The real point is why they are limiting the efficiency number. Some engineer must have some mathematical reason for doing so, and I'm just curious as to what it is.
MC FL-500S vs BOSS 22500
- Thread starter AntDeek
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Garak
The real point is why they are limiting the efficiency number. Some engineer must have some mathematical reason for doing so, and I'm just curious as to what it is.
"They" seemed to be Fram in 2003. That paper wasn't written too far after ISO 4548-12 and real time particle counting for testing oil filter efficiency was starting to be used. Looking at Fram's website today they list the TG at "99%" and the Ultra at "99%+".
Of course, one could argue that they just rounded up the beta 75 (98.7%) to "99%" for the TG and maybe have data that the Ultra is better than 99% but won't use 3 sig-fig to relay that data.
But in the past, Purolator always claimed "99.9% @ 20u" on their PureOne. Was it accurate or "made-up", or just what their test equipment kept coming up with when following the ISO 4548-12 test procedure?
The real point is why they are limiting the efficiency number. Some engineer must have some mathematical reason for doing so, and I'm just curious as to what it is.
"They" seemed to be Fram in 2003. That paper wasn't written too far after ISO 4548-12 and real time particle counting for testing oil filter efficiency was starting to be used. Looking at Fram's website today they list the TG at "99%" and the Ultra at "99%+".
Of course, one could argue that they just rounded up the beta 75 (98.7%) to "99%" for the TG and maybe have data that the Ultra is better than 99% but won't use 3 sig-fig to relay that data.
But in the past, Purolator always claimed "99.9% @ 20u" on their PureOne. Was it accurate or "made-up", or just what their test equipment kept coming up with when following the ISO 4548-12 test procedure?
I'm just curious from an academic standpoint, that's all. The rationale would be interesting, or seeing the confusion between marketers and real technical people.
Originally Posted By: Garak
I'm just curious from an academic standpoint, that's all. The rationale would be interesting, or seeing the confusion between marketers and real technical people.
Yes, would be interesting to know. In today's world, I doubt the "marketers" within the company would be allowed to falsely advertise anything that engineering test data can't back up in case there is someone challenging them legally about their claims.
I'm just curious from an academic standpoint, that's all. The rationale would be interesting, or seeing the confusion between marketers and real technical people.
Yes, would be interesting to know. In today's world, I doubt the "marketers" within the company would be allowed to falsely advertise anything that engineering test data can't back up in case there is someone challenging them legally about their claims.
In 2003, one of Fram’s goals was to decrease the test time from 12 hours to 4 hours. I think they succeeded in doing it but with a hit In precision. The videos recently posted indicate an efficiency number is made each minute during the test. However, they are adding test dirt continuously and at a 3 GPM flow rate, the system is not likely stable depending upon the total oil volume in the system. Fram did call this an instantaneous efficiency test. There may be significant variability in both up stream and down stream particle counts leading to a practical beta limit of 75 for the 4 hour test.
ISO 4548-12 says to verify that the particle counter is calibrated per ISO 11171 - link below. The efficiency/beta ratio results obtained by testing per ISO 4548-12 stems directly from the sensitivity, accuracy and calibration of the particle counter used.
http://www.nfpa.com/tech_papers/2000/i00-10_1.pdf
http://www.nfpa.com/tech_papers/2000/i00-10_1.pdf
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
In 2003, one of Fram’s goals was to decrease the test time from 12 hours to 4 hours. I think they succeeded in doing it but with a hit In precision. The videos recently posted indicate an efficiency number is made each minute during the test. However, they are adding test dirt continuously and at a 3 GPM flow rate, the system is not likely stable depending upon the total oil volume in the system. Fram did call this an instantaneous efficiency test. There may be significant variability in both up stream and down stream particle counts leading to a practical beta limit of 75 for the 4 hour test.
The amount of "calibrated test dirt" added and the flow rate of contaminated oil slurry going through the filter is specified/controlled by ISO 4548-12. An efficiency number is calculated each minute because they are measuring the upstream and downstream particle numbers and sizes in real time (that's why they call it an "instantaneous" test), as specified in ISO 4548-12 for a multi-pass efficiency test.
