Lowest efficiency?

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I believe all the filter makers efficiency test ratings. But Amsoil is a marketer of goods, and it is not in their sales interest to show other competitors in a good light.


If you look at more of Amsoil's product comparisons, theirs doesn't always come out on top. And what's different from Amsoil hiring an outside lab like the SWRI to do filter testing per ISO 4548-12 vs me or you, or anyone else from doing that and reporting the results?

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You don't believe the Ultra came in second, or last, in a particle count test because it doesn't agree with the massive structure you have built praising the Fram Ultra. Too bad, it did. You side step every Ultra deficiency. As sure as the sun rises in the morning.

I stand by what I say as correct.


People stand by what they think is correct because of their formed misconceptions. And what deficiency are you talking about? The only real issue I recall seeing with the Ultra was with a few cartridge style filters where the end caps separated. If you go back and find what I said about that (I challenge you to do that), you'd see I said that wasn't good, and that the OP should contact Fram and report what he found so they can investigate why it happened.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All filter medias have depth. None are 2 dimensional. Go to a TP Frantz filter and there is several inches of depth.

What I say I believe is correct and haven't seen any proof otherwise.


Did you even read all the info OVERKILL posted from the Donaldson website on why full synthetic media is better than cellulose? Dang, facts put right out in the open yet it's ignored. Where's your info that says cellulose is a better filtering media than full synthetic?

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I have explained why I believe the 4 hour test is fine, for 4 hours testing. Not going to repeat over and over why. You won't read it anymore than the first time. I don't think they have the money or equipment to do a 200-250 hour multi pass test on every filter. The amounts are so small to measure it may not even be possible.


Again, where's your proof. I've showed that in field real life testing of oil sample particle counts corresponds to lab testing of oil filter efficiency. Higher efficiency filters kept the oil cleaner - no surprise. Go a step farther and add a by-pass filtering system that uses a super high efficiency filter and the oil becomes even cleaner. So nobody is ever going to convince me or even show with data that a low efficiency oil filter is going to keep the oil as clean or cleaner than a much more efficient oil filter.

Still waiting for your info from a solid source to show that filters that tested low in the lab somehow magically test better in real use than filters that tested with better efficiency in the lab.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Donaldson says cellulose fibers filter finer, which seems right as a synthetic fiber itself doesn't filter at all.


Link or screen shots?

"Synthetic fiber doesn't filter at all" ... huh?

Do you think a particle needs to be absorbed into the fiber to be captured? How do you think filtering media really works?

 

[goodtimes]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
All filter medias have depth. None are 2 dimensional. Go to a TP Frantz filter and there is several inches of depth.

What I say I believe is correct and haven't seen any proof otherwise.


Did you even read all the info OVERKILL posted from the Donaldson website on why full synthetic media is better than cellulose? Dang, facts put right out in the open yet it's ignored. Where's your info that says cellulose is a better filtering media than full synthetic?

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
I have explained why I believe the 4 hour test is fine, for 4 hours testing. Not going to repeat over and over why. You won't read it anymore than the first time. I don't think they have the money or equipment to do a 200-250 hour multi pass test on every filter. The amounts are so small to measure it may not even be possible.


Again, where's your proof. I've showed that in field real life testing of oil sample particle counts corresponds to lab testing of oil filter efficiency. Higher efficiency filters kept the oil cleaner - no surprise. Go a step farther and add a by-pass filtering system that uses a super high efficiency filter and the oil becomes even cleaner. So nobody is ever going to convince me or even show with data that a low efficiency oil filter is going to keep the oil as clean or cleaner than a much more efficient oil filter.

Still waiting for your info from a solid source to show that filters that tested low in the lab somehow magically test better in real use than filters that tested with better efficiency in the lab.

Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Donaldson says cellulose fibers filter finer, which seems right as a synthetic fiber itself doesn't filter at all.


Link or screen shots?

