distribution defined for ISO Medium Test Dust).
Note that a company NOT following the ISO 4548-12 protocol COULD skew their efficiency numbers by reporting the Mass capture efficiency since larger particles carry more mass. But it doesn't appear Wix does that based on the Champion Labs ISO 4548-12 testing.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Here are the specs for ISO Medium Test Dust, which is typically used to test filtration efficiency in the 5 to 80 micron range.
ISO 12103-1 A3 Medium - (view spec)
Particle Size Distribution by Volume %
http://www.particletechnology.com/test-dust
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
edit - page 4 of the Powder Technology Link is where ISO 4548-12 (and prior SAE J1858) is mentioned in connection with ISO Medium Test Dust (not page 3)
http://www.powdertechnologyinc.com/test-dust-contaminants/test-dust-history/#tabs-4
If not how does the sprinkling of one select particle size on a sterile rug to vacuum analogy apply at all to data reported via ISO 4548-12 (and it predecessor SAE J1858 test)?
Although Wix could be using a different test, doesn't the Champion Labs ISO 4548-12 test data indicate reasonable values for Wix published efficiency for Wix / NG and additionally entry level now-made-by-Wix Microguard (and WIX unpublished efficiency in the entry level Wix 'made-fors' such as napa proselect, Pro-tec, and at the time in 2007 including Carquest), even though the Champion Labs testing was reported at 25 microns (and obviously above examining the specs for ISO Medium Test Dust?
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Why not use the ISO 4548-12 test results for Wix and Wix made-fors on the second page of this document?
http://www.mobil.com/Shared-Files-LCW/mobil-1-ep-oil-filter-design_amer_en.pdf
Have you ever watched this video from the Batcave? Look around 2:30.
It shows a specific amount of test dust being weighed to add to the oil - the most likely reasonable reason is to meet a spec in the ISO 4548-12 protocol in terms of Mass concentration of ISO Medium Test Dust in the slurry / liquid being supplied to the inlet of the filter (and from the other posted links, the powder must conform to the particle size distribution defined for ISO Medium Test Dust).
Note that a company NOT following the ISO 4548-12 protocol COULD skew their efficiency numbers by reporting the Mass capture efficiency since larger particles carry more mass. But it doesn't appear Wix does that based on the Champion Labs ISO 4548-12 testing.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I knew it was from England when they say test dust. The @ and greater than @ mean the exact same thing here IMO. The range is 0-120. When say 20 it means all above 20 too. I see no argument or need for one. I would wager there is not one 20 micron particle in the whole cup of powder, or "dust" they throw in. Unless they are using those fancy microspheres. So they import test "dust" from England to test oil filters here, pretty expensive stuff I bet.
Actually the table shows 5 microns ≤ ISO Medium Test Dust ≤ 120 microns, with specific micron ranges between those bounds to contain a specific volume fraction range of that size particle range.
The "I" in ISO stands for international. Use in England... and the US too.
When they count the particles, they count the size, shape, and number. It is a really cool process where they "see" the particles passing though. It is as easy (or hard) as counting cars on the highway.
They don't just dump a bit of unknown dust in and figure things out, it is actually very much controlled. For testing AT 20um, they have a sample that says XX% lets just say 95% of those particles are going to be within a tolerance window (distribution) Example, X% will be between one standard dev, and another X% will be between two stdev. So, loosely speaking be between (example) about 20.05um and 19.95um and then 21um and 19um specified by the researcher. So, when a filter says it catches 95% AT 20um, it also technically has to catch those 19.99 and lower within the stdev of the test too. That is why the "at" symbol is a lot more precise about what is being tested as the ">" could mean a sum of anything above 20... as you would use the "greater than or equal" if it was 20.001 and above
I think you're probably over analyzing it. At and greater are two different things, but in this case the vagaries of language and people describing the same test different ways meaning the same thing. Like the table shows, 100% are under 120, or some might say 100% at 120. I see it as just terminology. I never hear abrasives called dust in America, we usually say abrasive powders.
