LSJr Take on Oil Filter Efficiency Improving with Loading

Status
Not open for further replies.
If oil filers lose efficiency when loaded in the ISO test, then there is no logical reason why they wouldn't also lose efficiency in real world use loading with debris. Of course oil filters in real use aren't typically loaded as in the ISO test, they will still lose efficiency. And as mentioned before, it's not ideal to run filters with low ISO efficiency for long OCIs because they shed more debris as they load.

It's debris loading combined with oil flow that makes an oil filter shed debris. There is a lot more force on the media from oil flow than there is on an air filter with air flow and a very small dP (like 20 in-H2O) than across an oil filter (could be up to 15+ PSI at high RPM). If the oil flow and resulting dP was super low across an oil filter it may also increase efficiency with debris loading, but that's not what happens with oil filters. There have been many here also thinking oil filters get more efficient with loading, just because air filters do. So it very well could be that LSJr also made that theoretical jump between air and oil filters. Guess we'll have to see what he comes up with, and it will be highly scrutinized, lol.
 
Last edited:
ZeeOSix said:
If oil filers lose efficiency when loaded in the ISO test, then there is no logical reason why they wouldn't also lose efficiency in real world use loading with debris. Of course oil filters in real use aren't typically loaded as in the ISO test, they will still lose efficiency. And as mentioned before, it's not ideal to run filters with low ISO efficiency for long OCIs because they shed more debris as they load.

It's debris loading combined with oil flow that makes an oil filter shed debris. There is a lot more force on the media from oil flow than there is on an air filter with air flow and a very small dP (like 20 in-H2O) than across an oil filter (could be up to 15+ PSI at high RPM). If the oil flow and resulting dP was super low across an oil filter it may also increase efficiency with debris loading, but that's not what happens with oil filters. There have been many here also thinking oil filters get more efficient with loading, just because air filters do. So it very well could be that LSJr also made that theoretical jump between air and oil filters. Guess we'll have to see what he comes up with, and it will be highly scrutinized, lol.
Click to expand...
Wow
 
^^^ You don't believe it? Why wouldn't LSJr claims be scrutinized ... he's a YouTuber feeding the masses info, so it should be true and accurate if he wants any credibility.
 
Because you don't need to keep explaining and giving me evidence to support the claim that oil filters do not get more efficient as they load. As I said, I am very aware of it, thanks to you and the other fine folks in here.
 
mojoe said:
Because you don't need to keep explaining and giving me evidence to support the claim that oil filters do not get more efficient as they load. As I said, I am very aware of it, thanks to you and the other fine folks in here.
Click to expand...
I wasn't quoting you or anyone else. It's for anyone here reading it, and it's worth repeating sometimes since many don't seem to believe it or understand why oil filters behave like they do, but instead might just take someone like LSJr saying they gain efficiency with no technical info to back up his claim.
 
ZeeOSix said:
I wasn't quoting you or anyone else. It's for anyone here reading it, and it's worth repeating sometimes since many don't seem to believe it or understand why oil filters behave like they do, but instead might just take someone like LSJr saying they gain efficiency with no technical info to back up his claim.
Click to expand...
Okay - I realize that there is a mountain of evidence that oil filters do not increase in efficiency as they load, and that you and many others accept that as established fact. And let me be VERY CLEAR: I am not claiming that is wrong.

Can you acknowledge that you have no possible way of knowing that LSJR has no technical info to back up his claims to the contrary, and is basing his claim on nothing but theory?

Before you answer, a couple of things. I am not claiming that he does have any such evidence; I have no way of knowing. If he does have some data, I am not claiming it will meet your standards of acceptable methods that produce real evidence. And "If he has the technical info, why hasn't he shown it" is not an answer to my question above.
 
mojoe said:
Okay - I realize that there is a mountain of evidence that oil filters do not increase in efficiency as they load, and that you and many others accept that as established fact. And let me be VERY CLEAR: I am not claiming that is wrong.

Can you acknowledge that you have no possible way of knowing that LSJR has no technical info to back up his claims to the contrary, and is basing his claim on nothing but theory?

Before you answer, a couple of things. I am not claiming that he does have any such evidence; I have no way of knowing. If he does have some data, I am not claiming it will meet your standards of acceptable methods that produce real evidence. And "If he has the technical info, why hasn't he shown it" is not an answer to my question above.
Click to expand...
If LSJr has technical data to prove that pretty much all oil filters gain efficiency instead of lose efficiency, then it must be based on actual valid testing data. At this point I stand by my thought that he's basing it on theory based on how air filters work, and it will stay that way until he can prove otherwise. We have already seen multiple cases of oil filters losing efficiency with official ISO 4548-12 test data obrained from a certified ISO test lab. So he needs to also prove that data is false if he believes oil filters get more efficient with loading.
 
