There seems to be a conflict of information here.If a beta ratio is larger for a certain oil filter then another,which is smaller,which one is more efficient?Lets say a 19/41 oil filter compared to a 6/22 oil filter,same size,which one is filtering better.I thought it was the smaller number but a website says the opposite..anybody?
Beta ratios...bigger numbers better?
- Thread starter Greaser
- Start date
- Status
Weasel...have one answer that depending which formula you use both are correct..lets wait and see
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
In this example, the equation provides the following information: regarding 10-
micrometer or micron size particles, the filter media tested has a Beta ratio of 2.
This information is helpful but not useful without knowing what the ratio actually
means. To translate the Beta ratio into meaningful information, subtract 1 from
the original ratio and divide that answer by the original ratio. This answer
represents the efficiency of the media at the specified particle size. For this
example, take the Beta ratio of 2, subtract 1 from it and divide that answer by the
original ratio of 2 or 2 - 1 = 1 ÷ 2 = 50% efficient at removing 10-micrometer or
micron size particles. This formula is used to translate any Beta ratio into a
percent efficiency at removing the size of particle tested.
That would normally be expressed as Beta10=2 ..or of the 10um particles tested ...1 out of 2 were caught ..or 50% (2-1)/2 = 50%
HOWEVER WIX expresses ALL their filters at BetaX=2 and at BetaX=20
But they don't write it out Beta19=2 Beta39=20
They just show Beta 2/20 and the variable particle size as 19/39
So...you want the smalled PARTICLE SIZE over the HIGHEST beta number. That's the finest filtration.
For example ...Beta2=1000 means that 99.99% of 2um particles were removed in the test of that media
I believe that BetaX=75 is considered absolute ...or 98.6%.
So you've got to apply just a little "help" to how one manufacturer shows the data.
Whenever looking at WIX filter beta spec's ...each and EVERY one of them is based on the 2/20 (50% and 95%) beta standard ...you'll always see 2/20 ..the particle size will always be variable. This is somewhat common for automotive filters. They give a nominal (50%) and some other spec. It may be 95% (20 )..or beta 75 = 98.6%
HOWEVER ..some hydraulic filter applications are not expressed in nominal and some other spec. They may do it strictly by particles sized.
As in (w/numbers I pulled totally out of my arse)
Beta7=10 6 out of 7 10um particles
beta18=20 19 out of 20 20um particles
beta38=30 29 out of 30 30um particles
beta72=40 71 out of 72 40um particles
beta1000=50 999 out of 1000 50um particles
Here this manufacturer made the beta ratio the variable ..while the particle size was quite specific.
micrometer or micron size particles, the filter media tested has a Beta ratio of 2.
This information is helpful but not useful without knowing what the ratio actually
means. To translate the Beta ratio into meaningful information, subtract 1 from
the original ratio and divide that answer by the original ratio. This answer
represents the efficiency of the media at the specified particle size. For this
example, take the Beta ratio of 2, subtract 1 from it and divide that answer by the
original ratio of 2 or 2 - 1 = 1 ÷ 2 = 50% efficient at removing 10-micrometer or
micron size particles. This formula is used to translate any Beta ratio into a
percent efficiency at removing the size of particle tested.
That would normally be expressed as Beta10=2 ..or of the 10um particles tested ...1 out of 2 were caught ..or 50% (2-1)/2 = 50%
HOWEVER WIX expresses ALL their filters at BetaX=2 and at BetaX=20
But they don't write it out Beta19=2 Beta39=20
They just show Beta 2/20 and the variable particle size as 19/39
So...you want the smalled PARTICLE SIZE over the HIGHEST beta number. That's the finest filtration.
For example ...Beta2=1000 means that 99.99% of 2um particles were removed in the test of that media
I believe that BetaX=75 is considered absolute ...or 98.6%.
So you've got to apply just a little "help" to how one manufacturer shows the data.
Whenever looking at WIX filter beta spec's ...each and EVERY one of them is based on the 2/20 (50% and 95%) beta standard ...you'll always see 2/20 ..the particle size will always be variable. This is somewhat common for automotive filters. They give a nominal (50%) and some other spec. It may be 95% (20 )..or beta 75 = 98.6%
HOWEVER ..some hydraulic filter applications are not expressed in nominal and some other spec. They may do it strictly by particles sized.