"Synthetic fiber doesn't filter at all" ... huh?

Do you think a particle needs to be absorbed into the fiber to be captured? How do you think filtering media really works?


Read the thread, Donaldson said a cellulose fiber filters finer.

The solid data has already been shown to you about ten times, eleven times won't help.

A synthetic fiber doesn't filter at all is 100% correct, so LOL and belittle yourself, not me. That has been one of my points. I guess you missed it. LOL

 

[ZeeOSix]

"Solid data" shown by who?

The data has been shown ... that you're not reading the data.

Yeah, that synthetic media has efficiency of zero. It's like having an empty filter can on the engine, and everyone failsifies the ISO test results on their synthetic filters.

Your profile says you're an engineer. What kind of engineer are you?

 

[alarmguy]

Originally Posted By: gfh77665
Aside from jokes about tears in the media, what filters have the LOWEST efficiency? Any noteworthy to mention?


Lowest efficiency = Best flow/less bypass/least back pressure ... ) Pick your poison ...

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: alarmguy
Lowest efficiency = Best flow/less bypass/least back pressure ... ) Pick your poison ...


Not always true. Look at some of the flow vs delta-p graphs OVERKILL posted earlier in this thread. With the proper media design, a filter can flow very well (meaning low delta-p) and still be high efficiency.

 

[compratio10_5]

There are plenty of SAE papers and Fluid power filter manufacturers papers that report that multi-pass lab efficiency filter tests do not represent real life, long term filter performance under dynamic conditions such as start-stop, cold start pressure surge, detergent and dispersant additives in motor oil, low contamination levels and filter unloading as contaminants accumulate in the filter. Here is The "Cyclic Stabilization Test" by Pall Corp. https://chemicals-polymers.pall.com/cont..._SRT-Tech-A.pdf
Notice that for these hydraulic filters, the best performing new filter was the worst performing used filter, so short term, steady state, multi-pass testing does not always tell the whole story.

For those with access to SAE papers, refer to the following for greater understanding of liquid filtration:
#650866, Filter Life versus Engine Wear by McCelland & Billet of Fram
#680258, How to Select Filters by Fairchild of Fram
#750845, Lube Oil Filter Evaluation by Bensch of FPRC Oklahoma State University
#850549, Engine Oil Filter Performance with Synthetic and Mineral Oils by Goyal and Willyoung of Mobile Oil
#851589, Effects of Cold Start-up on Agricultural Hydraulic Filtration Systems by Donoghue & Brinkley of JI Case
#851590, An Innovative Technique in Filter Rating by Hong and Fitch of FPRC Oklahoma State University
#860547, By-pass Lube Oil Filtration by Graham of Glacier Metal Co.
#860735, A Comparative Investigation of Filter Performance Under Lab and Field Conditions by Hong & Fitch of FPRC Oklahoma State University
#860736, Filter Performance with Cyclic Flow by Pierce of Donaldson Co.
#860737, The Influence of Surge Flow on Filter Performance by Bensch & Needelman of Pall Corp.
#902238, Influence of Lube Oil Filter Performance on Engine Wear in City Buses by Schwandt and Verdegan of Nelson Industries
#932440, Understanding and Utilizing the Multipass Filter Beta Test by Eleftherakis & Khalil of Fluid Technologies
#952555, Correlating Engine Wear with Multipass Testing by Jones of AlliedSignal & Eleftherakis of Fluid Technologies
#2012-01-1754, Oil Filter Clogging Rule- Correlation between Mileage and Lab Testing by Bonne & Arnult of Sogefi Group
#2016-01-1139, A Dynamic Filtration Model for Power-Shift Steering Transmission by Liu, Ma, Xu & MIAO of North University of China & others

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: compratio10_5
There are plenty of SAE papers and Fluid power filter manufacturers papers that report that multi-pass lab efficiency filter tests do not represent real life, long term filter performance under dynamic conditions such as start-stop, cold start pressure surge, detergent and dispersant additives in motor oil, low contamination levels and filter unloading as contaminants accumulate in the filter. Here is The "Cyclic Stabilization Test" by Pall Corp. https://chemicals-polymers.pall.com/cont..._SRT-Tech-A.pdf
Notice that for these hydraulic filters, the best performing new filter was the worst performing used filter, so short term, steady state, multi-pass testing does not always tell the whole story.