Actually the table shows at its bounds:
1 micron is less than OR equal to ISO Medium Test Dust is less than OR equal to 120 microns.
Within those bounds specific volume fractions are specified for specific particle sizes.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I knew it was from England when they say test dust. The @ and greater than @ mean the exact same thing here IMO. The range is 0-120. When say 20 it means all above 20 too. I see no argument or need for one. I would wager there is not one 20 micron particle in the whole cup of powder, or "dust" they throw in. Unless they are using those fancy microspheres. So they import test "dust" from England to test oil filters here, pretty expensive stuff I bet.
Actually the table shows 5 microns ≤ ISO Medium Test Dust ≤ 120 microns, with specific micron ranges between those bounds to contain a specific volume fraction range of that size particle range.
The "I" in ISO stands for international. Use in England... and the US too.
When they count the particles, they count the size, shape, and number. It is a really cool process where they "see" the particles passing though. It is as easy (or hard) as counting cars on the highway.
They don't just dump a bit of unknown dust in and figure things out, it is actually very much controlled. For testing AT 20um, they have a sample that says XX% lets just say 95% of those particles are going to be within a tolerance window (distribution) Example, X% will be between one standard dev, and another X% will be between two stdev. So, loosely speaking be between (example) about 20.05um and 19.95um and then 21um and 19um specified by the researcher. So, when a filter says it catches 95% AT 20um, it also technically has to catch those 19.99 and lower within the stdev of the test too. That is why the "at" symbol is a lot more precise about what is being tested as the ">" could mean a sum of anything above 20... as you would use the "greater than or equal" if it was 20.001 and above
I think you're probably over analyzing it. At and greater are two different things, but in this case the vagaries of language and people describing the same test different ways meaning the same thing. Like the table shows, 100% are under 120, or some might say 100% at 120. I see it as just terminology. I never hear abrasives called dust in America, we usually say abrasive powders.
Actually the table shows at its bounds:
1 micron is less than OR equal to ISO Medium Test Dust is less than OR equal to 120 microns.
Within those bounds specific volume fractions are specified for specific particle sizes.
Last edited:
Also by measuring the mass of the test dust (and mass of the carrying liquid) the dirt holding capacity can be measured by the LOSS of mass of test dust from the combined slurry to the filter media at the pressure differential corresponding to the bypass valve opening differential pressure. The video indicates adding the test dust to the fluid after the fluid has already been circulating through the filter so filling the filter with fluid and saturating the media would be taken into account quite simply vs. trying to weigh the filter before & after the test to such precision.
Last edited:
The only thing I see important to learn is Wicks does not tell what test they use. Although I like Denso filters which have no efficiency rating at all. I believe the @ or > is all talk about nothing, it's people using terminology as the see fit. Like many say abrasive powders and very few to none say abrasive dust. Powder and dust refer to the same thing. Just as @ and > do when referring to the same test.
Here's a curve showing how the typical efficiency curve would look like for an oil filter when tested by a procedure that measures efficiency at various particle sizes). Even though this data says it's for a Single Pass test, the curves would look similar for a multi-pass test like ISO 4548-12.
Looking at the table for Filters A & E, they are rated at "98% @ 40 microns". When you look at the efficiency vs particle size curve, you can see that Filters A & E are approximately:
21% @ 9 microns
44% @ 15 microns
65% @ 20 microns
98% @ 40 microns
One could also say for each one of these data points, and be accurate in saying so, that Filter A & E are:
21% efficient for particles >9 microns
44% efficient for particles >15 microns
65% efficient for particles >20 microns
98% efficient for particles >40 microns
Looking at the table for Filters A & E, they are rated at "98% @ 40 microns". When you look at the efficiency vs particle size curve, you can see that Filters A & E are approximately:
21% @ 9 microns
44% @ 15 microns
65% @ 20 microns
98% @ 40 microns
One could also say for each one of these data points, and be accurate in saying so, that Filter A & E are:
21% efficient for particles >9 microns
44% efficient for particles >15 microns
65% efficient for particles >20 microns
98% efficient for particles >40 microns
If you can't find ISO 4548-12 test data for a brand of filter from that filter manufacturer, the best place to look is comparison charts from a competitor such as the previously linked data from Champion Labs or as another example the Amsoil Ea filters data sheet.
http://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g2192.pdf
Any "leaps" (extrapolation, interpolation, extreme hypotheticals, etc.) are at the discretion of the jumper.