In 2003, one of Fram’s goals was to decrease the test time from 12 hours to 4 hours. I think they succeeded in doing it but with a hit In precision. The videos recently posted indicate an efficiency number is made each minute during the test. However, they are adding test dirt continuously and at a 3 GPM flow rate, the system is not likely stable depending upon the total oil volume in the system. Fram did call this an instantaneous efficiency test. There may be significant variability in both up stream and down stream particle counts leading to a practical beta limit of 75 for the 4 hour test.
The amount of "calibrated test dirt" added and the flow rate of contaminated oil slurry going through the filter is specified/controlled by ISO 4548-12. An efficiency number is calculated each minute because they are measuring the upstream and downstream particle numbers and sizes in real time (that's why they call it an "instantaneous" test), as specified in ISO 4548-12 for a multi-pass efficiency test.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
ISO 4548-12 says to verify that the particle counter is calibrated per ISO 11171 - link below. The efficiency/beta ratio results obtained by testing per ISO 4548-12 stems directly from the sensitivity, accuracy and calibration of the particle counter used.
http://www.nfpa.com/tech_papers/2000/i00-10_1.pdf
Link to the ISO 11171 particle counter calibration procedure - 2016 version, so pretty recent.
http://nfpahub.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ISO_FDIS_11171_E.pdf
ISO 4548-12 says to verify that the particle counter is calibrated per ISO 11171 - link below. The efficiency/beta ratio results obtained by testing per ISO 4548-12 stems directly from the sensitivity, accuracy and calibration of the particle counter used.
http://www.nfpa.com/tech_papers/2000/i00-10_1.pdf
Link to the ISO 11171 particle counter calibration procedure - 2016 version, so pretty recent.
http://nfpahub.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ISO_FDIS_11171_E.pdf
wow this blew up. very interesting discussions as always.
This vehicle has had conventional oil changes at the OLM intervals for its first 51,000 miles. I just replaced it with some Edge EP 5w-20. Now on cold starts I can hear a lot more of what sounds like front end tapping, engine sounds much better when warm, but still sounds more tappy. Is this just the characteristics of a "more slippery" synthetic oil?
the engine is a ford 3.5 duratec tivct.
thank you guys
This vehicle has had conventional oil changes at the OLM intervals for its first 51,000 miles. I just replaced it with some Edge EP 5w-20. Now on cold starts I can hear a lot more of what sounds like front end tapping, engine sounds much better when warm, but still sounds more tappy. Is this just the characteristics of a "more slippery" synthetic oil?
the engine is a ford 3.5 duratec tivct.
thank you guys
ZeeOSix - all good stuff. I’m still digesting it.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: AntDeek
wow this blew up. very interesting discussions as always.
I looks like everybody forgot about the picture of the Purolator Boss with the torn up anti drain back valve from the sharp burrs on the inlet plate holes. I think if everybody was to remember that picture, the discussion wouldn't have gone anywhere near this far. There's no point in discussing filter efficiency data when there's manufacturing defects that bad.
wow this blew up. very interesting discussions as always.
I looks like everybody forgot about the picture of the Purolator Boss with the torn up anti drain back valve from the sharp burrs on the inlet plate holes. I think if everybody was to remember that picture, the discussion wouldn't have gone anywhere near this far. There's no point in discussing filter efficiency data when there's manufacturing defects that bad.
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: AntDeek
wow this blew up. very interesting discussions as always.
I looks like everybody forgot about the picture of the Purolator Boss with the torn up anti drain back valve from the sharp burrs on the inlet plate holes. I think if everybody was to remember that picture, the discussion wouldn't have gone anywhere near this far. There's no point in discussing filter efficiency data when there's manufacturing defects that bad.
I saw a faulty ADBV on a blue Purolator at Meijer.
I took it out of the box and set it on the shelf so hopefully nobody buys it.
Originally Posted By: AntDeek
wow this blew up. very interesting discussions as always.
I looks like everybody forgot about the picture of the Purolator Boss with the torn up anti drain back valve from the sharp burrs on the inlet plate holes. I think if everybody was to remember that picture, the discussion wouldn't have gone anywhere near this far. There's no point in discussing filter efficiency data when there's manufacturing defects that bad.
I saw a faulty ADBV on a blue Purolator at Meijer.
I took it out of the box and set it on the shelf so hopefully nobody buys it.
Originally Posted By: AntDeek
wow this blew up. very interesting discussions as always.
