Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
1st, not worth quoting your messed up job on quotes ...
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It looks bogus as all get out. Not discrimination at all to say the English is bad, it's evidence of something. Read Norbert's patents and you won't see that kind of English.
Don't back peddle making excuses for your biased discrimination ... shouldn't matter how you "interpret" the English, it doesn't automatically mean it's bogus. Use some other qualifier.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Let's see here, you believe Ultra 80% @ 5, no data shown.
That came from Jay, who represents Fram. What he says in a forum is just as binding as if Fram had published it on their website because he represents Fram. Doubt he's going to make stuff up or lie and put his job and reputation on the line.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
You believe all the boxes and ads, no data shown.
Yes, I do believe data on boxes and on manufacuters websites when they reference the ISO 4548-12 test spec. They are open to lawsuits for false advertising if other filter companies or even an every day consumer can prove they are making false claims. Doubt any company with any brains is going to risk a lawsuit.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
The only data I have seen from the multi pass efficiency test is from you on the Purolator graph that shows a filter getting more efficient.
You must be confused with something else I've posted, because I've never shown that data. Go find it and link it up. Maybe you're confused with the M+H graph showing a decrease in efficiency with use.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Realize anyone can write a review, and that review sounds a lot like a poster here who has come and gone a few times. It is so obvious the points are from here,
who else talks about a MG filter disk.
Dude, did you see the paper the OP linked to (this one -
LINK ) ... he's was a contributor to the Microgreen filter design technical paper - look at the top of page 1. If he doesn't talk like that, I don't know who would.
Fantasy Land. Excuses. But back to reality, still no data shown and you believe it anyway. But when there is hard data from Blackstone, the source, but not fitting your agenda, the data must be a mistake you say. Can't be you are wrong, it's Blackstone, you say with no evidence. Selective believing according to if it fits your very strong agenda or not.
The Purolator efficiency data was not data. That's interesting.
It could be Norbert, but I say it is unlikely. Norbert is smarter than that if one reads his work. You can't tell me what to think so probably need to stop trying. I doubt you have the world experiences I have had, and for you to say I discriminate isn't going to fly. If you can't understand what I was saying about looking for evidence, it isn't my problem. Too bad they have censoring here.