Fram Titanium 20k mile oil filters at AAP....

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by wemay
I'm not an engineer so maybe there's a legitimate reason I'm not aware of for this situation. But as a layman, when I see a filter was designed with operational louvers in mind and some of those louvers are not "open", wouldn't that equal a manufacturing error?


Fair and very legitimate question- please let me address it (in theory since we do not know the design engineering of the application)

A hole (orifice) is a hole- be it round or any other shape. In flow it allows a metered amount to pass through creating a "pool" on the high pressure side and a "jet" (higher velocity) on the other.

You put an orifice plate in a pipe to meter flow- thus the "hole" variant.

This is not even addressing vortexing or cyclonic flows- beyond the scope of this answer.

The "louver" does the same thing but also changes a direction on one side while creating a "weir" on the other which changes velocity and can create various states of suspension or other properties of a fluid such as particle separation ( look up the separator on a screw compressor air end to see an application of how this works)

So, whoever selected the louver has a design point in mind ( they are more expensive than just a hole punch die set) and that design point has a flow range.

So the question then becomes is the "slit" ( orifice size) within design tolerance ( to provide design flow) or not.

If its not- we have a defective filter, if it is then carry on.

That's the question to be addressed and it cannot be accurately determined with nothing more than a visual observation by people who don't understand the science or construction involved and base the "decision" solely on an "it looks like" analysis evaluated by a "Heres what I think" set of standards.

That's why I asked did anyone ever contact the OEM to see or just jump to baseless unfounded conclusions shored up wholly by a guess?

So far, than answer appears to be no. If that's correct then all opinions ( be them design defect, proper or improper) are currently unfounded speculation at this point.

All I pointed out was that there is a legitimate science and reason where the slits COULD BE correct and proper for that design ( pending further data)


All of that straw is blown out of the water based on the fact that engines use a positive displacement oil pump. Why would an engineer purposely design a filter with choked down louvers which would cause the delta-p across the filter to increase and potentially cause the bypass valve to operate when it really shouldn't? I'm sure most people here wouldn't want their oil filter in bypass when it shouldn't be ... expecpt for those who think torn media (a constant bypass event) is fine too.
grin2.gif


So what do you think the purpose of the wide open eCore center tube is in terms of controlling flow and filtration performance? Wide open eCore center tubes are designed to reduced the delta-p across the filter and to make the flow field more uniform. Wide open louvers is the step between holes and an eCore center tube ... but only IF they are formed correctly. And as has been mentioned before in these discussions, louver manufacturing is just as easy and a cleaner way (not waste material to deal with) to manufacture center tubes.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix


Anyone with a set of eyes and knows just a little bit about oil filter design knows what they are looking at when looking down the center tube.

< everything else>

And depending on what the product is, heads roll when there's a disconnect. With $5 oil filters, not so much ... and 99.99% of the people who use oil filters don't know anything about them and wouldn't know the difference between a hole and a louver so, they are clueless on any possible ramifications of a choked off oil filter that runs in bypass most of the time.


All that to not answer the basal original question on whether the alleged micro perfed louvers are defective or not, talk in circles, eventually saying nothing of value regarding any subject presented. Cognitive dissonance leading to Dunning-Kruger.

Try again
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
Interesting discussion.

I found this video on the U Tubes.

https://youtu.be/_WiQx3eeAAM

Some questions. From what I see, is it possible that the manufacturer can use a thinner gauge of sheet metal and if so do the louvers add any strength to the finished product?

The machine in this video shows how efficient the manufacturing process is as a flat ribbon of sheet metal is transformed into the final product via a single machine.

Another point, the process punching holes in metal also produces a waste product that has to be recycled thus another process. Louvers appear to eliminate that.


Nice ... and I can tell by just using my eyeballs that those louvers are well formed. Not all machines, and not all machine operators/maintainers are the same, so there is lots of room for center tubes with misformed louvers.