This vehicle has had conventional oil changes at the OLM intervals for its first 51,000 miles. I just replaced it with some Edge EP 5w-20. Now on cold starts I can hear a lot more of what sounds like front end tapping, engine sounds much better when warm, but still sounds more tappy. Is this just the characteristics of a "more slippery" synthetic oil?
the engine is a ford 3.5 duratec tivct.
thank you guys
Which filter did you end up using...?
wow this blew up. very interesting discussions as always.
This vehicle has had conventional oil changes at the OLM intervals for its first 51,000 miles. I just replaced it with some Edge EP 5w-20. Now on cold starts I can hear a lot more of what sounds like front end tapping, engine sounds much better when warm, but still sounds more tappy. Is this just the characteristics of a "more slippery" synthetic oil?
the engine is a ford 3.5 duratec tivct.
thank you guys
Which filter did you end up using...?
Originally Posted By: Garak
The real point is why they are limiting the efficiency number. Some engineer must have some mathematical reason for doing so, and I'm just curious as to what it is.
The Fram document says there after 98.67%. The marketers can and do extrapolate graphs. People here do it all the time too. There is very little difference between 98.7 and 99, or 100, but to a marketer, they know it means a lot to customers eyes. I don't know why it became a big discussion, it's pretty clear.
The real point is why they are limiting the efficiency number. Some engineer must have some mathematical reason for doing so, and I'm just curious as to what it is.
The Fram document says there after 98.67%. The marketers can and do extrapolate graphs. People here do it all the time too. There is very little difference between 98.7 and 99, or 100, but to a marketer, they know it means a lot to customers eyes. I don't know why it became a big discussion, it's pretty clear.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: Garak
The real point is why they are limiting the efficiency number. Some engineer must have some mathematical reason for doing so, and I'm just curious as to what it is.
The Fram document says there after 98.67%. The marketers can and do extrapolate graphs. People here do it all the time too. There is very little difference between 98.7 and 99, or 100, but to a marketer, they know it means a lot to customers eyes. I don't know why it became a big discussion, it's pretty clear.
The state of the art in measuring efficiency has improved by a factor of 10 at least since 2003. A thorough reading of the new standard is in order for those who really care about how it is done and how it differs from the methods used in 2003. I would anticipate the 2003 document will be replaced with something more in line with the new standards.
Originally Posted By: Garak
The real point is why they are limiting the efficiency number. Some engineer must have some mathematical reason for doing so, and I'm just curious as to what it is.
The Fram document says there after 98.67%. The marketers can and do extrapolate graphs. People here do it all the time too. There is very little difference between 98.7 and 99, or 100, but to a marketer, they know it means a lot to customers eyes. I don't know why it became a big discussion, it's pretty clear.
The state of the art in measuring efficiency has improved by a factor of 10 at least since 2003. A thorough reading of the new standard is in order for those who really care about how it is done and how it differs from the methods used in 2003. I would anticipate the 2003 document will be replaced with something more in line with the new standards.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: Garak
The real point is why they are limiting the efficiency number. Some engineer must have some mathematical reason for doing so, and I'm just curious as to what it is.
The Fram document says there after 98.67%. The marketers can and do extrapolate graphs. People here do it all the time too. There is very little difference between 98.7 and 99, or 100, but to a marketer, they know it means a lot to customers eyes. I don't know why it became a big discussion, it's pretty clear.
The state of the art in measuring efficiency has improved by a factor of 10 at least since 2003. A thorough reading of the new standard is in order for those who really care about how it is done and how it differs from the methods used in 2003. I would anticipate the 2003 document will be replaced with something more in line with the new standards.
Statistics hasn't changed. It has nothing to do with counters or new equipment. There are not enough particles at 98.7 to make higher % relevant. That's what they say. It isn't anything more.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: Garak
The real point is why they are limiting the efficiency number. Some engineer must have some mathematical reason for doing so, and I'm just curious as to what it is.
The Fram document says there after 98.67%. The marketers can and do extrapolate graphs. People here do it all the time too. There is very little difference between 98.7 and 99, or 100, but to a marketer, they know it means a lot to customers eyes. I don't know why it became a big discussion, it's pretty clear.
The state of the art in measuring efficiency has improved by a factor of 10 at least since 2003. A thorough reading of the new standard is in order for those who really care about how it is done and how it differs from the methods used in 2003. I would anticipate the 2003 document will be replaced with something more in line with the new standards.