As in (w/numbers I pulled totally out of my arse)
Beta7=10 6 out of 7 10um particles
beta18=20 19 out of 20 20um particles
beta38=30 29 out of 30 30um particles
beta72=40 71 out of 72 40um particles
beta1000=50 999 out of 1000 50um particles
Here this manufacturer made the beta ratio the variable ..while the particle size was quite specific.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Gosh did I switch horses in mid stream there or what
It should have read
Beta10=7 6/7
beta20=18 17/18
beta30=38 37/38
beta40=72 71/72
beta50=1000 999/1000
This should give you the idea.
It should have read
Beta10=7 6/7
beta20=18 17/18
beta30=38 37/38
beta40=72 71/72
beta50=1000 999/1000
This should give you the idea.
Thank goodness (they wouldn't let me say G@d) I work with my hands well.Now I'm completely confused.AHHH... so which filter you think filters better the B2-HPG or the Napa Gold (Wix)??Please just say Baldwin or Wix
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
By the numbers you gave, the Baldwin is a finer filter. I will assume it to be a 6um nominal (50%) and 95% with the 22um particles ..which is really good by any standards that I've seen so far for automotive filters. That's better then the WIX bypass filters.
This is an FL1A sized bypass filter from WIX (it's not the same thread, obviously. Just the same size)
Part Number: 51050
UPC Number: 765809510500
Principal Application: Allis-Chalmers, Fiat, Continental, GM, Hyster, Isuzu, Iveco, Towmotor, Other
All Applications
Style: Spin-On Lube Filter
Service: Lube
Type: By-Pass
Media: Paper
Height: 5.178
Outer Diameter Top: 3.660
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 5/8-18
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: None
Burst Pressure-PSI: 380
Max Flow Rate: 1-3 GPM
Nominal Micro Rating: 10
Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.834 2.462 0.200
Yes, I did a good job of screwing that up.
This is an FL1A sized bypass filter from WIX (it's not the same thread, obviously. Just the same size)
Part Number: 51050
UPC Number: 765809510500
Principal Application: Allis-Chalmers, Fiat, Continental, GM, Hyster, Isuzu, Iveco, Towmotor, Other
All Applications
Style: Spin-On Lube Filter
Service: Lube
Type: By-Pass
Media: Paper
Height: 5.178
Outer Diameter Top: 3.660
Outer Diameter Bottom: Closed
Thread Size: 5/8-18
By-Pass Valve Setting-PSI: None
Burst Pressure-PSI: 380
Max Flow Rate: 1-3 GPM
Nominal Micro Rating: 10
Gasket Diameters
Number O.D. I.D. Thk.
Attached 2.834 2.462 0.200
Yes, I did a good job of screwing that up.
Thank you very much Gary!The Baldwins are $12 each up here but are easy to get.If they filter better or the same as the Wix by-pass filter then they are worth the money.I am going to mix my oils by the way...from the other forum...if you recall about cats & XD-3 HDEO.How does 4 quarts XD-3 and two quarts Pennzoil Platinum sound?This way I can still get my additives from the HDEO but reduced ZDDP due to the Pennzoil,which has moly,and still be happy
what do you think about this mixture?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I personally don't worry too much about cat poisoning. I only caution people to be aware of current additive policy and why it may be something to consider. I use HDEOs and don't think twice about it ...but I'd be negligent in blindly telling someone else to take the risk, however small, that I have accepted. It was the same with my MMO massive dosage trial. I specifically stated that I didn't recommend it and only did it to prove what didn't happen in my usage.
I mean we're all intelligent people here ..but without completely qualifying what you say ..you can give the wrong impression. We all, with the wisdom that is gained with age, learn to CYA. Even on an anonomous internet message board.
The advantage that I have with the use of HDEO synth is that I use them over a relatively LONG duration compared to most of the membership here. Hence any volatilization from that oil will be very low on a per mile/year basis if any adverse effects are indeed associated with it. I get my money's worth out of these oils. If I couldn't go so long, with confidence, I would not use them.
