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

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
I have, of yet, seen no evidence whatsoever showing that louvers are an inferior design, or really that any of that sort of thing matters at all. If someone wants to do some flow testing, fine, but until then I'm going to assume the actual engineers know what they're doing.


Nobody has said that louvers are an inferior design. What's being said is that badly formed louvers (as shown in the photos) can present a problem. There are well formed louvers, and there are some badly formed louvers ... avoid the latter.


The problem is that you don't know what you are looking at, looking for or how CFD as it applies to filtration actually works.

Google the term orifice plate- read about it, look at the pretty CFD pictures then come back and I'll educate you further.

Despite all your rambling the bottom line is this..

You have not shown what "bad" is, why it is "bad", where "bad" ends and "good" begins or even how it works to ascertain whether any of them are "good"

All you do is make observational decisions based on what you "think" you see and how it fits in your perception then talk in circles endlessly after with no legitimate basis in best engineering practices, modern manufacturing or anything else.

So, show us in terms of flow WHY these slits are "bad" and what exactly the "bad" is?

When you look up that orifice plate and study those articles and realize that when velocity increases that flow will equalize- in this application, theres a reason for that and if you understood filtration you would see what the theory behind it is ( or read above because I described it under Darcy)

That's not to say defects don't happen but as others have pointed out, barring a clone or counterfeit, that's highly unusual and the fact no one has either caught it or reported it is somewhat telling. ( that's a different subject though)

 

[wemay]

The rational question:
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?

The possibility:
So maybe only a certain number of louvers per application a particular filter is meant for need to be functional, and this number varies per application?

 

[wemay]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Okay, what is the meaning and difference between a regular and a commercial store?

$15 for a filter?


The commercial stores carry a more varied inventory. They stock more inventory as well.

 

[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)

 

[wemay]

Thank you. That makes sense.

 

[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.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Interesting discussion.


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.


Absolutely yes and depending on the design it can add rigidity

dross disposal is another reason a louver "can" be preferred but I suspect it has more to do with flow volume

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by PimTac
Interesting discussion.


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.


Absolutely yes and depending on the design it can add rigidity

dross disposal is another reason a louver "can" be preferred but I suspect it has more to do with flow volume




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.

 

[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

 

[PimTac]

"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"



Like putting your thumb over the end of a flowing garden hose?

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Originally Posted by PimTac
"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"

Like putting your thumb over the end of a flowing garden hose?


Exactly. You didn't change the pump output from the source- you changed the velocity of the flow from the end of the hose

In filter terms this would allow for more 'soak time" on the media side and the faster flow would make up for it on the discharge well. ( not to mention create vectored velocity changes further holding captured particles)

This is of course with the assumption and belief that the pump has the HP to do this ( which a gear or gerotor pump certainly does) and all relief devices are sized accordingly.

So there is a basis in fact and filtration science that the "slit' is correct and proper provided there is enough open orifice and pump pressure to normalize flow during the filtration process.

Actually ( all things equal) this design would offer superior filtration to just holes in the same baseline design.

Then again, there an infinite number of ways to do this depending on the filter volume, set points, media type, selection and fold so there could be variations even within a production standard.

 

[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.

 

[PimTac]

If this part of the manufacturing process is outsourced then that could explain the variances.

While some popular brands of filters are assembled in the US the actual parts might be from other plants and/or countries.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Originally Posted by DuckRyder


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.


That very can be correct, or not but cannot be stated as true or false until the range and reason are known.


Originally Posted by DuckRyder

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.


It doesn't negate it (but it does raise the question above) but look at the other side.

For anyone who does roll or punch pressing ( simple, compound or progressive even), this is obvious- the "only' way you could have a systematic set of these is to change a die set.

The only part of the process that could even possibly cause a slit ( where a true opening was supposed to be) would be an "under entry" of the die- that's virtually impossible once a set up is done and any under ( or over entry) will alarm the machine either by pressure, micrometer, tolerance switch or combinations.

