Non-destructive Ruffles® Bypass Valve testing

[ZeeOSix]

This isn’t about me being a “fan boy”…
You’re implying that the leak substantially impacts performance, which in all probability, is contrary to a “non sanctioned“, albeit well conducted test. Of course …”no proof” it was a leaker, but highly likely and test Isn’t a “gold standard”. However, BR was a well constructed test “guided” by ISO standards using ISO particles….meticulously cleaning all equipment which had been upgraded as well.
“Walks like a duck…Quacks like a duck”, but it we can’t call it one because we need more proof. Got it.

Yeah, proof is needed to substantiate claims. People once claimed the Earth was flat, but they had little proof except thier eyes and misconceptions in their heads. Then proof was shown that it wasn't flat as believed, and the rest is history except for the people who don't believe proof.

 

[Glenda W.]

This isn’t about me being a “fan boy”…
You’re implying that the leak substantially impacts performance, which in all probability, is contrary to a “non sanctioned“, albeit well conducted test. Of course …”no proof” it was a leaker, but highly likely and test Isn’t a “gold standard”. However, BR was a well constructed test “guided” by ISO standards using ISO particles….meticulously cleaning all equipment which had been upgraded as well.
“Walks like a duck…Quacks like a duck”, but it we can’t call it one because we need more proof. Got it.

Dozens of controls weren’t followed. Read this.

https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/62763/51caea884e4b43939a357cfe0fcd9c25/ISO-4548-12-2017.pdf

 

[Fair enough]

The majority in charge is not always right.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy

 

[Ronn]

The majority in charge is not always right.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy

Lol
I’m by far in the minority here!

 

[Ronn]

but they had little proof except thier eyes and misconceptions in their heads

I don’t think you can equate the BR test with a cursory “seat of the pants “ impression! Not even remotely similar analogy. Very specious comparison.

 

[ZeeOSix]

I don’t think you can equate the BR test with a cursory “seat of the pants “ impression! Not even remotely similar analogy. Very specious comparison.

Well, obviously some people take the BR testing as more valid than an actual official ISO 4548-12 test, because they don't know the actual difference. Same goes with other "home testing" YT channels. People are easily convinced of something without knowing the whole picture ... just like flat Earther's believed the Earth was actually flat based on misconceptions seen in their heads as "facts".

 

[Ronn]

Well, obviously some people take the BR testing as more valid than an actual official ISO 4548-12

That certainly isn’t my intention. But I don’t think you can “look the other way “ or simply dismiss their results because they didn’t go by “the book”. The test was far more sophisticated than what one would normally see with an amateur or back yard mechanic. For me, the BR results POINT to superior filtration of Endurance…LEAKER STATUS notwithstanding. So, it wasn’t a leap of faith for me to also conclude that it was HIGHLY probable the Endurance filter tested was a clone of others of its kind…ALL of which were confirmed to leak…,including an Endurance.
Again, there has been no instance demonstrating a non leaking Endurance or clones mentioned made from 2023 on.

 

[ZeeOSix]

That certainly isn’t my intention. But I don’t think you can “look the other way “ or simply dismiss their results because they didn’t go by “the book”. The test was far more sophisticated than what one would normally see with an amateur or back yard mechanic. For me, the BR results POINT to superior filtration of Endurance…LEAKER STATUS notwithstanding. So, it wasn’t a leap of faith for me to also conclude that it was HIGHLY probable the Endurance filter tested was a clone of others of its kind…ALL of which were confirmed to leak…,including an Endurance.
Again, there has been no instance demonstrating a non leaking Endurance or clones mentioned made from 2023 on.

When the Boss ranked 3rd in efficiency is when skepticism entered. Every filter tested that had a metal-to-meal seal (either leaf spring or bypass vlave) had the potential to have a leak path going on, so maybe that has skewed the ranking. As discussed before, the Fram PH in their testing showed a big gap near the end cap that most likely killed the efficiency. If you ranked those same filters based on their official ISO 4548-12 test specs they will not rank like BR has found them to rank. Here's where I pointed out some things about BR's efficiency testing.

Link to Referenced Post

However, BR was a well constructed test “guided” by ISO standards using ISO particles….meticulously cleaning all equipment which had been upgraded as well. So, even though it’s not “the ultimate” standard, the results point to superior particle filtration, especially when compared to others using the same methods.