Last edited:
ZeeOSix said:
If LSJr has technical data to prove that pretty much all oil filters gain efficiency instead of lose efficiency, then it must be based on actual valid testing data. At this point I stand by my thought that he's basing it on theory based on how air filters work, and it will stay that way until he can prove otherwise. We have already seem multiple cases of oil filters losing efficiency with official ISO 4548-12 test data obrained from a certified ISO test lab. So he needs to also prove that data is false if he believes oil filters get more efficient with loading.
Click to expand...
Wow
 
Let's just agree that @ZeeOSix wants every statement backed up by fact, that any statement made without proof is a theory & @mojoe wants to see facts too, but is giving LSJr the benefit of the doubt that he will come up with some factual evidence. I don't think he can disprove ISO 4548-12, but he might come up with some "twist" on it. He might point out that toward the end of the hockey stick efficiency does in fact get better, but that's pretty much end of life for that filter.

I think it's all theater, LSJr has gotten at least one of you riled up & probably a lot of others, so I can guarantee he will have a lot more viewers when his next video comes out on Saturday (he seems to release new vids every other Saturday). Riled up people tend to spend more money.

As for me, I want to believe him, I want to know why a person with his knowledge would make that claim. Does this statement cast a doubt on all the other things he has said? Possibly, now some are thinking he has some nefarious plot (scam, if you will) to make more money.

I'll see y'all here on Saturday....... 😂
 
garageman402 said:
Let's just agree that @ZeeOSix wants every statement backed up by fact, that any statement made without proof is a theory & @mojoe wants to see facts too, but is giving LSJr the benefit of the doubt that he will come up with some factual evidence. I don't think he can disprove ISO 4548-12, but he might come up with some "twist" on it. He might point out that toward the end of the hockey stick efficiency does in fact get better, but that's pretty much end of life for that filter.

I think it's all theater, LSJr has gotten at least one of you riled up & probably a lot of others, so I can guarantee he will have a lot more viewers when his next video comes out on Saturday (he seems to release new vids every other Saturday). Riled up people tend to spend more money.

As for me, I want to believe him, I want to know why a person with his knowledge would make that claim. Does this statement cast a doubt on all the other things he has said? Possibly, now some are thinking he has some nefarious plot (scam, if you will) to make more money.

I'll see y'all here on Saturday....... 😂
Click to expand...
I think you need a 14 paragraph lesson so you will just quit doubting me and accept that I know more than you or LSJR.
 
garageman402 said:
For what you say I'm doubting you about.
Click to expand...
There appears to be massive confusion as to what I am claiming.

I am NOT, and never have said that LSJR is correct, or that anyone, including ZeeOSix, is wrong for disagreeing with him. My only claim is that nobody in here can possibly KNOW (including me) at this point whether or not LSJR has any evidence to support his claim.

He may or may not. I am not aware of any studies done to determine whether he does or doesn't, but if anyone who claims he doesn't have any such evidence can provide such a study, then lets see it, but nobody is claiming that they do.

I understand why people doubt him; aside from the graphs and charts in his video, he has not shown any data to support his claims, and I realize those graphs and charts are not evidence of a controlled study, and may not represent conclusive evidence. I have never claimed that they do. I also realize the mountain of evidence that would seem to contradict his claim.

NONE of that means that he does not have any such evidence, and nobody hear knows one way or the other.

So here is my question to you: What exactly is it that I am claiming that you doubt? Simple, direct, and straightforward. That is my only question. No other explanations needed. What is it I am claiming that you doubt?
 
I never said I doubted you.

In fact I agreed with you. In post 92 I said that you want to give LSJr the benefit of the doubt that he will come up with some evidence.

In post 93:
mojoe said:
I think you need a 14 paragraph lesson so you will just quit doubting me and accept that I know more than you or LSJR.
Click to expand...

I think this was sarcasm, so I (sarcastically) replied in post 96:
garageman402 said:
Show me the facts, show me official test results.
Click to expand...


So, to end this I will say no, I do not doubt that there is no evidence to show that LSJr has no evidence. As I said, it's theater on his part to get you to stay tuned & watch another video.

But it is unlikely that he can disprove an ISO test, unless flow rates are brought into the picture as illustrated in this post by @Hohn in the thread https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/the-myth-of-flow-over-efficiency.398959/page-3 :

Hohn said:
I'm replying to this in this thread instead of the Honda thread, I think this is worth discussing.

A flow value without a restriction value means nothing. And a restriction value without a flow value means nothing. For convenience, shorthand values are developed the make the relevant companion spec implicit instead of explicity.

For example, the valve industry uses parameters like Flow Factor and Flow Coefficient (Kv and Cv respectively). They assume some standard pressure drop and then furnish the "factor" as a volumetric flow rate.

