Amsoil EaO Beta Ratios

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Assuming that they used off the shelf Donaldson media, this would work out to SYNTEQ 3 or 4

Efficiency Beta 2 (Micron): 4
Efficiency Beta 20 (Micron): 12
Efficiency Beta 75 (Micron): 15
Application Note: SYNTEQ Media # 3

---

welll, I could come up with much worse Betas if I were to "take another donaldson off the shelf."

---

..and still have a Beta15=75 ??

By all means ..please do

..but no matter. According to the regional sales meeting that I just got back from, Amsoil does not use Donaldson media. It has media constructed for them using Donaldson's patented SYNTEQ process under license. It's like spraying Silly String on cellulose/wire backing. It was also strongly asserted that although Wix may make/assemble some of the EaO line, that they use the OE assembly line producer(s). That is, several. I found this "odd".

 

[63Avanti]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Assuming ...

---

...

---

.....but no matter. According to the regional sales meeting that I just got back from, Amsoil does not use Donaldson media. It has media constructed for them using Donaldson's patented SYNTEQ process under license. It's like spraying Silly String on cellulose/wire backing. It was also strongly asserted that although Wix may make/assemble some of the EaO line, that they use the OE assembly line producer(s). That is, several. I found this "odd".

---

As an Engineer, I have no issue, as long as they control the specs and QC. This is common with Japanese manufacturers, who will even come to the subs factory and completely redo the processes until it meets the specs consistently and has full QC. Our man Demming taught it to them...

Another note, also as an engineer, I am fascinated about the Synteq process. getting a synthetic anything to have the intra-fiber spacing equivalent or better than a natural fiber. But, then again, I remain fascinated by micro-fiber.

While I am killing electrons, at that meeting, did any hint on how to get Betas get out?

 

[Gary Allan]

They only adhere to the "absolute" spec. The multipass test to the absolute level (beta 75) ..the 15um is the result on the EaO ...2um absolute on the EaBP ..and submicronic to 39% (beta.x = 1.65

)

Am I correct in the assumption that since Wix had provided the beta 2/20 spec for us that you've gotten some expectation of like spec's from all manufacturers?? I just don't see what's missing with a Beta15=75

The "2" spec can only be somewhere in the lower single digits.

 

[63Avanti]

1. The ISO standard does not allow for cherry picking like that. Unless a company gets cute (modified/tailored) with the test, they have an entire array of Betas for each of their filters.
2. My interest 3. "show me the data..."

Quote:

---

They only adhere to the "absolute" spec. The multipass test to the absolute level (beta 75) ..the 15um is the result on the EaO ...2um absolute on the EaBP ..and submicronic to 39% (beta.x = 1.65

)

Am I correct in the assumption that since Wix had provided the beta 2/20 spec for us that you've gotten some expectation of like spec's from all manufacturers?? I just don't see what's missing with a Beta15=75

The "2" spec can only be somewhere in the lower single digits.

---

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Beta Sheta! Holy cow guys have you not read my original thread regarding the EaO's real world performance in a real live vehicle?? Lab Beta testing is just that.. There is no such thing as constant flow oil in an engine application. Our oil pressures, flow rate, and viscosities vary continuously, NOT like the laboratory constant temperature, constant flow, close to worthless results..
In my view, it is of much more value in real world results vs. someone's laboratory results... The tests have little real world relevance..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[Pablo]

Quote:

---

Beta Sheta! Holy cow guys have you not read my original thread regarding the EaO's real world performance in a real live vehicle?? Lab Beta testing is just that.. There is no such thing as constant flow oil in an engine application. Our oil pressures, flow rate, and viscosities vary continuously, NOT like the laboratory constant temperature, constant flow, close to worthless results..
In my view, it is of much more value in real world results vs. someone's laboratory results... The tests have little real world relevance..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

---

There is a point where the paper ends and real life starts......your "testing" was indeed more of the real thing.....where is the link?

 

[ewetho]

Yup I did sir and that is why my car has a shiny Amsoil EaO filter on it as we speak. Something about a 90% drop in particulate over a stock Toyota filter. Say no more the choir is on board.

Hey George glad tos ee you around once in a while to keep us sane.