Yes, they used the same test dust which made it consistent, and besides what else could they use - not sand from the beach, lol. And they used the fluids they did to simulate the correct oil viscosity as motor oil at two different temperatures in order to get decent flow vs dP data on the filters. I believe their ranking of the flow vs dP testing more than the efficiency testing using a PC. Plus they should have shown the whole particle count range of the ISO 4406 data IMO since they had it. And I don't think they took a sample of the "cleaned-up" fluid between efficiency runs, so ideally you'd want to know that baseline before adding more dust.

 

[Hatsuwr]

If your goal if to be able to measure the effect of the air leakage through the gaps between the leaf spring and end cap, you will need a baseline where you know there is zero leakage at that interface. Otherwise, the test is nebulous and proves nothing.


Once you have a baseline on a non-leaker, then you can compare all the other filters (same brand and model of course) to the baseline results. How are you going to rate them if you don't have a known non-leaking leaf spring to end cap baseline?

Again, the goal isn't to try and quantify the difference between a leaking filter and a non-leaking filter, it is to compare a batch of the same model of filters.
If a non-leaking baseline was wanted, it would be simple enough to cut one open, check for tears, seal the bypass, and then tape it back together... but why bother? It still would only be relevant for the current batch, since comparing to later runs would require ensuring filter construction hasn't been modified, temperature/humidity are similar to the original test conditions, and the pressure/flow curve of the vacuum hasn't changed.

Anyway, I got everything setup and ready to test, and am able to generate a bit over 10 kPa differential. I did a couple tests for repeatability, but the full testing will have to wait until morning because the ADBVs are so loud with air that they are waking up my kids.

Here are two runs with the same filter. They are close enough that I hope to be able to identify small differences even with just the gauge.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Again, the goal isn't to try and quantify the difference between a leaking filter and a non-leaking filter, it is to compare a batch of the same model of filters.

Why would you just want to compare a batch of the same filters if you don't know which ones are leakers or not leakers? If you do a baseline test on a filter that you know doesn't leaking, then you can see what any effect the leak gaps have. Without a baseline measurement to compare too, it's pretty useless data. All it will tell you is that one might have a bigger leak gap then the other, but you don't know what the difference would be compared to one that doesn't leak at all.

If a non-leaking baseline was wanted, it would be simple enough to cut one open, check for tears, seal the bypass, and then tape it back together... but why bother? It still would only be relevant for the current batch, since comparing to later runs would require ensuring filter construction hasn't been modified, temperature/humidity are similar to the original test conditions, and the pressure/flow curve of the vacuum hasn't changed.

The biggest thing that would most likely vary between batches is the leaf spring stamping quality, and that's what you're trying to somehow get some kind of measurement to see if leak gaps can be detected. The media area should be pretty consistent. If you're putting the same vacuum pump on them with the same pump setup then that should be a pretty constant factor - below you show the repetitiveness of different test runs. If you test a non-leaking baseline, then the others shortly after, then the temperature and humidity will be a constant. I'm betting it's not a long process to connect the test apparatus and run the test.

Anyway, I got everything setup and ready to test, and am able to generate a bit over 10 kPa differential. I did a couple tests for repeatability, but the full testing will have to wait until morning because the ADBVs are so loud with air that they are waking up my kids.

Here are two runs with the same filter. They are close enough that I hope to be able to identify small differences even with just the gauge.

Now run the same test on one that is known to not leak at all at the leaf spring. Then you'd know how all others compare to that baseline. Without a baseline it's not very informative information because you don't know which ones leak or not, nor how much they do if they are a leaker. The first thing someone will ask is: "What did you get on one that wasn't a leaker?".

 

[ZeeOSix]

BTW ... if you sealed the base plate inlet holes except for one with some good aluminum tape or similar, what vacuum level is achieved? That may raise the vacuum level and thereby make an internal leak at the leaf spring more noticeable, but only if you have a baseline to compare it to.

 

[CharlieBauer]

and am able to generate a bit over 10 kPa differential

Maybe I've missed something but looking at your picture in your first post, how is what you are measuring a "differential"?

A pressure differential requires a reading before and after the thing you are testing. So you would have to take a pressure reading at the inlet holes as well as the outlet hole to measure differences in resistance inside the can.