Good information, but I have a few comments because I don't think their testing divulged a few important things about the ISO multi-pass test. It's true that oil filters will "shed" debris as the delta-p increases, both from steady loading (like in the ISO multi-pass test) and also from oil flow pulsations as the Pall Corporation testing showed. It's been discussed a few times in this forum.

Purolator/Mann+Hummel also show the phenomenon of oil filters losing efficiency as they load up during the ISO multi-pass test (see graph below). Also notice that the larger particles are effected the most, which means they are easier to "shed" as the delta-p increases across the media (and also from pressure spikes/pulsations too since those are short bursts of increase delta-p).



If you have access to the ISO test procedure, you'll see that the overall resulting efficiency rating calculation is based on the average efficiency at the beginning and end of the test sequence. The paper you linked doesn't really address that, and they don't really say for sure what they mean by "steady-state" efficiency, and it may not even be the same thing as the overall ISO efficiency rating. They never showed what the actual ISO multi-pass test numbers were on Filters A thru D as calculated by the ISO procedure. If they were just looking at the new/staring efficiency numbers then they failed to make a good comparison in their paper. In the graph posted above, the starting/new efficiency (~90% @ 20u) is much better than the ending efficiency (~60% @ 20u). The ISO multi-pass test procedure would calculate the resulting overall test efficiency to be the average, and eyeballing the graph that would be ~75% at 20 microns. This curve shows a filter that seems to shed quite a few 20 micron particles as the delta-p increases.

So what this means is if an oil filter is rated very high in the ISO multi-pass test it inherently means (due to the ISO calculation method) that the filter is less susceptible to shedding debris with increase delta-p. A filter rated at 99% @ 20 microns would have to have a really flat 20 micron curve in the graph I posted.

Also, they say:
"Figure 3 shows the 5 μm(c) downstream particle counts for these filters.These tests demonstrate that although the filters provide good control of particles >5 microns(c) when new or with steady flow, their ability to control particles changes substantially when they become loaded and are under cyclic conditions. For example, Filter “B”, which was one of the best performers under steady flow, exhibited the worst particle control under cyclic and loaded conditions."

Note that >5 microns means everything from 5 microns and above, just like the Purolator/Mann+Hummel graph shows. If they are only looking at the Filter B efficiency when new, and not the overall ISO multi-pass test efficiency, then the data is not accounting for the natural efficiency degradation seen over the period of the multi-pass test like what Purolator/Mann+Hummel graph shows. The graph I posted actually ties into most of what they are also saying, it just doesn't have the delta-p pressure pulsation factor, but the most important thing to understand is any rise in delta-p will cause oil filters to shed particles. On a side note, that's also why it's probably better to not run filters to the very end of their life. It also kills the misconception thought by many that "oil filters get more efficient with use" ... which clearly isn't true based on the Purolator/Mann+Hummel and the Pall Corporation testing.

Since the ISO multi-pass test is really the only test we have to compare filter efficiency, and based on what I pointed out above, I'll still buy filters based on the ISO 4548-12 test numbers since efficiency performance is something I look for.

Originally Posted By: compratio10_5
For those with access to SAE papers, refer to the following for greater understanding of liquid filtration:
#902238, Influence of Lube Oil Filter Performance on Engine Wear in City Buses by Schwandt and Verdegan of Nelson Industries


I already showed the graphs earlier on page 1 of this thread showing that the filters that tested the best in the lab also keep the particle count down the lowest in the UOA from the buses used in the real world testing.

https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/902238/