Statistics hasn't changed. It has nothing to do with counters or new equipment. There are not enough particles at 98.7 to make higher % relevant. That's what they say. It isn't anything more.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: Garak
The real point is why they are limiting the efficiency number. Some engineer must have some mathematical reason for doing so, and I'm just curious as to what it is.
The Fram document says there after 98.67%. The marketers can and do extrapolate graphs. People here do it all the time too. There is very little difference between 98.7 and 99, or 100, but to a marketer, they know it means a lot to customers eyes. I don't know why it became a big discussion, it's pretty clear.
The state of the art in measuring efficiency has improved by a factor of 10 at least since 2003. A thorough reading of the new standard is in order for those who really care about how it is done and how it differs from the methods used in 2003. I would anticipate the 2003 document will be replaced with something more in line with the new standards.
Statistics hasn't changed. It has nothing to do with counters or new equipment. There are not enough particles at 98.7 to make higher % relevant. That's what they say. It isn't anything more.
It does have to do with the particle counting equipment, because counting the number of particles and their size is the only data used to calculate a beta ratio/efficiency number. If you read the links I posted, the "statistics" are used in the calibration of the particle counters, not part of the ISO 4548-12 test procedure. Once the particle counter has been calibrated per ISO 11171 the data retrieved from the particle counter during the ISO 4548-12 test is used to determine the efficiency vs particle size curve of the filter under test.
In an ideal example, if a particle counter existed that could measure every last particle and it's true size in the up and down fluid streams, and the data was totally accurately then you could calculate an efficiency from 0% to 100% to many decimal places. If you read up on the links I posted, you can see particle counters have a pretty good measuring sensitivity, but back around 2000 when ISO 4548-12 was created (and 2003 when Fram wrote the bulletin) they most likely were not as good then as they are today.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: Garak
The real point is why they are limiting the efficiency number. Some engineer must have some mathematical reason for doing so, and I'm just curious as to what it is.
The Fram document says there after 98.67%. The marketers can and do extrapolate graphs. People here do it all the time too. There is very little difference between 98.7 and 99, or 100, but to a marketer, they know it means a lot to customers eyes. I don't know why it became a big discussion, it's pretty clear.
The state of the art in measuring efficiency has improved by a factor of 10 at least since 2003. A thorough reading of the new standard is in order for those who really care about how it is done and how it differs from the methods used in 2003. I would anticipate the 2003 document will be replaced with something more in line with the new standards.
Statistics hasn't changed. It has nothing to do with counters or new equipment. There are not enough particles at 98.7 to make higher % relevant. That's what they say. It isn't anything more.
It does have to do with the particle counting equipment, because counting the number of particles and their size is the only data used to calculate a beta ratio/efficiency number. If you read the links I posted, the "statistics" are used in the calibration of the particle counters, not part of the ISO 4548-12 test procedure. Once the particle counter has been calibrated per ISO 11171 the data retrieved from the particle counter during the ISO 4548-12 test is used to determine the efficiency vs particle size curve of the filter under test.
In an ideal example, if a particle counter existed that could measure every last particle and it's true size in the up and down fluid streams, and the data was totally accurately then you could calculate an efficiency from 0% to 100% to many decimal places. If you read up on the links I posted, you can see particle counters have a pretty good measuring sensitivity, but back around 2000 when ISO 4548-12 was created (and 2003 when Fram wrote the bulletin) they most likely were not as good then as they are today.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Fram document says there after 98.67%. The marketers can and do extrapolate graphs. People here do it all the time too. There is very little difference between 98.7 and 99, or 100, but to a marketer, they know it means a lot to customers eyes. I don't know why it became a big discussion, it's pretty clear.
The state of the art in measuring efficiency has improved by a factor of 10 at least since 2003. A thorough reading of the new standard is in order for those who really care about how it is done and how it differs from the methods used in 2003. I would anticipate the 2003 document will be replaced with something more in line with the new standards.
Statistics hasn't changed. It has nothing to do with counters or new equipment. There are not enough particles at 98.7 to make higher % relevant. That's what they say. It isn't anything more.