You're in a severe climate ..at least for the winter. You've got certain issues to deal with that I do not. I would think that even with that qualification, the XD-3 synth line would serve you well on a 6 month basis ..or perhaps broken up biannually with a shorter bias to the winter (6/6 - 5/7 - 4/8 type thing) depending on what your daily drive is like
Again, I think that the additive issues are a "time weighted average" type thing. My wife does 18k a year. I've been using HDEO for the past 60-70k (I forget the exact mileage) ..but that only represented 5 or 6 OCIs and took 4+/- years to accumulate (of HDEO use). This could actually have been LESS cat poisoning then someone in another type of service would encounter with 15-20 OCIs with PCMO (if you see how I'm viewing it here). So you could say that my risk is well managed ...or at least "rationalized"
Just another tidbit to add a moment or two of reflection
"Surprises around every corner, but nothing dangerous" - Willie Wonka
I mean we're all intelligent people here ..but without completely qualifying what you say ..you can give the wrong impression. We all, with the wisdom that is gained with age, learn to CYA. Even on an anonomous internet message board.
The advantage that I have with the use of HDEO synth is that I use them over a relatively LONG duration compared to most of the membership here. Hence any volatilization from that oil will be very low on a per mile/year basis if any adverse effects are indeed associated with it. I get my money's worth out of these oils. If I couldn't go so long, with confidence, I would not use them.
You're in a severe climate ..at least for the winter. You've got certain issues to deal with that I do not. I would think that even with that qualification, the XD-3 synth line would serve you well on a 6 month basis ..or perhaps broken up biannually with a shorter bias to the winter (6/6 - 5/7 - 4/8 type thing) depending on what your daily drive is like
Again, I think that the additive issues are a "time weighted average" type thing. My wife does 18k a year. I've been using HDEO for the past 60-70k (I forget the exact mileage) ..but that only represented 5 or 6 OCIs and took 4+/- years to accumulate (of HDEO use). This could actually have been LESS cat poisoning then someone in another type of service would encounter with 15-20 OCIs with PCMO (if you see how I'm viewing it here). So you could say that my risk is well managed ...or at least "rationalized"
Just another tidbit to add a moment or two of reflection
"Surprises around every corner, but nothing dangerous" - Willie Wonka
I hear ya Gary...I'll mix the XD-3 with the SM Pennzoil Platinum and try and bring the ZDDP down a little ,while adding some moly from the Pennzoil...then I'll put it all thru a B2-HPG for kicks...I just can leave well enough alone
Weasel are you getting some of this?
Thanks Greaser for starting this helpful thread and to all posters for your insight. I have read the discussion, but I am not 100% sure of the answer to the following question: Which filter is more efficient, the Wix rated 10/22 or the 22/39? I believe the latter but I am not certain.
I think I understand the theory behind beta ratios, but do the Wix numbers indicate only 2/20 micron ratings?
The 22/39 captures more particles?
I was considering running a longer Nissan specified oil filter on a Toyota 7M-GE I-6 than the tiny one recommended by Toyota, but the beta ratio was lower on the larger filter according to the Wix site.
I think I understand the theory behind beta ratios, but do the Wix numbers indicate only 2/20 micron ratings?
The 22/39 captures more particles?
I was considering running a longer Nissan specified oil filter on a Toyota 7M-GE I-6 than the tiny one recommended by Toyota, but the beta ratio was lower on the larger filter according to the Wix site.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Weasel ..you've got it backwards. I do understand your confusion though.
I've seen it expressed both ways.
Typically you can assume that an automotive filter will give you a 50% rating and a 95% rating. Some may give a 98.6%
Those number mean a "capture ratio".