What I personally choose as reasonable "leaps" for me are:
1. For a given media composition / construction, filtration efficiency reported using ISO 4548-12 at a given particle size will be virtually the same regardless of size of the filter element.
1A. IF one has tabular data from ISO 4548-12 testing across the ISO Medium Test Dust range, one can construct a graph of that particular filter's (or media's) efficiency vs. particle size, and see what the efficiency is at any given particle size along the range of particle sizes used & measured (as ZeeOSix has shown). For example, if we had such data for all the filters shown in the previously linked Champion Labs testing, we could reasonably what the efficiency was at 20 microns instead of 25 microns for all the filters data was reported for. On the flip side, reporting at 25 microns may have been done by plotting data at measurement points not equal to 25 microns, then finding the mathematical calculated efficiency was at 25 microns through graphs or data regression analysis / curve fitting. Without the actual data along the range of particle sizes extrapolation or interpolation should be limited to very small steps from the reported data point (or points) as the test dust used does not have a linear particle size distribution and it is unlikely the filter / media will have a perfectly linear efficiency across the spectrum of particle size distribution. Extrapolation from any single data point is always unwise. This can all be tempered to varying degrees by first asking "would it be reasonable . . ."
2. Dirt holding capacity reported using ISO 4548-12 is a function of both filter media and bypass valve opening differential pressure. So dirt holding capacity is not necessarily increased or decreased as the physical size of a filter element is increased or decreased, nor necessarily when counting media pleats or media surface area between filters with different bypass valve opening differential pressures. For filter applications with no bypass valve (bypass is in the engine) it will depend on what that engine's bypass opening differential pressure is (and how stable it remains over the life of the engine).
It will be interesting to see what these results will look like when Fram starts reporting the average of an increased number of filter models / sizes in their offerings as Jay has indicated. I may find my personal "leaps" remain reasonable or I may need to revise them.
http://www.amsoil.com/lit/databulletins/g2192.pdf
Any "leaps" (extrapolation, interpolation, extreme hypotheticals, etc.) are at the discretion of the jumper.
What I personally choose as reasonable "leaps" for me are:
1. For a given media composition / construction, filtration efficiency reported using ISO 4548-12 at a given particle size will be virtually the same regardless of size of the filter element.
1A. IF one has tabular data from ISO 4548-12 testing across the ISO Medium Test Dust range, one can construct a graph of that particular filter's (or media's) efficiency vs. particle size, and see what the efficiency is at any given particle size along the range of particle sizes used & measured (as ZeeOSix has shown). For example, if we had such data for all the filters shown in the previously linked Champion Labs testing, we could reasonably what the efficiency was at 20 microns instead of 25 microns for all the filters data was reported for. On the flip side, reporting at 25 microns may have been done by plotting data at measurement points not equal to 25 microns, then finding the mathematical calculated efficiency was at 25 microns through graphs or data regression analysis / curve fitting. Without the actual data along the range of particle sizes extrapolation or interpolation should be limited to very small steps from the reported data point (or points) as the test dust used does not have a linear particle size distribution and it is unlikely the filter / media will have a perfectly linear efficiency across the spectrum of particle size distribution. Extrapolation from any single data point is always unwise. This can all be tempered to varying degrees by first asking "would it be reasonable . . ."
2. Dirt holding capacity reported using ISO 4548-12 is a function of both filter media and bypass valve opening differential pressure. So dirt holding capacity is not necessarily increased or decreased as the physical size of a filter element is increased or decreased, nor necessarily when counting media pleats or media surface area between filters with different bypass valve opening differential pressures. For filter applications with no bypass valve (bypass is in the engine) it will depend on what that engine's bypass opening differential pressure is (and how stable it remains over the life of the engine).