Yes, louvers could add some radial strength and therefore use thinner sheet metal and save some cost. But in the 10+ years I've been reading this forum I don't ever recall even one instance of someone reporting a collapsed metal center tube that has holes. In order for that to happen, the PD oil pump's pressure relief valve (and/or the filter's bypass valve) would have to malfunction and cause a huge delta-p across the center tube.
 
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Anyone with a set of eyes and knows just a little bit about oil filter design knows what they are looking at when looking down the center tube.

< everything else>

And depending on what the product is, heads roll when there's a disconnect. With $5 oil filters, not so much ... and 99.99% of the people who use oil filters don't know anything about them and wouldn't know the difference between a hole and a louver so, they are clueless on any possible ramifications of a choked off oil filter that runs in bypass most of the time.


All that to not answer the basal original question on whether the alleged micro perfed louvers are defective or not, talk in circles, eventually saying nothing of value regarding any subject presented. Cognitive dissonance leading to Dunning-Kruger.

Try again


Yes, they are defective ... anyone who can't realize that is either totally disconnected from oil filter design or just purposely trying to troll.
 
Originally Posted by DuckRyder
Interesting how a discussion of a new filter managed to morph into a discussion or the relative merits of louvres.

To continue the off topic discussion:

While I agree there is way to much "I think" and opinion presented as fact around here, I simply don't believe the tolerances on the center tube could be so wide as to allow for perfectly formed louvers in one case and predominately nearly closed ones in another. That tolerance would be so wide as to be irrelevant.

The fact that the exact same filter can be found with both fully open and almost closed louvres also negates the more closed louvers as a design feature.

We never saw holes not punched or hanging chads...

I do understand that the angle required to photograph does not always show the best representation, but inspection on use is warranted and anyone with half a day to run around to various stores and inspect various filters from different lots can probably find an example of malformed louvres, I've seen them.


Just when I thought common sense and critical thinking skills was a thing of the past.
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix


Yes, they are defective ... anyone who can't realize that is either totally disconnected from oil filter design or just purposely trying to troll.


Fair enough, this definitive conclusion is based on what?

( and trying to use a circular reasoning fallacy as a deflection isn't going to defer the legitimacy of asking for a direct specific answer to a very basic simple question asked politely numerous times that you dance around but refuse to address)

What exactly is your background in actual filtration and design?

Thank you
 
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by PimTac

I agree with the flow volume idea. There are a lot more louvers than holes. While as a layman I would be hesitant to use a filter with louvers that appear to be closed, the concept in general seems favorable over holes.

This is a discussion that always prompts a back and forth here.


Here is a "possible' boilerplate scenario

You have a PD pump ( gear type so you have real force) and you have a filter.

You want that filter to capture particles and then retain them in this media on one side of the "wall" but have enough in the reservoir ( well) on the other side.

The straight hole will do this but like your garden hose it will shoot over the well and possibly shoot into a corresponding hole creating less filtration and possibly back flow.

The rectangle duct ( which is really what you are making in HVAC terms) creates a wider dispersal so that force interlocks- that's on the well side

On the other side ( with the louver acting as a dam) it created a hard flow restriction allowing the media side fluid to well, pool and "marinate'.

This changes fluid velocity relative to particle velocity and inertia where particles ( depending on gram weight, geometry and size) to "drop out' of be captured and held by the media

That's really the desired goal.

In that model you would vary flow by slit size and velocity ( like the naked hose versus the nozzle- one shoot a longer stream due to velocity increase but both fill the bucket at the same speed due to the pumps set point)

You could have a secondary filtering effect by counter current flow in the well allowing heavy particles to drop while the fluid goes up ( not unlike a candle filter)

Theres lots of ways this can be done and done effectively and correctly.

That's why without design data nobody ( myself included) can say these are defects or not.

As stated, they look awful "uniform" to be defects and then to continuously get through all the quality checks and machine properties as others have stated.

To me that's just highly unlikely ( but possible)

That's why I asked has anyone actually contacted the OEM- seems that has yet to occur.

