Beta Ratios

[EagleFTE]

Quote:
10/22/07 - 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


Quote:
10/23/07 - 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.
George Morrison, STLE CLS


While I agree that lab testing is not real world, you can not completely dismiss those results as he does. None of us would get an airliner if the wing structure and fuselage had not been load tested, the avionics for navigation had not be bench tested, landing gear, hydraulics, fuel system, etc all lab tested. A standardized Beta Ratio test would tell you something (apples to apples for a set of conditions). I could say that I have used a microglass media oil filter many times (which I have) and never seen a media failure in my real world applications and thus totally dismiss his findings. But he found a set of conditions where media ruptured even though it has nothing to do with my applications.

For real world analysis for all to use you would have to create a matrix and then set up tests with so many variables such as engine, oil grade, oiling system, filter, temperature, etc that it would be impractical with respect to time and money. I for one would like to see standardized tests for Beta Ratio, flow rates, and bypass and have those numbers published for the consumer. Won't happen but I'd like to see it.

 

[CompSyn]

Originally Posted By: EagleFTE

Quote:
10/22/07 - 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


Quote:
10/23/07 - 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.
George Morrison, STLE CLS


While I agree that lab testing is not real world, you can not completely dismiss those results as he does. None of us would get an airliner if the wing structure and fuselage had not been load tested, the avionics for navigation had not be bench tested, landing gear, hydraulics, fuel system, etc all lab tested. A standardized Beta Ratio test would tell you something (apples to apples for a set of conditions). I could say that I have used a microglass media oil filter many times (which I have) and never seen a media failure in my real world applications and thus totally dismiss his findings. But he found a set of conditions where media ruptured even though it has nothing to do with my applications.

For real world analysis for all to use you would have to create a matrix and then set up tests with so many variables such as engine, oil grade, oiling system, filter, temperature, etc that it would be impractical with respect to time and money. I for one would like to see standardized tests for Beta Ratio, flow rates, and bypass and have those numbers published for the consumer. Won't happen but I'd like to see it.


Yes, it would appear that the Beta Ratio to filtration is like the 4-Ball Wear Test to finished lubricants.

Not real world, but standardized/approved test reference points.

It’s up to the customer how much merit they’ll instill in one such test.

Again, not sure what test(s) Mr. Morrison was referring to, but it would appear there are more significant real world tests (reference A) than what Beta Ratios (reference B) have to offer.

Quote:
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


In the airliner illustration, I would hope that the theoretical reference A was elected to more closely match real world conditions.

 

[benjy]

old but new to me + related to the recent link to machinerylubrication.com on beta ratios that almost no one gives. it notes how important better filters are + the fact that thinner oils with thinner oil films dont carry dirt particles that can scratch bearings etc as well as the heavier 30's + changing oil without doing a filter is just STUPID!!!

 

[PimTac]

Time to try out this new ignore feature.

Aaand he’s gone.

 

[ToadU]

I don’t see how Beta ratios mean anything in the real world. It can allow for theoretical comparisons between filters.

What is missing in the analysis is data on at what size of particles damage an engine. I would opine it’s varies from engine to engine. This is something only engine manufacturers would know. The size of particles causing damage might be known and the information “out there” but I’ve never seen it.

What is known is that OEM filters are rarely, if ever, the best performing on Beta ratio tests yet are what are recommended as OEM spec and equipment. This tells me the Beta ratio of the filter really doesn’t matter that much or at all or else the OEMs would be using from the factory filters with a higher Beta ratio—they don’t.

I have never seen a study that using a filter with a better Beta ratio does anything except cost more money. I’m not aware of anything real proof that using filter “A” over filter “B” adds any benefit to the user or extends engine life. I’m not aware of any engine failures even from filters that have torn as some Purolators have allegedly failed. Where are all of the hundreds and thousands of Failed engines? Where are the John Morgan and Morgan class action suits? I’m thinking a filter with a tear has a really really poor Beta ratio!!!?!?!

I would think the more important number rather than a Beta ratio in real world use would be how many grams of contaminants can a filter hold before needing to be change and correlate that to the OCIs and oil used. Nothing more.

There isn’t even a way to know if and when a filter goes into bypass due to being full. The only hint would possibly be from a UOA. Most vehicles never have a UOA done anyways so who really knows. I certainly don’t spend the money on UOAs for my fleet—just follow the OLM and specs in the manual. I don’t see any value in the cost of the UOA. In most vehicles the cost of the UOA is the cost of the oil change and With very few exceptions the manufacturers usually have the OCIs correct in their recommendations.

In short, I see little or no value in Beta Ratios, some value in grams of capacity and a huge value in price shopping.

 

[ZeeOSix]

It's universally known in industry that cleaner oil results in less wear between moving parts. I'm still waiting for someone to post links to technical articles that say otherwise. There's lots of info on what sized particles cause the most wear ... it's been talked about a lot here in the past. Google and do some research. An oil filter that tests more efficient in the ISO 4548-12 test is most likely going to result in cleaner oil (ie, a better ISO 5011 particle count) than a less efficient oil filter. I've seen that correlation here from comparing posted PC data from low efficiency vs high efficiency oil filters. ISO 4548-12 has been used in industry around the world since 1999 to compare filter efficiency, so if it didn't have any validity to reflect real world use to some degree then why has it been the standard for so long. Some people think the bus study was meaningless, but it clearly showed that more efficient oil filters kept the oil cleaner (better PC data), which resulted in less engine wear. You can also spend a lot of money on oil filters that aren't rated real high in the ISO efficiency test. If I'm going to spend money on the high end of the price range for an oil filter, it's going to also be rated pretty high in the ISO efficiency rating before it goes on my engine.