It will be interesting to see what these results will look like when Fram starts reporting the average of an increased number of filter models / sizes in their offerings as Jay has indicated. I may find my personal "leaps" remain reasonable or I may need to revise them.
Nyogtha: well put.
1. Agreed. I would use the "it would be similar" language for me.
Quote:
Without the actual data along the range of particle sizes extrapolation or interpolation should be limited to very small steps from the reported data point (or points) as the test dust used does not have a linear particle size distribution and it is unlikely the filter / media will have a perfectly linear efficiency across the spectrum of particle size distribution. Extrapolation from any single data point is always unwise. This can all be tempered to varying degrees by first asking "would it be reasonable . . ."
1A Agreed. Without knowing the multiple points of data, there is a risk of overstatement or apples
ranges comparison. It seems to me that we are either dealing with a manufacture that either gives us a point of data without the big picture or one that gives the big picture without any points of data.
2: Agreed.
Very reasonable.
1. Agreed. I would use the "it would be similar" language for me.
Quote:
Without the actual data along the range of particle sizes extrapolation or interpolation should be limited to very small steps from the reported data point (or points) as the test dust used does not have a linear particle size distribution and it is unlikely the filter / media will have a perfectly linear efficiency across the spectrum of particle size distribution. Extrapolation from any single data point is always unwise. This can all be tempered to varying degrees by first asking "would it be reasonable . . ."
1A Agreed. Without knowing the multiple points of data, there is a risk of overstatement or apples
ranges comparison. It seems to me that we are either dealing with a manufacture that either gives us a point of data without the big picture or one that gives the big picture without any points of data. 2: Agreed.
Very reasonable.
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
1A. IF one has tabular data from ISO 4548-12 testing across the ISO Medium Test Dust range, one can construct a graph of that particular filter's (or media's) efficiency vs. particle size, and see what the efficiency is at any given particle size along the range of particle sizes used & measured (as ZeeOSix has shown). For example, if we had such data for all the filters shown in the previously linked Champion Labs testing, we could reasonably what the efficiency was at 20 microns instead of 25 microns for all the filters data was reported for. On the flip side, reporting at 25 microns may have been done by plotting data at measurement points not equal to 25 microns, then finding the mathematical calculated efficiency was at 25 microns through graphs or data regression analysis / curve fitting. Without the actual data along the range of particle sizes extrapolation or interpolation should be limited to very small steps from the reported data point (or points) as the test dust used does not have a linear particle size distribution and it is unlikely the filter / media will have a perfectly linear efficiency across the spectrum of particle size distribution. Extrapolation from any single data point is always unwise. This can all be tempered to varying degrees by first asking "would it be reasonable . . ."
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Nyogtha: well put.
1A Agreed. Without knowing the multiple points of data, there is a risk of overstatement or applesranges comparison. It seems to me that we are either dealing with a manufacture that either gives us a point of data without the big picture or one that gives the big picture without any points of data.
Even if the manufacturer only gives one data point (ie, 65% @ 20 microns from my curve example above), then anyone knowing how filters work would realize that the filter is even higher efficiency at particles above 20 microns, just as the curves show.
Therefore, you really don't need to know the "multiple points of data" unless you were splitting hairs and focusing directly on one or two specific particle sizes for some reason.
It seems most manufactures that state an efficiency, use 20 or 25 microns as the point they report at. And as said previously, saying ">xx microns" and "@xx microns" really means the same thing when you look at the "Efficiency vs Particle Size" efficiency curve.
