ISO 4548 & ISO 16889 Side by Side Comparison

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
So basically the results from part 12 in a vacuum are what we are meant to take away from the advertising material but the information presented is:

A) Not comparable to data from other manufacturers directly due to variances allowed in the protocol

B) Not telling of the actual efficiency of the filter due to parts 1-11

C) Considering A in light of B, it further obscures any semblance of a comparison that one might attempt to draw

Am I following you here?


Sir

Not in a vacuum per se but rather only 1 parameter of a multivariate test

A- Correct

B- No because filter efficiency is an aggregate- this test (12) only measures 1 parameter and even then with a control fluid that does not have the characteristics of engine oil

C- It makes it impossible unless a test is conducted using identical filters with identical fluids under identical circumstances

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Here is a basic synopsis of ISO 4548-12 for those who don't know exactly what it addresses. There are 12 parts in ISO 4548 ... this is -12 (the 12th test part).


ISO 4548-12:2000
----------------
Methods of test for full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines -- Part 12: Filtration efficiency using particle counting, and contaminant retention capacity.

This part of ISO 4548 specifies a multi-pass filtration test with continuous contaminant injection and using the online particle counting method for evaluating the performance of full-flow lubricating oil filters for internal combustion engines.

The test procedure determines the contaminant capacity of a filter, its particulate removal characteristics and differential pressure.

This test is intended for application to filter elements having a rated flow between 4 l/min and 600 l/min and with an efficiency of less than 99 % at a particle size greater than 10 microns.

ISO 4548-12:2000 uses "muti-pass" filtering methods, versus a "single-pass" test method.


OIL FILTER TESTS PER ISO 4548
-----------------------------
Part 1: Differential pressure/flow characteristics.
Part 2: Element by-pass valve characteristics.
Part 3: Resistance to high differential pressure and to elevated temperature.
Part 4: Initial particle retention efficiency, life and cumulative efficiency (gravimetric method).
Part 5: Cold start simulation and hydraulic pulse durability test.
Part 6: Static burst pressure test.
Part 7: Vibration fatigue test.
No ISO 4548 Part 8 found.
Part 9: Inlet and outlet anti-drain valve tests.
No ISO 4548 Part 10 found.
Part 11: Self-cleaning filters.
Part 12: Filtration efficiency using particle counting, and contaminant retention capacity.


nice cover story and publically available. Problem is that if you understand each part you have automatically falsified and invalidated all your claims on other threads. Why did you make false claims in the first place?

Your statements at best are unfounded on any legitimate premise and at worst are designed to inflame and promote.

I don't just quote words but have a full and detailed understanding of the entire technology so call the masked man and let him comment too.

I'm waiting with bated breath.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000


Sir

Not in a vacuum per se but rather only 1 parameter of a multivariate test


I understand that, my point was that we are presented the information in a manner that encourages interpretation of it as an island in and of itself when in fact there are 12 components to the test. The advertising "spin" so to speak encourages the take away from part 12 to be viewed in a vacuum when obviously it doesn't exist in that state.

Originally Posted By: ISO55000

A- Correct

B- No because filter efficiency is an aggregate- this test (12) only measures 1 parameter and even then with a control fluid that does not have the characteristics of engine oil

C- It makes it impossible unless a test is conducted using identical filters with identical fluids under identical circumstances


OK, so we are on the same page at this point

Good information. As I noted, when I think of some more questions, I'll ask them. In the interim if there is anything else you find that piques your interest and you feel like sharing, I'll be keeping an eye on the thread.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000

nice cover story and publically available. Problem is that if you understand each part you have automatically falsified and invalidated all your claims on other threads. Why did you make false claims in the first place?

Your statements at best are unfounded on any legitimate premise and at worst are designed to inflame and promote.

I don't just quote words but have a full and detailed understanding of the entire technology so call the masked man and let him comment too.

I'm waiting with bated breath.


Like I said, post up the exact words in 9.1.1 along with the detailed test method to prove the filter passed 9.1.1. I doubt there is a method outlined. The "secret lab" divulged their test method which I find no holes in. Just because the ISO spec says it needs to pass 9.1.1 and doesn't detail a test method, then it's way to open for interpretation by the testers and could be all over the map, or not even performed with anything close to a good validation test.

I've got lots of experience with testing, test methods and how specs are validated. If you don't do testing correctly, you can easily get false results.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: fredfactory

---- Number of passes through? (when to stop the test...)
and this matters because of a very few oil filters passenger cars out there that have a small parallel path fine-filtration media in it where it takes hours for the tiniest particles to get caught (microgreen oil filters, trasko, others are used in trucks by FleetGuard or some other HD truck oil filter company).