Just lots of unqualified opinions rendering judgments on science and technology they don't fully understand being taken as gospel. (I'm all for opinions and even facts- I just draw the line at blindly accepting conclusions drawn from the facts without rigorous vetting)

That's all I'm saying


Louvers are not specifically designed to manipulate the flow like "oil jets" and enhance the performance of oil filters. If that was true then why didn't the ISO filter specs increase when all these manufactures started using louvers. Louvers are to lower the delta-p (IF formed correctly) and to help even out the flow field. And to make production of center tubes easier and more efficient as the previously posted YouTube video showed.

When I see some controlled ISO 4548-12 testing that shows the change in filtering performance as a result of using louvers then you might have something ... otherwise it's all just ....

[Linked Image]
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix


Louvers are not specifically designed to manipulate the flow like "oil jets" and enhance the performance of oil filters. If that was true then why didn't the ISO filter specs increase when all these manufactures started using louvers. Louvers are to lower the delta-p (IF formed correctly) and to help even out the flow field. And to make production of center tubes easier and more efficient as the previously posted YouTube video showed.

When I see some controlled ISO 4548-12 testing that shows the change in filtering performance as a result of using louvers then you might have something ... otherwise it's all just ....


Ahh, reduced to yet another non sequitur irrelevant circular discourse reminiscent of Macbeth 5:5.

ISO specifications aren't "design" specifications and don't broach the subject- talk about a straw defense

What is your experience in CFD, machine design again? (I can sustain my points in a civil discussion at any level with examples and reasons- where are yours?)

BTW, got that original answer yet?

Now you quote a youtube video after you crucify Farm project? (Your selective hypocrisy is showing)
 
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Ahh, reduced to yet another non sequitur irrelevant circular discourse reminiscent of Macbeth 5:5.

ISO specifications aren't "design" specifications and don't broach the subject- talk about a straw defense

What is your experience in CFD, machine design again? (I can sustain my points in a civil discussion at any level with examples and reasons- where are yours?)

BTW, got that original answer yet?

Now you quote a youtube video after you crucify Farm project? (Your selective hypocrisy is showing)

It's a tough call, but out of all the new users here I think you're definitely the most full of yourself. You demonstrate that in post after post.
 
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Ahh, reduced to yet another non sequitur irrelevant circular discourse reminiscent of Macbeth 5:5.

ISO specifications aren't "design" specifications and don't broach the subject- talk about a straw defense

What is your experience in CFD, machine design again? (I can sustain my points in a civil discussion at any level with examples and reasons- where are yours?)

BTW, got that original answer yet?

Now you quote a youtube video after you crucify Farm project? (Your selective hypocrisy is showing)

It's a tough call, but out of all the new users here I think you're definitely the most full of yourself. You demonstrate that in post after post.


No kidding ... and when it boils down to it, uses all kinds of non-related tangential straw arguments to try and confuse people. I think most people here know who's blowing smoke.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix


No kidding ... and when it boils down to it uses all kinds of non-related tangential straw arguments to try and confuse people. I think most people here know who's blowing smoke.


unfortunately that still doesn't change the fact that you still haven't addressed a single point and having a cheering section doesn't give it any more credibility.
 
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix


Louvers are not specifically designed to manipulate the flow like "oil jets" and enhance the performance of oil filters. If that was true then why didn't the ISO filter specs increase when all these manufactures started using louvers. Louvers are to lower the delta-p (IF formed correctly) and to help even out the flow field. And to make production of center tubes easier and more efficient as the previously posted YouTube video showed.

When I see some controlled ISO 4548-12 testing that shows the change in filtering performance as a result of using louvers then you might have something ... otherwise it's all just ....


Ahh, reduced to yet another non sequitur irrelevant circular discourse reminiscent of Macbeth 5:5.

ISO specifications aren't "design" specifications and don't broach the subject- talk about a straw defense

What is your experience in CFD, machine design again? (I can sustain my points in a civil discussion at any level with examples and reasons- where are yours?)