1A. IF one has tabular data from ISO 4548-12 testing across the ISO Medium Test Dust range, one can construct a graph of that particular filter's (or media's) efficiency vs. particle size, and see what the efficiency is at any given particle size along the range of particle sizes used & measured (as ZeeOSix has shown). For example, if we had such data for all the filters shown in the previously linked Champion Labs testing, we could reasonably what the efficiency was at 20 microns instead of 25 microns for all the filters data was reported for. On the flip side, reporting at 25 microns may have been done by plotting data at measurement points not equal to 25 microns, then finding the mathematical calculated efficiency was at 25 microns through graphs or data regression analysis / curve fitting. Without the actual data along the range of particle sizes extrapolation or interpolation should be limited to very small steps from the reported data point (or points) as the test dust used does not have a linear particle size distribution and it is unlikely the filter / media will have a perfectly linear efficiency across the spectrum of particle size distribution. Extrapolation from any single data point is always unwise. This can all be tempered to varying degrees by first asking "would it be reasonable . . ."
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Nyogtha: well put.
1A Agreed. Without knowing the multiple points of data, there is a risk of overstatement or apples
ranges comparison. It seems to me that we are either dealing with a manufacture that either gives us a point of data without the big picture or one that gives the big picture without any points of data.Even if the manufacturer only gives one data point (ie, 65% @ 20 microns from my curve example above), then anyone knowing how filters work would realize that the filter is even higher efficiency at particles above 20 microns, just as the curves show.
Therefore, you really don't need to know the "multiple points of data" unless you were splitting hairs and focusing directly on one or two specific particle sizes for some reason.
It seems most manufactures that state an efficiency, use 20 or 25 microns as the point they report at. And as said previously, saying ">xx microns" and "@xx microns" really means the same thing when you look at the "Efficiency vs Particle Size" efficiency curve.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Even if the manufacturer only gives one data point (ie, 65% @ 20 microns from my curve example above), then anyone knowing how filters work would realize that the filter is even higher efficiency at particles above 20 microns, just as the curves show.
Therefore, you really don't need to know the "multiple points of data" unless you were splitting hairs and focusing directly on one or two specific particle sizes for some reason.
I disagree. You focused on the Filters A&E curve in the graph you posted. That graph shows Filters B&H behave similarly to Filters A&E but at a higher efficiency than filters A&E. Filter F is also similar. Then look at the curves for all the other filters on that graph (filters C, D,& G). Completely different curves.
Extrapolating or interpolating along a small step size from a given data point or points (say from 25 microns to 20 microns with some reasonable directional guesstimation on increase or decrease)is probably OK, but 37.5% of the filters on the graph you posted do not follow the capture efficiency curves of those who showed linear behavior over a wide particle size range.
Personally, I'd prefer it if they all reported a standardized test efficiency from ISO 4548-12 at 10 microns. If the general consensus is particles in the 10 to 20 micron size range cause the most damage, why not report efficiency at the small end of that range instead of the large end of that range?
My reasonable guess - it's so a larger number can be reported for efficiency across a wider spectrum of media types.
Even if the manufacturer only gives one data point (ie, 65% @ 20 microns from my curve example above), then anyone knowing how filters work would realize that the filter is even higher efficiency at particles above 20 microns, just as the curves show.
Therefore, you really don't need to know the "multiple points of data" unless you were splitting hairs and focusing directly on one or two specific particle sizes for some reason.
I disagree. You focused on the Filters A&E curve in the graph you posted. That graph shows Filters B&H behave similarly to Filters A&E but at a higher efficiency than filters A&E. Filter F is also similar. Then look at the curves for all the other filters on that graph (filters C, D,& G). Completely different curves.
Extrapolating or interpolating along a small step size from a given data point or points (say from 25 microns to 20 microns with some reasonable directional guesstimation on increase or decrease)is probably OK, but 37.5% of the filters on the graph you posted do not follow the capture efficiency curves of those who showed linear behavior over a wide particle size range.
Personally, I'd prefer it if they all reported a standardized test efficiency from ISO 4548-12 at 10 microns. If the general consensus is particles in the 10 to 20 micron size range cause the most damage, why not report efficiency at the small end of that range instead of the large end of that range?
My reasonable guess - it's so a larger number can be reported for efficiency across a wider spectrum of media types.
Last edited:
FutureDoc -
- Status