 

[Glenda W.]

When the Boss ranked 3rd in efficiency is when skepticism entered. Every filter tested that had a metal-to-meal seal (either leaf spring or bypass vlave) had the potential to have a leak path going on, so maybe that has skewed the ranking. As discussed before, the Fram PH in their testing showed a big gap near the end cap that most likely killed the efficiency. If you ranked those same filters based on their official ISO 4548-12 test specs they will not rank like BR has found them to rank. Here's where I pointed out some things about BR's efficiency testing.

Link to Referenced Post


Yes, they used the same test dust which made it consistent, and besides what else could they use - not sand from the beach, lol. And they used the fluids they did to simulate the correct oil viscosity as motor oil at two different temperatures in order to get decent flow vs dP data on the filters. I believe their ranking of the flow vs dP testing more than the efficiency testing using a PC. Plus they should have shown the whole particle count range of the ISO 4406 data IMO since they had it. And I don't think they took a sample of the "cleaned-up" fluid between efficiency runs, so ideally you'd want to know that baseline before adding more dust.

Exactly what I’ve been saying. He used the correct dust and fluid. What about the dozens of other controls? I’d bet his results would be all over the map if repeated. In fact, I’m surprised he only ran his test once. I know I’d be curious to see if my results were remotely accurate.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Exactly what I’ve been saying. He used the correct dust and fluid. What about the dozens of other controls? I’d bet his results would be all over the map if repeated. In fact, I’m surprised he only ran his test once. I know I’d be curious to see if my results were remotely accurate.

I think that the Boss result is some sort of non test error. Sample got mixed up or lab made a sample or transcription error. They should have followed up on that themselves.

Many of their other results are actually directionally correct. But because of how they tested differently, you have to understand the differences rather than take the results at face value. The ranking system is not very smart either.

Btw, until today, I missed that they tested the STP XL so we actually have an (Imperfect) test of a PG XL filter.

 

[Glenda W.]

I think that the Boss result is some sort of non test error. Sample got mixed up or lab made a sample or transcription error. They should have followed up on that themselves.

Many of their other results are actually directionally correct. But because of how they tested differently, you have to understand the differences rather than take the results at face value. The ranking system is not very smart either.

Btw, until today, I missed that they tested the STP XL so we actually have an (Imperfect) test of a PG XL filter.

I just watched the STP XL vid. Like in his other vids the wix and napa gold are way off for identical filters just like the FE, RP, and Amsoil. I just can’t trust the particle counts.

 

[CharlieBauer]

I just watched the STP XL vid. Like in his other vids the wix and napa gold are way off for identical filters just like the FE, RP, and Amsoil. I just can’t trust the particle counts.

Yes there is variability but directionally, the 99% at 20 micron filters have double digit particle counts, the 99% at 25 / 30 microns are triple digit. The rock catchers are 4 digit. Leakers show particles above 38 microns.

Wix and Napa Gold seem to have a quality problem. Have read Napa store managers saying Wix filters coming back from customers all the time for various quality issues.

I think there are quality issues and bad efficiency numbers that can be seen despite testing issues.

 

[Hatsuwr]

Why would you just want to compare a batch of the same filters if you don't know which ones are leakers or not leakers?

So you can identify an especially bad one. I don't think there's a good non-destructive test to quantify the severity of the bypass leaks we've seen. Testing like this would let you know if a filter has a tear or an especially bad bypass leak. It also puts some mild stress on the filter element that would help identify tears that would happen during operation, but a higher differential would be more useful in that regard.

BTW ... if you sealed the base plate inlet holes except for one with some good aluminum tape or similar, what vacuum level is achieved? That may raise the vacuum level and thereby make an internal leak at the leaf spring more noticeable, but only if you have a baseline to compare it to.

While that would increase the overall pressure differential, it would be because of the differential across the inlet, not across the filter media and bypass.

Maybe I've missed something but looking at your picture in your first post, how is what you are measuring a "differential"?

A pressure differential requires a reading before and after the thing you are testing. So you would have to take a pressure reading at the inlet holes as well as the outlet hole to measure differences in resistance inside the can.

Differential across a restriction. In this case, what I am targeting is pressure inside the can but before the filter media - pressure at the outlet. The latter I am measuring. The former I am assuming as atmospheric pressure, which it isn't due to the restriction from the inlet holes, but since the comparison is between filters with the same inlet geometry, it's close enough.