I thought I read someplace that the the efficiency test stops when a specified level of PISD (delta-P) is achieved across the media. I don't think there is a specified "contamination rate" required, so if the filter is huge they could hit it with a higher rate of contamination in order to get that PSID to occur in a reasonable time (ie, hours instead of days).

But ISO55000 has posted that 4548 doesn't specify exactly when the test stops ... hard to believe, as nebulous test specs like that makes for bad testing control. I don't have a copy of ISO 4548, so I'm at a disadvantage. I'm sure ISO55000 just ordered on up for free since he's "in the business".

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ISO55000

nice cover story and publically available. Problem is that if you understand each part you have automatically falsified and invalidated all your claims on other threads. Why did you make false claims in the first place?

Your statements at best are unfounded on any legitimate premise and at worst are designed to inflame and promote.

I don't just quote words but have a full and detailed understanding of the entire technology so call the masked man and let him comment too.

I'm waiting with bated breath.


Like I said, post up the exact words in 9.1.1 along with the detailed test method to prove the filter passed 9.1.1. I doubt there is a method outlined. The "secret lab" divulged their test method which I find no holes in. Just because the ISO spec says it needs to pass 9.1.1 and doesn't detail a test method, then it's way to open for interpretation by the testers and could be all over the map, or not even performed with anything close to a good validation test.

I've got lots of experience with testing, test methods and how specs are validated. If you don't do testing correctly, you can easily get false results.


Nice try slick but I don't bait well

I posted verbatim in the other thread and you wont wear me down that way- I don't meet your standards, you meet mine

There is a method outlines so why don't you post it fir the masses?

your secret lab is full of sheet and has no credibility

Keep going slick, this is entertaining to say the least

now you are going to try to hide behind "interpretation"- I love it when frauds start double talking.

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: fredfactory

---- Number of passes through? (when to stop the test...)
and this matters because of a very few oil filters passenger cars out there that have a small parallel path fine-filtration media in it where it takes hours for the tiniest particles to get caught (microgreen oil filters, trasko, others are used in trucks by FleetGuard or some other HD truck oil filter company).


I believe the ISO test stops the efficiency test when a specified level of PISD (delta-P) is achieved across the media. I don't think there is a specified "contamination rate" required, so if the filter is huge they could hit it with a higher rate of contamination in order to get that PSID to occur in a reasonable time (ie, hours instead of days).


you "believe wrong" so please post the section that substantiates this "belief"

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: fredfactory

---- Number of passes through? (when to stop the test...)
and this matters because of a very few oil filters passenger cars out there that have a small parallel path fine-filtration media in it where it takes hours for the tiniest particles to get caught (microgreen oil filters, trasko, others are used in trucks by FleetGuard or some other HD truck oil filter company).


I believe the ISO test stops the efficiency test when a specified level of PISD (delta-P) is achieved across the media. I don't think there is a specified "contamination rate" required, so if the filter is huge they could hit it with a higher rate of contamination in order to get that PSID to occur in a reasonable time (ie, hours instead of days).


you "believe wrong" so please post the section that substantiates this "belief"


Go read my updated post above. You have a copy of ISO 4548 ... I don't. Pretty hard to quote the spec or verify the points I bring up when I don't have it, don't ya think? What I said about the test stopping at a determined PSID might have come from a Purolator Tech engineer ... I'll look at my emails to see if I can dig it up.

If you want to play games and try to make this some stupid chest pounding discussion then I'm out ... or you can have a real discussion and keep the bull out of it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ISO55000

nice cover story and publically available. Problem is that if you understand each part you have automatically falsified and invalidated all your claims on other threads. Why did you make false claims in the first place?

Your statements at best are unfounded on any legitimate premise and at worst are designed to inflame and promote.

I don't just quote words but have a full and detailed understanding of the entire technology so call the masked man and let him comment too.

I'm waiting with bated breath.


Like I said, post up the exact words in 9.1.1 along with the detailed test method to prove the filter passed 9.1.1. I doubt there is a method outlined. The "secret lab" divulged their test method which I find no holes in. Just because the ISO spec says it needs to pass 9.1.1 and doesn't detail a test method, then it's way to open for interpretation by the testers and could be all over the map, or not even performed with anything close to a good validation test.

I've got lots of experience with testing, test methods and how specs are validated. If you don't do testing correctly, you can easily get false results.


Nice try slick but I don't bait well

I posted verbatim in the other thread and you wont wear me down that way- I don't meet your standards, you meet mine

There is a method outlines so why don't you post it fir the masses?

your secret lab is full of sheet and has no credibility

Keep going slick, this is entertaining to say the least

now you are going to try to hide behind "interpretation"- I love it when frauds start double talking.