View attachment 297604

Unfortunately, unless you have the ability to see a flow rate and know (by reference) what the pressure drop is at which that flow rate is measured, then the flow rate value is meaningless. It cannot be compared to anything. It's apples/oranges.

It's like how people say "This has a 750cfm carburetor on it." Well, it is, but only when the pressure drop across the carburetor is 1.5"Hg. How many people know the 1.5"Hg part?

Or what about a "1200cfm air filter"? Well, air filters are rated at different pressure drops. Some rated at 8" of water, some at 10", some as low as 6". But 1200cfm at 10" is a lot less real world flow than 1200cfm at 6". But if you don't know the actual pressure drop going with the "flow rating" the flow rating is worthless marketing drivel. Sometimes you get lucky and they tie it to an ASTM or SAE procedure with at least a discernible reference pressure drop.

But quite often even using a standard reference doesn't help you. For example, the ISO4548-12 that we all love has no reference flow rate in the standard. A Fram Ultra and a Purolator Boss can both run the test, but the flow rates for the tests are selected by the OEMs, it is NOT part of the test standard. Fram might run it at 10L/min and Purolator at 8L/min and it's perfectly acceptable to the standard. Which means you cannot compare pressure drops of one filter to another from the ISO test because you have no idea which flow rate was used when those pressure drops were measured.

Heck, the initial pressure drop for the test isn't even dictated. All that the test shows is how pressure drop increases at an arbitrary flow rate as a function of particle mass accumulation. It measures particle efficiency and *change* in restriction. But you have no idea what the baseline is what the context of that change is.

It's a glaring shortcoming in this test to not index the flow rate to, say, media area. At the very least, they could categorize filters and have different reference flows for "passenger car" vs "light truck" or whatever. As long as the filter maker can select different flows for different models and you as the customer have no idea what the reference flow rate is, the flow and restriction aspects of 4548-12 are worthless for comparison purposes. All this test shows is dirt removal and capacity. It does NOT show the flow vs restriction curve of the filter! It's just giving you the offset from some mystery curve as a function of particle removal. But you don't know the baseline curve or where you are on that curve, so?!?!

My wish is that every consumer of data would reflexively ask "at what pressure drop?" when given a flow rate, or ask "at what flow rate?" if given a pressure drop. Without both pieces of information, the value is undefined and thus worthless.

At least in the Brands Ranked testing they used the same flow rate range for all filters they tested. But that's not because the standard required them to!
Click to expand...
Replied by @ZeeOSix :
ZeeOSix said:
Yes, that was my point with the statement of: "Some filter makers do list just a flow value (ie: 9 GPM) with no qualifying associate information, so it's a pretty nebulous spec". Now if they said: "9 GPM at 5 PSI dP and 11 cSt oil viscosity" then it would make sense. Another thing seen often is simply an oil filer efficiency percentage with no associated micron size. The carburetor and air filter flow "spec" are also good examples, as they are also similar incomplete "specs" that are somewhat nebulous with the required associated information missing that would make it clear and accurate.


If you read ISO 4548-12, the test flow rate is based on the estimated holding capacity of the filter. That typically comes from the filter designer, and if they can't give a good number then the ISO spec says the holding capacity would need to be determined by actually testing an example of the specific filter model before actually running the ISO efficiency test. And the dust loading rate is also determined from the estimated holding capacity, or actually measured holding capacity if that's required. This makes some sense because the test conditions are trying to be matched to the filter holding capacity so the test duration time (recommenced to more than 30 minutes) is about the same regardless of how small or large the filter element is. You wouldn't want to test a small filter with a too fast of oil flow and dust loading, and you wouldn't want to test a large filter with a too slow of oil flow and dust loading rate. When Ascent did the ISO testing on the 5 filters, they were all basically the same size (all speced for the same engine) and the holding capacity was estimated to be close to their average so the same oil flow and dust loading rates were used.

And the dP vs flow that Ascent did was basically what BR attempts to do, which is to measure the dP as the flow rate increases over an oil flow range while holding the oil viscosity constant. ISO test standards basically require that, otherwise you couldn't generate a dP vs flow curve at a specific viscosity.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

garageman402
LSJr Interviews Containing Oil Filter Efficiency
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
3K
Sayjac
A
Confused about filtration efficiency between Microgard select vs STP XL?
Replies
6
Views
719
JohnnyJohnson
M
Wix re efficiency increasing with use
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
3K
ZeeOSix
Ed_Flecko
Carquest EP - Who's the manufacturer and is there ISO 4548-12 published filtration results?
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
I<3oil
proffittmarke
Two Oil Filters in One Oil Run
Replies
6
Views
238
mitsuman47
Back
Top Bottom