Fram Endurance Flashlight Test in canister

[CharlieBauer]

Follow me for a second.

The Amsoil and FE were very very close in particle counts(same filter, should be). That has to say something. Both leaking equally? Unlikely. Both performing correctly? More likely.

Now the other 3 filters that are 99% and 99+% are all over the place and worse than the boss which is a rock catcher. So are those leaking? Likely. Are they performing correctly? No per iso testing which puts them better than the boss and equal to or better than the FE.

I agree with your logic. The only difference is that the rated efficiency means that all those 4 filters (Amsoil, FE, Royal Purple, XG (aka FU)), should have single digit particle counts in the 21-38 micron range.

So even the FE is suspect as it's PC in BR testing equates to 97.3% across all particles 21 to 38 micron in size vs Amsoil's 99%.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Hopefully my last post:

The Brand Ranks testing also tells us that Fram quality is really really bad.

The Extra Guard filtered NOTHING. The Tough Guard is in the 50% range for particles 21-38 microns. The TG is like a Wix XP!

 

[Ronn]

So now we’re back to the dead horse thats been discussed in dozens of threads on BITOG for over a year. The BR results are not accurate or repeatable so we’re debating garbage data…..leakers or not, no way of knowing.

Mods please lock this thread!!

Lock this thread? Why ? Because you’re frustrated with my responses?
Do I peddle false information?

 

[Ronn]

. That has to say something. Both leaking equally? Unlikely. Both performing correctly? More likely.

Again just another opinion. Yeah, lock this thread

 

[CharlieBauer]

Again just another opinion.

No it's actually factual what particle counts you should expect to see on a 99% at 20 micron efficient filter when 4.4g of medium test dust is added to fluid with no particles in it.

Further interpretation of what seem like small numbers of particles is difficult unless you are familiar with how exponential numbers work so you need to do a little bit of math to aid the interpretation. This might help you:

 

[Ronn]

No it's actually factual what particle counts you should expect to see on a 99% at 20 micron efficient filter when 4.4g of medium test dust is added to fluid with no particles in it.

But you can’t deduce from this that they weren’t leaking can you? You’re making inherent assumptions on significance of the leaks.
I fully expect a response now from those here clamoring on why this
Dead Horse needs to be put out of its misery….. pleading for this thread to be shut down. Sad

 

[CharlieBauer]

But you can’t deduce from this that they weren’t leaking can you? You’re making inherent assumptions on significance of the leaks.
I fully expect a response now from those here clamoring on why this
Dead Horse needs to be put out of its misery….. pleading for this thread to be shut down. Sad

If you take the BR particle counts as accurate, then you would have to say that all but the Amsoil were leaking because the particle counts translate into efficiency numbers that are SIGNIFICANTLY below the manufacturer claims and the Ascent testing. Equally, the efficiency numbers from the manufacturers and the Ascent testing translate into particle counts that approach zero in the 21-38 micron range.

I posted the table above to get you started on understanding why there is a big difference between 6 particles after multipass filtering vs 18. Have you attempted to understand it?

 

[Ronn]

If you take the BR particle counts as accurate, then you would have to say that all but the Amsoil were leaking because the particle counts translate into efficiency numbers that are SIGNIFICANTLY below the manufacturer claims and the Ascent testing.

I’m NOT claiming BR counts are accurate, and that actuality supports my argument. Amsoil and Endurance results were close enough to fall within the margin of error, so you can’t differentiate them based on BR results.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Amsoil and Endurance results were close enough to fall within the margin of error, so you can’t differentiate them based on BR results.

So you're a statistics major?

 

[Ronn]

So you're a statistics major?

Are you? Gaslight not gonna cut it

 

[Ronn]

Delete

 

[ZeeOSix]

I put all the available numbers through a spreadsheet and using what we know about Andrew's testing method and BR's testing method, have converted the particle count numbers into efficiency estimates for a more direct comparison.

Need to add the BR Boss in there too.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Lock this thread? Why ? Because you’re frustrated with my responses?
Do I peddle false information?

Operator of the merry-go-round horse beating machine perhaps?

 

[ZeeOSix]

No it's actually factual what particle counts you should expect to see on a 99% at 20 micron efficient filter when 4.4g of medium test dust is added to fluid with no particles in it.

Further interpretation of what seem like small numbers of particles is difficult unless you are familiar with how exponential numbers work so you need to do a little bit of math to aid the interpretation. This might help you:

View attachment 241287

Did BR have a baseline PC on the contaminated oil before it was filtered through each test filter? I don't recall, and I'm not going to watch all the videos to find out, lol. You would have to know that to compare it to the PC of the filtered oil.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Are you? Gaslight not gonna cut it

I've done statistics as part of my degree and in my work after graduating in several capacities. This is not complicated but we have to extrapolate the data we have which is something that is done all the time to make judgements.

Statistically speaking, if a single Amsoil filter tested as expected, what are the chances that 3 other filters that had the same performance claims and which are known to have bypass potential, did not? You can argue that the FE is close (but it is actually not, it is rather your interpretation of how close 18 particles is to 6), but you're not arguing about the other 2 being close. So what are the chances?

Or you can say you don't trust any of the BR data and then you have to trust your eyes that there are many many examples of bypassing. Now I am not a filter or fluid dynamics engineer but people here have mathematically estimated 10% bypass. If you can do the multipass math of what drop in efficiency that results in, then please do it and show your work. Or if you disagree with the calculation of what percentage of fluid is bypassing, then show that.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Need to add the BR Boss in there too.

Well we know it doesn't make sense so I didn't want to confuse matters further. Using the same methodology it comes out to 95.3% efficient for particles 21-38 microns.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Did BR have a baseline PC on the contaminated oil before it was filtered through each test filter? I don't recall, and I'm not going to watch all the videos to find out, lol. You would have to know that to compare it to the PC of the filtered oil.

No they did not. So the best I could do is utilize the upstream particle count per gram of medium test data from Ascent's tabular data and apply it to the fact that BR added 1.1g x 4 to each filter.

 

[Ronn]

Now I am not a filter or fluid dynamics engineer but people here have mathematically estimated 10% bypass.

So people have “estimated” and you’re not qualified … carry on.,,,
Yeah…..maybe we need to shut down this thread

 

[ZeeOSix]

 

[Glenda W.]

Lock this thread? Why ? Because you’re frustrated with my responses?
Do I peddle false information?

Im to old to get frustrated by a 30/30. It’s because your not responding in good faith. Yes, your peddling false info because you know the BR results aren’t accurate and have been gone over in dozens of threads yet you keep bringing them up over and over.

Instead of ranting the same thing hundreds of times make an actual contribution like everyone else. This thread should be 3 pages not 36. Mercy lock for the community

Also hopefully my last post for the good of the community