BTW, got that original answer yet?

Now you quote a youtube video after you crucify Farm project? (Your selective hypocrisy is showing)


Never said ISO specs were "design specifications" for oil filters. But I'm sure at least the goal of the media efficiency design in most cases have ISO 4548-12 in mind, at least to those companies that advertise their ISO efficiency.

Since it went over your head I'll reword it. If, as you claim, louvers are some kind of precise design requirement specification that is meant to increase the performance of oil filters, then any performance increases due to using louvers should plainly be seen in the results of the ISO tests.

And your comment about YouTube is again another off in the weeds tactic that doesn't even correlate to the discussion. Keep on making straw ... the bails are light and easy to handle.
grin2.gif
 
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
No kidding ... and when it boils down to it, uses all kinds of non-related tangential straw arguments to try and confuse people. I think most people here know who's blowing smoke.

unfortunately that still doesn't change the fact that you still haven't addressed a single point and having a cheering section doesn't give it any more credibility.


You haven't addressed one question I've asked you ... humm.

So you really think closed off louvers are good, and "by design"? Come on, I think you have more common sense than that after claiming all the associated engineering work you've done.

Next thing we'll hear is that tearing media is "by design" also, lol.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
No kidding ... and when it boils down to it uses all kinds of non-related tangential straw arguments to try and confuse people. I think most people here know who's blowing smoke.

It's just that there are a couple of new/return users lately that endlessly drop their education or talent in an effort to be more impressive to the board. It's noticeable and a bit tiring.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
No kidding ... and when it boils down to it, uses all kinds of non-related tangential straw arguments to try and confuse people. I think most people here know who's blowing smoke.

unfortunately that still doesn't change the fact that you still haven't addressed a single point and having a cheering section doesn't give it any more credibility.


You haven't addressed one question I've asked you ... humm.

So you really think closed off louvers are good, and "by design"? Come on, I think you have more common sense than that after claiming all the associated engineering work you've done.

Next thing we'll hear is that tearing media is "by design" also, lol.


You have not asked a question to answer or made a point with any substance. Just stage 4 denial and more obfuscation

Once again, where is the basis in fact for defect as you claimed?

Also pay attention to detail. I said "slit" I didn't say "closed off" because that would be a dimple not a louver- don't switch words to make more straw then act like you actually did something.

Quote in context or don't quote.

Now for the umpteenth time, stop pontificating in circles and answer the one original question
 
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
No kidding ... and when it boils down to it, uses all kinds of non-related tangential straw arguments to try and confuse people. I think most people here know who's blowing smoke.

unfortunately that still doesn't change the fact that you still haven't addressed a single point and having a cheering section doesn't give it any more credibility.


You haven't addressed one question I've asked you ... humm.

So you really think closed off louvers are good, and "by design"? Come on, I think you have more common sense than that after claiming all the associated engineering work you've done.

Next thing we'll hear is that tearing media is "by design" also, lol.


You have not asked a question to answer or made a point with any substance. Just stage 4 denial and more obfuscation

Once again, where is the basis in fact for defect as you claimed?

Also pay attention to detail. I said "slit" I didn't say "closed off" because that would be a dimple not a louver- don't switch words to make more straw then act like you actually did something.

Quote in context or don't quote.

Now for the umpteenth time, stop pontificating in circles and answer the one original question


"Slit", "closed down" (meaning a tiny slit just in case you missed that context) ... semantics. You know what I mean, just another one of your deflections.

So you really think two filters of the same brand and p/n, one having louver "slits" roughly opened up 0.003-005" vs the one next to it with louver slits opened up 0.080-0.100" is all "by design" and/or "within design tolerances"? Simple question ... yes or no ... and why.
 
Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
ZeeOSix said:
You have not asked a question to answer or made a point with any substance. Just stage 4 denial and more obfuscation

ZEE probably knows more about filters then you will hope to dream about. Carry on though...

I am sticking with Ultra. Probably more efficient.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top