It does have to do with the particle counting equipment, because counting the number of particles and their size is the only data used to calculate a beta ratio/efficiency number. If you read the links I posted, the "statistics" are used in the calibration of the particle counters, not part of the ISO 4548-12 test procedure. Once the particle counter has been calibrated per ISO 11171 the data retrieved from the particle counter during the ISO 4548-12 test is used to determine the efficiency vs particle size curve of the filter under test.
In an ideal example, if a particle counter existed that could measure every last particle and it's true size in the up and down fluid streams, and the data was totally accurately then you could calculate an efficiency from 0% to 100% to many decimal places. If you read up on the links I posted, you can see particle counters have a pretty good measuring sensitivity, but back around 2000 when ISO 4548-12 was created (and 2003 when Fram wrote the bulletin) they most likely were not as good then as they are today.
When you read the links provided by ZeeOSix, you will find the test protocol guarantees at least 500 counts per minute for the down stream count. This is good amount of counts for a statistically sound measurement. The new particle counters are a serious piece of kit. Some people are terribly slow in acknowledging the technological advancements. BTW, I want to thank Zee for providing the links. This really helps my understanding.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The Fram document says there after 98.67%. The marketers can and do extrapolate graphs. People here do it all the time too. There is very little difference between 98.7 and 99, or 100, but to a marketer, they know it means a lot to customers eyes. I don't know why it became a big discussion, it's pretty clear.
The state of the art in measuring efficiency has improved by a factor of 10 at least since 2003. A thorough reading of the new standard is in order for those who really care about how it is done and how it differs from the methods used in 2003. I would anticipate the 2003 document will be replaced with something more in line with the new standards.
Statistics hasn't changed. It has nothing to do with counters or new equipment. There are not enough particles at 98.7 to make higher % relevant. That's what they say. It isn't anything more.
It does have to do with the particle counting equipment, because counting the number of particles and their size is the only data used to calculate a beta ratio/efficiency number. If you read the links I posted, the "statistics" are used in the calibration of the particle counters, not part of the ISO 4548-12 test procedure. Once the particle counter has been calibrated per ISO 11171 the data retrieved from the particle counter during the ISO 4548-12 test is used to determine the efficiency vs particle size curve of the filter under test.
In an ideal example, if a particle counter existed that could measure every last particle and it's true size in the up and down fluid streams, and the data was totally accurately then you could calculate an efficiency from 0% to 100% to many decimal places. If you read up on the links I posted, you can see particle counters have a pretty good measuring sensitivity, but back around 2000 when ISO 4548-12 was created (and 2003 when Fram wrote the bulletin) they most likely were not as good then as they are today.
When you read the links provided by ZeeOSix, you will find the test protocol guarantees at least 500 counts per minute for the down stream count. This is good amount of counts for a statistically sound measurement. The new particle counters are a serious piece of kit. Some people are terribly slow in acknowledging the technological advancements. BTW, I want to thank Zee for providing the links. This really helps my understanding.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
BTW, I want to thank Zee for providing the links. This really helps my understanding.
You're welcome WellOiled, did you also find a PDF copy of ISO 4548-12 on line to see how walks through the efficiency testing? There's a few out there (older copies), but the newer versions they want you to buy to see the entire document.
BTW, I want to thank Zee for providing the links. This really helps my understanding.
You're welcome WellOiled, did you also find a PDF copy of ISO 4548-12 on line to see how walks through the efficiency testing? There's a few out there (older copies), but the newer versions they want you to buy to see the entire document.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
BTW, I want to thank Zee for providing the links. This really helps my understanding.
You're welcome WellOiled, did you also find a PDF copy of ISO 4548-12 on line to see how walks through the efficiency testing? There's a few out there (older copies), but the newer versions they want you to buy to see the entire document.
No, not yet. But the new standard does in fact detail the differences. I was thinking about trying to write up a summary of the key differences in lay terms. However, there is much to get your arms around. Parts of ISO standards in general can be boring so I fell asleep.
Originally Posted By: WellOiled
BTW, I want to thank Zee for providing the links. This really helps my understanding.
You're welcome WellOiled, did you also find a PDF copy of ISO 4548-12 on line to see how walks through the efficiency testing? There's a few out there (older copies), but the newer versions they want you to buy to see the entire document.
No, not yet. But the new standard does in fact detail the differences. I was thinking about trying to write up a summary of the key differences in lay terms. However, there is much to get your arms around. Parts of ISO standards in general can be boring so I fell asleep.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
