Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Fram says "99+%" for the Ultra. 901Memphis has said a few times now that Fram will be updating the spec on the Ultra soon to show it at 99.9% instead of 99+%.
99% is not 10x less than 99.9% ... 10x less than 99.9% would be 1/10th of 99.9 = 9.99 ... call it 10 (just like 10 is 10 times less than 100).
Actually, he's correct from a 'beta' standpoint.. and also from a "sigma" standpoint.. 99.9% is 10x more efficient from a beta standpoint. Think about it
If you have oil with 1000 particles in it, and you run it through a filter with 99% efficiency, you end up with 10 particles getting through (99% of 1000 is 990, leaving 10)
.. but if you run that same oil with 1000 particles through a filter with 99.9% efficiency, then you end up with only 1 particle getting through (99.9% of 1000 is 999, leaving 1)
... so 99% leaves you with 10, and 99.9% leaves you with 1. I don't know about your math, but mine says that 10 is 10x as much as 1.
Fram says "99+%" for the Ultra. 901Memphis has said a few times now that Fram will be updating the spec on the Ultra soon to show it at 99.9% instead of 99+%.
99% is not 10x less than 99.9% ... 10x less than 99.9% would be 1/10th of 99.9 = 9.99 ... call it 10 (just like 10 is 10 times less than 100).
Actually, he's correct from a 'beta' standpoint.. and also from a "sigma" standpoint.. 99.9% is 10x more efficient from a beta standpoint. Think about it
If you have oil with 1000 particles in it, and you run it through a filter with 99% efficiency, you end up with 10 particles getting through (99% of 1000 is 990, leaving 10)
.. but if you run that same oil with 1000 particles through a filter with 99.9% efficiency, then you end up with only 1 particle getting through (99.9% of 1000 is 999, leaving 1)
... so 99% leaves you with 10, and 99.9% leaves you with 1. I don't know about your math, but mine says that 10 is 10x as much as 1.