Beta 2 means that 1 out of every 2 particles were trapped of that micron rating
Beta 20 means that 19 out of 20 partcles were trapped of that micron rating
Beta 75 means that 74 out of 75 particles of that micron rating were trapped (this is considered absolute)
Here's a hydraulic filter by Donaldson. They appear to display their rating like Wix
HYDRAULIC SPIN-ON
HBK05 element assy, 10 micron absolute, 10.7'' long
B - Thread Size (Inches): 1 1/2-16
C - Length (Inches): 10.66
D - Gasket OD (Inches): 5.05
E - Gasket ID (Inches): 4.71
Product Type Description: HYDRAULIC SPIN-ON
Primary Application: PALL HC7500SUS8H,
Primary Application 2: HC7500SUK8H, DCI HBK05 ASSY
Media Type: Synthetic
Efficiency Beta 2 (Micron): 2
Efficiency Beta 20 (Micron): 7
Efficiency Beta 75 (Micron): 10
Application Note: SYNTEQ Media #4
But I've also seen something like this expressed as
Beta2=2
Beta7=20
Beta10=75
It would be unlikey that you would get a 50% rating on 2um particles on a filter that only caught 85% of the 7um and only 90% of the 75um particles.
First, you would figure that any filter that you would want to use wouldn't have a 75um rating ..and even if it had one ...that same filter wouldn't hve a 2um rating as well.
See how you determine what's being shown??
In a nut shell, you want the highest beta number for the lowest particle size. You'll know that most likely ONE of the specs will be at 50% (a beta ratio of 2) ..you then just match up like terms
So with Wix 2/20 = 19/37
You know to pair the 2 with the 19 and the 20 with the 37
I've seen it expressed both ways.
Typically you can assume that an automotive filter will give you a 50% rating and a 95% rating. Some may give a 98.6%
Those number mean a "capture ratio".
Beta 2 means that 1 out of every 2 particles were trapped of that micron rating
Beta 20 means that 19 out of 20 partcles were trapped of that micron rating
Beta 75 means that 74 out of 75 particles of that micron rating were trapped (this is considered absolute)
Here's a hydraulic filter by Donaldson. They appear to display their rating like Wix
HYDRAULIC SPIN-ON
HBK05 element assy, 10 micron absolute, 10.7'' long
B - Thread Size (Inches): 1 1/2-16
C - Length (Inches): 10.66
D - Gasket OD (Inches): 5.05
E - Gasket ID (Inches): 4.71
Product Type Description: HYDRAULIC SPIN-ON
Primary Application: PALL HC7500SUS8H,
Primary Application 2: HC7500SUK8H, DCI HBK05 ASSY
Media Type: Synthetic
Efficiency Beta 2 (Micron): 2
Efficiency Beta 20 (Micron): 7
Efficiency Beta 75 (Micron): 10
Application Note: SYNTEQ Media #4
But I've also seen something like this expressed as
Beta2=2
Beta7=20
Beta10=75
It would be unlikey that you would get a 50% rating on 2um particles on a filter that only caught 85% of the 7um and only 90% of the 75um particles.
First, you would figure that any filter that you would want to use wouldn't have a 75um rating ..and even if it had one ...that same filter wouldn't hve a 2um rating as well.
See how you determine what's being shown??
In a nut shell, you want the highest beta number for the lowest particle size. You'll know that most likely ONE of the specs will be at 50% (a beta ratio of 2) ..you then just match up like terms
So with Wix 2/20 = 19/37
You know to pair the 2 with the 19 and the 20 with the 37
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Thank you, Mel
for correcting my misuse of terms here. Naturally if you've got a 50% rating on a given particle size ...that doesn't mean that ONLY 10um particles got through. The size, as they get larger, get reduced. They climb up their own, but not articulated, Beta ratio as they get larger.
Some of them ..of all sizes (up to a practical limit) get through to some degree.
I should have connected the dots between the two typical standards.
[ May 31, 2006, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
Some of them ..of all sizes (up to a practical limit) get through to some degree.
I should have connected the dots between the two typical standards.
[ May 31, 2006, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]
Wasn't aimed at just you Gary..but i've seen other posts in various threads and I just wanted to clarify that the value stated is X particle size and larger in a beta test. Where X is the micron size shown as a number.
May I remind everyone that when testing results show --say 10 micron--- it means 10 micron size particles and larger .
Some have the misconception the test information only means--say 10 micron--is the only size particle tested.
Some have the misconception the test information only means--say 10 micron--is the only size particle tested.
- Status