Then the obvious question- the "stamping" has to have the profile of the die set ( the mirror image)- these are usually visually and often optically measured on the line.

So, for it to be a 'defect" that would mean that every single operations and quality process would have to catastrophically fail all at once and stay that way for the duration of a run, then to assembly, SPC testing and packaging.

Then there would have to be virtually no end user, distributor complaints or anything else.

That's a lot of things that would have to happen for this to be just a "defect". ( then to keep happening?)

But still possible- just statistically unlikely.

Originally Posted by DuckRyder

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


Understandable because if you had an attached slug still there that would have almost had to have damaged the die or stripper

Like I related earlier, it all goes back to verifying the design as to whether this is a defect or a tolerance or possibly a different grade.

That question apparently has yet to be asked and answered

 

[LubricatusObsess]

Good heavens - you must be a Manufacturing Engineer!

We (Design Engineers) would work with ME's to ensure a needed design (via CFD) was easily producible, then let you guys go do your thing - setups, etc. That's why seeing a tube with stamp marks but no holes seems to be some offshore sleezebag part producer. I suspect the OEM had it assembled offshore and drop-shipped as well, otherwise they would of caught the defect in USA assembly plant via SPC. Enforcing quality controls offshore is difficult. We struggled constantly with parts imported from China.

 

[PimTac]

Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
Good heavens - you must be a Manufacturing Engineer!

We (Design Engineers) would work with ME's to ensure a needed design (via CFD) was easily producible, then let you guys go do your thing - setups, etc. That's why seeing a tube with stamp marks but no holes seems to be some offshore sleezebag part producer. I suspect the OEM had it assembled offshore and drop-shipped as well, otherwise they would of caught the defect in USA assembly plant via SPC. Enforcing quality controls offshore is difficult. We struggled constantly with parts imported from China.





That is solved with having people on site to verify that the quality control is according to plan.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
Good heavens - you must be a Manufacturing Engineer!

We (Design Engineers)


Consulting PE now, but been both and plant construction in my earlier days going up the ranks but specialize in Asset mgt. and Reliability now

Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess

That's why seeing a tube with stamp marks but no holes seems to be some offshore sleezebag part producer.


Cant blame you- at first glance I defaulted to the exact same opinion but then I thought it all the way through. If this was a legitimate design defect then I would expect customer complaints/returns by the pallet and if it restricted flow then probably several damaged engines, possibly even BBB or other legal action. No one to my knowledge has reported this (yet).

Lets assume a bad lot made it too retail ( even the entire production run) and people did call- you're a manufacturing guy too- what is the likelihood of something of this magnitude going uncorrected ? ( made offshore or not)
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess

I suspect the OEM had it assembled offshore and drop-shipped as well


I can buy that but like I said, I cant buy it a second time
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess

Enforcing quality controls offshore is difficult. We struggled constantly with parts imported from China.


yeah, like six inches short of impossible difficult.

Still, its only a "defect" if its not within a design allowance and that has yet to be determined

 

[Job]

Louvers should be a new topic which it has been many times before.
In the video of the machine making center tubes a guess would be 15 made per minute, or 900 per hour, and 7200 per 8 hour shift. Thereabouts. The cutting edge gets dirty or worn, and the louver gets pushed open barely with a ragged edge on the opening. Who is inspecting all those tubes? I would say no one, maybe a random sample now and then. Inspecting means paying an employee who makes a salary with benefits. It would mean a full time job looking at 15 tubes per minute.
Oil will be flowing through that ragged edged hole and there is no doubt in my mind steel particles are going to come off and go to the main bearings. A few scores in the bearing shells will never be noticeable but for me anyway I am not using filters with louvers again. Either kind that are made.

 

[bullwinkle]

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess
Good heavens - you must be a Manufacturing Engineer!

We (Design Engineers)


Consulting PE now, but been both and plant construction in my earlier days going up the ranks but specialize in Asset mgt. and Reliability now

Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess

That's why seeing a tube with stamp marks but no holes seems to be some offshore sleezebag part producer.