 

[harry j]

Quote:

---

Beta Sheta! Holy cow guys have you not read my original thread regarding the EaO's real world performance in a real live vehicle?? Lab Beta testing is just that.. There is no such thing as constant flow oil in an engine application. Our oil pressures, flow rate, and viscosities vary continuously, NOT like the laboratory constant temperature, constant flow, close to worthless results..
In my view, it is of much more value in real world results vs. someone's laboratory results... The tests have little real world relevance..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

---

You bet George! Nothing but EaOs for my Civic. How's the 10,000 mile test doing?

Harry

 

[63Avanti]

This is a theme of many/most? of the arguments in BITOG. Some people discount nationally/internationally recognized quality tests that have known and proven repeatability, accuracy and precision limits in favor of single-data-point one-person, one-car anecdotal results.

I went down that path 35, 30, 25, 10, 15, and 5 years ago. About every 5 years, I could not resist the siren call of the anecdotal.

I am truly embarrassed by some of the things I put on, attached to, into, my cars over the years because someone loudly proclaimed that their individual case was truth and that Consumer Reports, SAE, ASTM, ISO, et. al. did not have a clue.

I can state that I have never, in 40 years of "improving" my car/truck/tractor/lawnmower, been embarrassed by a decision I made based on published test results that used recognized standards.

Quote:

---

Beta Sheta! Holy cow guys have you not read my original thread regarding the EaO's real world performance in a real live vehicle?? Lab Beta testing is just that.. There is no such thing as constant flow oil in an engine application. Our oil pressures, flow rate, and viscosities vary continuously, NOT like the laboratory constant temperature, constant flow, close to worthless results..
In my view, it is of much more value in real world results vs. someone's laboratory results... The tests have little real world relevance..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

---

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

1. The ISO standard does not allow for cherry picking like that. Unless a company gets cute (modified/tailored) with the test, they have an entire array of Betas for each of their filters.

---

So

So ..if I have a filter that is Beta15=75 under the ISO blablabla ...and state it just like that ..and don't include other data that, in any sensible configuration of thought, would result in even finer results, you call "foul"?? Why?

Quote:

---

2. My interest

---

I think you're going to be looking at particle counts for your data.

Here's an official Baldwin document for a BYPASS filter:

No ISO reference ..no this or that.

Media grade: L3-130
Ave sq/in: 760.2
Cap gms: 21.3
Established micron rating: BX=2 NO RATING BX=75 15

There's also pulse bursting test data...

No flow rate to determine the beta number or anything.

Quote:

---

3. "show me the data..."

---

Every ad for an EaO filter states Beta15=75 ...if you doubt it ..complain to the FTC for false advertising. I mean, I'm not trying too hard to be smart here ..but it's stated in bold print for any competitor to file suit over in dispute.

 

[63Avanti]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

3. "show me the data..."

---

Every ad for an EaO filter states Beta15=75 ...if you doubt it ..complain to the FTC for false advertising. I mean, I'm not trying too hard to be smart here ..but it's stated in bold print for any competitor to file suit over in dispute.

---

to repeat myself, I have no issue with the B(15)=75 statistic. I added it to my study weeks ago.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

3. "show me the data..."

---

Every ad for an EaO filter states Beta15=75 ...if you doubt it ..complain to the FTC for false advertising. I mean, I'm not trying too hard to be smart here ..but it's stated in bold print for any competitor to file suit over in dispute.

---

to repeat myself, I have no issue with the B(15)=75 statistic. I added it to my study weeks ago.

---

Sorry if I missed it

It just appeared to be overshadowed with some objection that I could not resolve. I do beg your pardon.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Again, these 'laboratory' beta testing procedures have absolutely NO relevance to our real world of automotive engine oil filtratino: none.. If any information relative to to oil filters was anectdotal, it would be these 'lab'tests.
As I previously indicated, all beta testing is done with constant flow, constant velocity, constant viscosity. None of these conditions exist in our engines. Thus any results are simply not relative.
As example, I had occasion to take a name brand filter which had a 3 micron beta 200 rating and install it in a varying flow system, with both upstream and downstream particle counting. On startup the filter indeed returned a 3 micron beta 200+ filtration rate. The moment the flow and pressures were varied (it was a real, live working machine and not a laboratory), the filter returned a 3 micron 1.5 or so. i.e. the filter was worthless in a varying flow/pressure environment. The microglass element was so fragile that it ruptured with the first variation.

