Amsoil and my Filter Element Efficiency Study.

[63Avanti]

I am on the verge of removing Amsoil from my oil filter element efficiency study. Filter Element Efficiency Study (Beta Ratings) They use what appears to be an easier test, and thus resulting in a higher efficiency rating. I have standardized on: ISO 16889:1999 Multi-pass Test, but Amsoil uses ISO 4548-12. Are these equivalent?

I need some help here, how do I translate from the Amsoil test to the commonly used ISO 16889:1999?

This is from the Amsoil website:
EaO Filters provide a filtering efficiency in accordance with industry standard ISO 4548-12 of 98.7 percent at 15 microns,

 

[Pablo]

I vote for all tests using the newer ISO 4548-12 multi-pass test. So why drop the Amsoil? This is the main gripe about any filtration product comparison......."random standardization"

 

[jmsbntz]

"Until recently, there has not been one universally accepted test method to measure or describe the media pore size or the size of particles a filter media can capture and hold. Depending on which test method was used, the same filter media could be rated with different micron ratings, thus leading to confusion regarding how well the filter's media actually performs. Fortunately, there now exists a test procedure called multi-pass testing or Beta ratio testing (ß) which is, a universally accepted test method that yields readily comparable test results. Multi-pass testing has been recognized by SAE (SAE J1858), ISO (ISO 4548-12, lube oil and ISO16889, hydraulic or fuel), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and NFPA (National Fluid Power Association)." From the Filter Manufacturers Council.

 

[63Avanti]

whew!
you may have saved me here!
The technical books I have been working in were pushing ISO16889, and I came to the conclusion that it was all-encompassing. Now that I have been corrected, happily, I do not have to drop Amsoil, as they were totally right. However, I now have to go back and re-verify the other data sources. This does not mean that there is something wrong, it just means that I had a misconception when I accepted them, and must verify that my misconception did not cause an error.

someday...I will get this study done....

Quote:

---

"Until recently, there has not been one universally accepted test method to measure or describe the media pore size or the size of particles a filter media can capture and hold. Depending on which test method was used, the same filter media could be rated with different micron ratings, thus leading to confusion regarding how well the filter's media actually performs. Fortunately, there now exists a test procedure called multi-pass testing or Beta ratio testing (ß) which is, a universally accepted test method that yields readily comparable test results. Multi-pass testing has been recognized by SAE (SAE J1858), ISO (ISO 4548-12, lube oil and ISO16889, hydraulic or fuel), ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and NFPA (National Fluid Power Association)." From the Filter Manufacturers Council.

---

 

[Gary Allan]

someday...I will get this study done....

I'm amazed when I can get any study done. I tend to work in the material end of things and not the statistical ...but it's still a challenge no matter what.

Also keep in mind that we're in a dynamic environment. Grease's filter study was incredibly detailed. Schultz did the testing using bubble tests on some very expensive equipment that he had access to at Pall as a design/testing engineer. All very valuable stuff.

Then all you need to have happen is a couple of mergers and/or acquisitions and now Facet Purolator (or whomever) also includes a few of the labels that you tested under different brands ..and what do you have? A whole new deal