Answer the question. If 9.1.1 doesn't specifically detail how that test requirement is achieved it's so open to interpretation that testing could be inadequate by whoever is performing said test to even determine if the filter was leak tight. If there is no detailed information on how to perform 9.1.1 then it's a useless spec requirement with no direction to ensure accuracy. Been there, done that before in my career.

The lab that did the leak test did so in a very fool proof manner. I'm just wondering if the ISO spec details it like the secret lab did the test ... probably not. Since I don't have a copy of ISO 4548 you're going to have to cut & paste exact words, or this whole thread is useless for me or anyone else reading it.

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: fredfactory

---- Number of passes through? (when to stop the test...)
and this matters because of a very few oil filters passenger cars out there that have a small parallel path fine-filtration media in it where it takes hours for the tiniest particles to get caught (microgreen oil filters, trasko, others are used in trucks by FleetGuard or some other HD truck oil filter company).


I believe the ISO test stops the efficiency test when a specified level of PISD (delta-P) is achieved across the media. I don't think there is a specified "contamination rate" required, so if the filter is huge they could hit it with a higher rate of contamination in order to get that PSID to occur in a reasonable time (ie, hours instead of days).


you "believe wrong" so please post the section that substantiates this "belief"


Go read my updated post above. You have a copy of ISO 4548 ... I don't. Pretty hard to quote the spec when I don't have it, don't ya think?

If you want to play games and try to make this some stupid chest pounding discussion then I'm out ... or you can have a real discussion and keep the bull out of it.


But you post as if you have authority, heres a newsflash slick, that bolded statement proves wonders.

I don't play games, I deal in facts and data so your feeble attempts to emotionalize this to try to find a way out have no effect on me whatsoever.

I am all about a real discussion so lets see YOUR data so it stays "real" because right now all you are doing is dancing in a circle and saying nothing.

Right now you bring nothing of any value but I give you the leeway to try. I just wish my opponents in real courts attempted to sharp shoot me with your veracity because I would be a quadzillionaire.

Face it slick, I am the real deal, have forgotten more than you know on this subject, don't need to hide behind zorro and the stoned stranger for mystery information and can do it in full public view and explain it to the microscopic level.( that's what real qualified people can do)

If I keel the "bull" out of this discussion you wont be allowed to post and it will lose its entertainment valve so I elect to keep the "bull" in

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000

But you post as if you have authority, heres a newsflash slick, that bolded statement proves wonders.


Ummm, can you go quote me where I said I was an authority? I think you have somehow "concluded" that, and therefor have put a target on my back for some reason. Let me guess, because you want to be seen as an "authority"? LoL

Maybe I should strike up a conversation and drag you into it where I have all the data and specs and you don't. Oh, maybe you know it all in your head ... if so, good for you.

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
I don't play games, I deal in facts and data so your feeble attempts to emotionalize this to try to find a way out have no effect on me whatsoever.

I am all about a real discussion so lets see YOUR data so it stays "real" because right now all you are doing is dancing in a circle and saying nothing.


You are playing games. Just like the nonsense you just said above. You are obviously trolling and targeting to try and prove something here. You storm into this forum guns blazing to try and debunk a theory (leaky XP) for some reason that stems way deeper than "just because". You must believe it, otherwise why spend all this time and energy debating otherwise. It is what it is. I can't give you any more info or details than I already did. I could give a rat's arse if you believe it or not, or if you can prove otherwise or not. If you can prove it's not true, then go for it and I want to see all the measured data for validation.

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Right now you bring nothing of any value but I give you the leeway to try. I just wish my opponents in real courts attempted to sharp shoot me with your veracity because I would be a quadzillionaire.

Send me a copy of ISO 4548 and I'll play ball ... otherwise you can go pound your "I'm an authority" chest all by yourself, troll.

Face it slick, I am the real deal, have forgotten more than you know on this subject, don't need to hide behind zorro and the stoned stranger for mystery information and can do it in full public view and explain it to the microscopic level.( that's what real qualified people can do)

If I keel the "bull" out of this discussion you wont be allowed to post and it will lose its entertainment valve so I elect to keep the "bull" in


Don't get so full of yourself ... because you obviously can't carry on a civil debate on this subject matter without trying to have total control over the situation, even though you don't. It's real obvious what your intention in this thread is ... it's not to have a technical discussion, it's to try an belittle people.

 

[Nate1979]

ISO55000, calling people slick is childish. I read your long winded posts and learn almost nothing because there is little to no meat in your posts. You try to act like an expert but don't actually say anything.

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

But you post as if you have authority, heres a newsflash slick, that bolded statement proves wonders.