Building a microglass filter is NOT easy; it falls under the heading of bending glass. Most microglass filters simply fail as soon as anything other than perfect test conditions exist.
Thus my complete amazement with the Amsoil EaO oil filter performance, in a 'real world, varying pressure, flow, viscosity world'... This is NOT anectdotal....
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[ewetho]

Go George Go!!!

Wish we had some of this the last time the world went mad but good to know. Amsoil Filters ROCK!

 

[cheetahdriver]

ok, i guess i can now throw out everything i learned in engineering school, and 20 years of experience out the window because george says it's bunk.

beta pass tests may not exactly mimic a IC engine environment, but they certainly beat whatever is the second best test. i will take hard numbers from a recognized test over what someone has to say without anything to back it up any day.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, lab numbers are all we have to deal with outside of our own personal niche of experience. They're mainly good for use in comparisons. Now if you're configuring your own filtration system from scratch (for a piece of custom machinery that has no OEM to it)..without a bona fide testing lab in support, then you're doing R&D ..and YMMV. You're doing no less than any filter manufacturer does for an OEM producer ..but with less tools to work with.

If the machinery that George installed Beta3=200 filtration on produced Beta2=1.5 results, it's hard to blame the filter since it's obviously not designed to handle the unknown process variables. So, you throw on a bigger filter of the same spec ...or tandem them, as needed, until you get your desired results.

If George's point is "YMMV" from "spec'd performance" ...no contest. It's a bit of a stretch to make "failure" a given outcome no matter how you approach the issue.

 

[GeorgeCLS]

Gosh, why I even bother trying to relate real world relativity from my experience. Yes, I 'read the book' and there are some aspects of the 'book' which are incorrect. And yes, constant flow, constant velocity oil filter testing is not relevant to *any* oil flow situation. The test procedures as it relates to ultra fine oil filtration are flawed. And yes, formal documentation and suggestions for updating/upgrading those tests have been submitted...

Just in an effort to share 'reality'..... One does not have to pay any heed to my comments, true tho they may be..

Which is back to point one of my excitement with the Amsoil EaO oil filter.. It performed exceptionally in a real world environment... Which, from my experience, is extraordinary in that very few supposed "ultra fine filters" really do perform as advertised. Which is exactly why I went about to prove that Amsoil's EaO oil filter performance was very likely not as good as posted in their literature.. And the Eao filter turned out to provide that performance and more..

So, yes, I am critical of published Beta Ratio's for most filters, especially the fine ones, in that the numbers are meaningless when it comes to real world filtration..

End of speech......
George Morrison, STLE CLS

 

[cheetahdriver]

your opinion is noted.

scott jernigan, BSME, PE

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Gosh, why I even bother trying to relate real world relativity from my experience.

---

I didn't intend to impugn anything that you've done, George. I'm sorry if I was unclear in the way I posted.

I was simply (actually I did it more complexly) stated that JUST because you slap a fine filter on a piece of hardware in a cross adaptive or "this should work" manner, doesn't mean that you will attain the fine filtration that you think it should provide.

Which I believe is what you sorta said

If we're comparing filter spec's to compare one filter fitment over another in an OEM spec'd environment, we don't have to assume anything. Even if the filter doesn't meet ITS spec ...it did the job that the OEM needed it to do in their research. The question, in that case, is just whether one filter's spec is comparable or identical to get similar (however close to or far from) OEM results.

It's totally different if you're going to "create" a fine filtration system in a non-OEM tested and certified environment. Not that OEM's cannot screw up in this regard ..just that they aren't shooting from the hip on their choices. I'm sure that their mistakes were well thought out

..so..Carry on, George...

 

[GeorgeCLS]

No, Gary, my apology from trying to insert 'reality' was certainly not directed to you...
It is having blindly "been there"; accepting published beta ratio's as having relevance in real world application...
For a person developing a data base on published beta ratio's, filter efficiencies, it was important to me to share the test procedures for beta determinatino of oil filters is flawed... And that those published beta ratios in most cases would not relate to automotive engine oil filtration application.

There ARE accepted oil filter test procedures that much more realistically follow engine oil application but no major filter manufacturer is following them:: guess why..
Their filters will not come close to constant flow/temp/viscosity beta performance numbers....
George Morrison STLE CLS
(the reason I add the CLS to my name is our commitment as CLS to share/teach lubrication specific knowledge: a person who is a CLS has achieved a recognized level of lubrication knowledge) I do have other initials but they are not relative to this site or discussion.