I think sometimes people just want to look like the boss
Nominal oil filter rating equals 50 percent
- Thread starter The motor guy
- Start date
I just found a wix I could use as an oil filter with a beta of 75=9 and is "rated for" 3 microns.
75 is about 98.7% if I remember correctly.
What I don't know is how much dirt it holds.
This is why I so strongly prefer the actual Beta be stated. It's far less ambiguous. The use of "absolute" to mean B75 is a misnomer, because "absolute" suggests that ALL particles above a particular size are blocked. That would be Beta=∞.
As a practical matter, maybe diminishing returns kicks in above Beta=100. But I've seen test data showing otherwise, at least for high pressure diesel fuel systems (not the same as lube oil systems).
Probably a lot more than your engine will produce. I've cut up filters from my ancient old 1MZ-FE "sludge monster" and at 7000 miles or so there's little to nothing in the pleats.
Agreed a well kept engine isn't going to fill up a filter. But did you see my 2 oil change 8,000 mile fram synthetic endurance filter? That thing was all kinds of loaded up from past oil changes not done on my neglected dodge.
- Joined
- May 9, 2023
- Messages
- 270
If I may ask, what oil were you using for those two changes?
But many times there is no actual beta ratio or even xx% @ yy microns shown. Some will just list "nominal" and "absolute" efficiency. If you take the terms as meaning 50% (B2) and 97.8% (B75) efficiency, then you get the efficiency info vs microns. I agree if they want to be less "ambiguous" then they shouldn't use the terms "nominal" and "absolute" because many people don't know what they mean.
It's the filtering world standard, even defined in ISO 4548-12 ... not to be confused with Merriam Webster's definition of "absolute".
Most people buy due to marketing, and don't know much about or really look into the performance specs.
Sure, I just think jargon reduces clarity and reeks of marketing wank.But many times there is no actual beta ratio or even xx% @ yy microns shown. Some will just list "nominal" and "absolute" efficiency. If you take the terms as meaning 50% (B2) and 97.8% (B75) efficiency, then you get the efficiency info vs microns. I agree if they want to be less "ambiguous" then they shouldn't use the terms "nominal" and "absolute" because many people don't know what they mean.
It's the filtering world standard, even defined in ISO 4548-12 ... not to be confused with Merriam Webster's definition of "absolute".
It should be sufficient to say "Traps > 98.7% of particles larger than 20 micron". Plain language is good language.
At least, Orwell thought so.
https://sites.duke.edu/scientificwriting/orwells-6-rules/
It's the standard definition jargon used in the filter industry. Those with that knowledge know what it means, just like a lot of other jargon used in specific industries. People should broaden their horizons and learn stuff.
That was VRP and I'd say it worked, probably almost too well.
I wouldn't recommend 10hr road trips on VRP in a sludgy engine with a very high efficiency oil filter. A rock catcher like a wix XP, oversized as big as you can go would be better.
- Joined
- May 9, 2023
- Messages
- 270
Thank you
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 9,513
I dont know what beta numbers mean though
I don’t get beta any more than I get British Standard Whitworth. As said, plain language please.I dont know what beta numbers mean though
Im not really sure exactly what you’re referencing….
The term is ambiguous, but the idea is simple: it’s the ratio of the number of particles per ml (typically) upstream of a filter to downstream. So a beta of 75 means that 75x the particles are upstream (75) vs downstream (1).I dont know what beta numbers mean though
In other words, the filter caught 74/75 particles.
Beta has two main advantages, which I’ve mentioned elsewhere, but briefly: 1) the allow easy, intuitive system design for multiple stage filtration. 2) they are better at expressing high efficiency because human intuition easily misled with percentages. Most people can immediately recognize that 99.9% efficiency is TEN TIMES better than 99% efficiency. It only 0.9% better, right? Wrong.
To elaborate, only when looking at it with respect to how many particles got through - ie, the Beta Ratio. Scale it up to 1,000 particles upstream going in to the filter.
Filter A: 1,000 x 99.0% efficiency means 990 particles got caught and 10 got through.
Filter B: 1,000 x 99.9% efficiency means 999 particles got caught and 1 got through.
In terms of the "catching efficiency", Filter B is 0.9% better.
But in terms of how many particles got through, Filter B was "10 times better" because it let 10 times less particles through.
Here's a table I whipped up, using 100,000 particles going in to the filter and the resulting particles going out.
Reference the colored cells:
Beta 500 is "25 times better" than Beta 20 (500/20). Which is the same as 5,000/200 in terms of particles getting through.
Beta 10,000 is "20 times better" than Beta 500 (10,000/500). Which is the same as 200/10 in terms of particles getting through.
Beta 10,000 is "500 times better" than Beta 20 (10,000/20). Which is the same as 5,000/10 in terms of particles getting through.
Something I forgot to point out with Beta Ratios. When comparing Beta Ratios and how much one Beta Ratio is better than the other, there is a diminishing return as the Beta Ratio gets higher. See table in post 37 above.
For example, if you compare B20 to B10, it shows that B20 is "twice as good" in terms of not allowing particles through, which means out of 100,000 particles going into the filter there are 5,000 less particles getting through with B20.
But if you compare B10000 to B5000, B10000 is also "twice as good" in terms of not allowing particles through, which means out of 100,000 particles going into the filter only 10 less particles get through with B10000.
So both those examples are "twice as good" relative to what gets through, but when you look at the actual difference in particle counts getting through the "twice as good" filter, it doesn't mean as much at B10000 then it does a B20.
For example, if you compare B20 to B10, it shows that B20 is "twice as good" in terms of not allowing particles through, which means out of 100,000 particles going into the filter there are 5,000 less particles getting through with B20.
But if you compare B10000 to B5000, B10000 is also "twice as good" in terms of not allowing particles through, which means out of 100,000 particles going into the filter only 10 less particles get through with B10000.
So both those examples are "twice as good" relative to what gets through, but when you look at the actual difference in particle counts getting through the "twice as good" filter, it doesn't mean as much at B10000 then it does a B20.