Cant blame you- at first glance I defaulted to the exact same opinion but then I thought it all the way through. If this was a legitimate design defect then I would expect customer complaints/returns by the pallet and if it restricted flow then probably several damaged engines, possibly even BBB or other legal action. No one to my knowledge has reported this (yet).

Lets assume a bad lot made it too retail ( even the entire production run) and people did call- you're a manufacturing guy too- what is the likelihood of something of this magnitude going uncorrected ? ( made offshore or not)
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess

I suspect the OEM had it assembled offshore and drop-shipped as well


I can buy that but like I said, I cant buy it a second time
Originally Posted by LubricatusObsess

Enforcing quality controls offshore is difficult. We struggled constantly with parts imported from China.


yeah, like six inches short of impossible difficult.

Still, its only a "defect" if its not within a design allowance and that has yet to be determined






The unopened louvers would just cause constant bypass operation, not likely to cause catastrophic failure, just accelerated wear.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted by ABN_CBT_ENGR
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by littlehulkster
I have, of yet, seen no evidence whatsoever showing that louvers are an inferior design, or really that any of that sort of thing matters at all. If someone wants to do some flow testing, fine, but until then I'm going to assume the actual engineers know what they're doing.


Nobody has said that louvers are an inferior design. What's being said is that badly formed louvers (as shown in the photos) can present a problem. There are well formed louvers, and there are some badly formed louvers ... avoid the latter.


The problem is that you don't know what you are looking at, looking for or how CFD as it applies to filtration actually works.

Google the term orifice plate- read about it, look at the pretty CFD pictures then come back and I'll educate you further.

Despite all your rambling the bottom line is this..

You have not shown what "bad" is, why it is "bad", where "bad" ends and "good" begins or even how it works to ascertain whether any of them are "good"

All you do is make observational decisions based on what you "think" you see and how it fits in your perception then talk in circles endlessly after with no legitimate basis in best engineering practices, modern manufacturing or anything else.

So, show us in terms of flow WHY these slits are "bad" and what exactly the "bad" is?

When you look up that orifice plate and study those articles and realize that when velocity increases that flow will equalize- in this application, theres a reason for that and if you understood filtration you would see what the theory behind it is ( or read above because I described it under Darcy)

That's not to say defects don't happen but as others have pointed out, barring a clone or counterfeit, that's highly unusual and the fact no one has either caught it or reported it is somewhat telling. ( that's a different subject though)


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.

It's funny that when I show a photo of bad louver formation vs good louver formation on the same brand and p/n filter, and ask if anyone looking at those photos would use the one with the closed louvers, there is only crickets.

It doesn't take an engineer or a rocket scientist to understand what nearly closed off louvers will do to the flow and delta-p across the filter. Do you think the delta-p across the filter with closed louvers will the oiling system and filter function the same way as one with wide open louvers? If so, why.

All that gibberish implying the louvers are some kind of precision "plate orifice" design to control the oil flow and filtration performance is a big bale of straw, lol. Louvers aren't designed to do any of that and to think so is pure non-sense, and they have nill to zero effect on how the media filters. The oil has already flowed through the media before it exits the louvers. The direction the oil flows out of the louvers has no effect on what's already transpired upstream of them.

The filters with closed louvers are not "clones" or "counterfeits" ... that's just more straw production trying to justify that they are "normal" and by design if they aren't clones or counterfeit. Those photos I showed are far from normal. How do you explain the same USA made brand and p/n filter having 0.003" louver slits when another one has 0.100" louver slits. If those are both within the "design tolerances" then the engineer should find a new career.

As I said, it's rare to find filters with closed louvers, but they are out there - all it takes is a set of eyeballs to verify. Just because a design is perfect on paper doesn't mean it's going to be manufactured perfectly to the drawing specs. That's the disconnect between design engineering and manufacturing engineering & QA. It happens quite often that the manufacturing engineer, manufacturing personal and QA drop the ball and don't deliver what the design engineer wants. I've seen it many time in my career. 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.