Ummm, can you go quote me where I said I was an authority? I think you have somehow "concluded" that, and therefor have put a target on my back for some reason. Let me guess, because you want to be seen as an "authority"? LoL

Maybe I should strike up a conversation and drag you into it where I have all the data and specs and you don't. Oh, maybe you know it all in your head ... if so, good for you.

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
I don't play games, I deal in facts and data so your feeble attempts to emotionalize this to try to find a way out have no effect on me whatsoever.

I am all about a real discussion so lets see YOUR data so it stays "real" because right now all you are doing is dancing in a circle and saying nothing.


You are playing games. Just like the nonsense you just said above. You are obviously trolling and targeting to try and prove something here. You storm into this forum guns blazing to try and debunk a theory (leaky XP) for some reason that stems way deeper than "just because". You must believe it, otherwise why spend all this time and energy debating otherwise. It is what it is. I can't give you any more info or details than I already did. I could give a rat's arse if you believe it or not, or if you can prove otherwise or not. If you can prove it's not true, then go for it and I want to see all the measured data for validation.

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Right now you bring nothing of any value but I give you the leeway to try. I just wish my opponents in real courts attempted to sharp shoot me with your veracity because I would be a quadzillionaire.
Quote:


Send me a copy of ISO 4548 and I'll play ball ... otherwise you can go pound your "I'm an authority" chest all by yourself, troll.

Face it slick, I am the real deal, have forgotten more than you know on this subject, don't need to hide behind zorro and the stoned stranger for mystery information and can do it in full public view and explain it to the microscopic level.( that's what real qualified people can do)

If I keel the "bull" out of this discussion you wont be allowed to post and it will lose its entertainment valve so I elect to keep the "bull" in


Don't get so full of yourself ... because you obviously can't carry on a civil debate on this subject matter without trying to have total control over the situation, even though you don't. It's real obvious what your intention in this thread is ... it's not to have a technical discussion, it's to try an belittle people.


Spare me slick, I eat your kind for lunch and recycle the byproduct
Let’s go by the points here


>> Ummm, can you go quote me where I said I was an authority? I think you have somehow "concluded" that, and therefor have put a target on my back for some reason. Let me guess, because you want to be seen as an "authority"? LoL

No, I am an “authority” regardless of this board but that aside your posts implicate that.I have no problem stating that.

>> Maybe I should strike up a conversation and drag you into it where I have all the data and specs and you don't. Oh, maybe you know it all in your head ... if so, good for you.

I welcome it so go for it- it wont help you but it will further my case

>>> You are playing games. Just like the nonsense you just said above. You are obviously trolling and targeting to try and prove something here. You storm into this forum guns blazing to try and debunk a theory (leaky XP) for some reason that stems way deeper than "just because". You must believe it, otherwise why spend all this time and energy debating otherwise. It is what it is. I can't give you any more info or details than I already did. I could give a rat's arse if you believe it or not, or if you can prove otherwise or not. If you can prove it's not true, then go for it and I want to see all the measured data for validation


Negative Ghost Rider, I just call [censored] for what it is and you are a very easy target. You have given nothing but baseless claims from a mystery source. I stand here in plain daylight and we all know what happens to roaches and lights. I’m not the one who has to overcome that- you do.

>> Don't get so full of yourself ... because you obviously can't carry on a civil debate on this subject matter without trying to have total control over the situation, even though you don't. It's real obvious what your intention in this thread is ... it's not to have a technical discussion, it's to try an belittle people.



Here’s a certified cheese for your whine. I enjoy a civil debate and have a good career doing it. Its obvious what your intentions are however- you want to obfuscate and avoid at all costs. (I’m not the one with the “secret” information). The only person I am belittling is you and I have stated my reasons why.

Now, get in the octagon like a man or slither away like a snail. The choice is yours.

 

[ISO55000]

Originally Posted By: Nate1979
ISO55000, calling people slick is childish. I read your long winded posts and learn almost nothing because there is little to no meat in your posts. You try to act like an expert but don't actually say anything.


Sadly true and I regret that but there are times one must react in kind to get the conversation back on track.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
ISO55000, calling people slick is childish. I read your long winded posts and learn almost nothing because there is little to no meat in your posts. You try to act like an expert but don't actually say anything.


Sadly true ...


I agree !!

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
Now, get in the octagon like a man or slither away like a snail. The choice is yours.


I'm walking out of the octagon ... seems my opponent is unconscious and I'm getting bored.

Originally Posted By: ISO55000
No, I am an “authority” regardless of this board but that aside your posts implicate that.I have no problem stating that.


If so, then go get the validation tests done in your ISO lab and stop wasting everyone's time here!