 

[ZeeOSix]

So you can identify an especially bad one. I don't think there's a good non-destructive test to quantify the severity of the bypass leaks we've seen. Testing like this would let you know if a filter has a tear or an especially bad bypass leak. It also puts some mild stress on the filter element that would help identify tears that would happen during operation, but a higher differential would be more useful in that regard.

How are you going to identify a "bad one" if you don't know how a "good one" behaves? You need a "good one" (a baseline non-leaker control filter) to compare to. What else are you going to compare each one to otherwise?

While that would increase the overall pressure differential, it would be because of the differential across the inlet, not across the filter media and bypass.

It would put the vacuum level at a higher level on the gauge, and that in turn may make any gap leaks show up better (make the change in vacuum more sensitive) when comparing a good one (the baseline non-leaker control filter) to a bad one.

Differential across a restriction. In this case, what I am targeting is pressure inside the can but before the filter media - pressure at the outlet. The latter I am measuring. The former I am assuming as atmospheric pressure, which it isn't due to the restriction from the inlet holes, but since the comparison is between filters with the same inlet geometry, it's close enough.

Based on your schematic, you are measuring the vacuum (negative pressure) on the outlet of the filter, which is after the air flow goes through the base inlet holes and then through the media and any leak gaps at the leaf spring.

 

[Hatsuwr]

How are you going to identify a "bad one" if you don't know how a "good one" behaves? You need a "good one" (a baseline non-leaker control filter) to compare to. What else are you going to compare each one to otherwise?

A bad one would have a significantly lower pressure on the output compared to the others. It is a relative comparison, with the assumption that not all of them are bad. This isn't to test if a leak exists, but to compare the magnitude of any leaks present.

It would put the vacuum level at a higher lever on the gauge, and that in turn may make any gap leaks show up better (make the change in vacuum more sensitive) when comparing a good one (the baseline non-leaker control filter) to a bad one.

By creating an increased restriction on the inlet, the pressure differential across the filter media and and leaks would be reduced, which would mean a smaller difference in output pressure between any two filters.

Based on your schematic, you are measuring the vacuum (negative pressure) on the outlet of the filter, which is after the air flow going through the base inlet holes flow through the media and any leak gaps at the leaf spring.

Yes, you need two measurements for differential pressure. One before the restriction, and one after. I am going with the assumption that the pressure before the restriction is atmospheric pressure (which it isn't, but should be close enough to not matter). The pressure after the restriction is the one being measured (measured relative to atmospheric pressure).

 

[ZeeOSix]

A bad one would have a significantly lower pressure on the output compared to the others. It is a relative comparison, with the assumption that not all of them are bad. This isn't to test if a leak exists, but to compare the magnitude of any leaks present.

So you have no baseline control to compare to. Sloppy test methodology and won't give any real good comparison if you're just comparing bad ones to bad ones. The "best one" you test may still be way worse than a 100% "good one" baseline. Baselines exist in testing for a reason. Don't know why you can't seem to grasp that you need a known "good one" baseline to make any real sense in the testing to compare filters to each other.

By creating an increased restriction on the inlet, the pressure differential across the filter media and and leaks would be reduced, which would mean a smaller difference in output pressure between any two filters.

You wouldn't want to choke it down too far which may do what you described, so maybe block half the inlet holes. I think with the vacuum level higher inside the filter, if the leak gap around the media is present then it would effect the level of vacuum more on the gauge compared to if the vacuum level was at a very low level to start with. So essentially making your vacuum gauge more sensitive and easier to see the effect of a gap leak path - but only if you know how a non-leaker baseline filter behaves. Try it and see if you're going to play around with this "science project".

Yes, you need two measurements for differential pressure. One before the restriction, and one after. I am going with the assumption that the pressure before the restriction is atmospheric pressure (which it isn't, but should be close enough to not matter). The pressure after the restriction is the one being measured (measured relative to atmospheric pressure).

Yes, the air is at ATM pressure before it flows into the base holes - doesn't matter after the air flows into the inlet holes. So that will be a constant (as well as the ATM air temperature) if you did comparative testing within a short time frame. In other words, not one filter tested today and the other tested a week from now when the ATM pressure & temp may be slightly different due to weather conditions.