Noticed the Titanium info.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by Farnsworth
4. The EG is 95%, the Force is 98%, TG 99% so they are all different media.


It was related in another thread that the Force is 99% @ 20 microns while the Tough Guard is something like 98.5% @ 20 microns.
No, the website is not ambiguous, 95, 98, 99, and 99+ %, regardless of other threads, info from Fram itself is the one to go by. Same for the MK debate, there he is on the Fram current website regardless of news articles etc, and I never heard of a company keeping an ex employee advertising, especially with his title displayed. What would the new tech training manager think about that, if there was one? None of it matters, but since the board is so so super sensitive on accuracy.
 
Those teardrops mean 110% of nothing, ALL marketing.
Personally, if that were true I wouldn’t buy products from such a dishonest company. But there the swirls are, swirling. That wouldn’t be marketing, that would be lying and deception.
 
Lots of things are pushed to the limit when marketing is involved. Someone setup a test with a cut off base plate using pressurized water to prove or disprove the "super swirling tornado" flow field coming out of the tear dropped holes. It's not going to be anything like Fram's advertising shows.
 
Someone setup a test with a cut off base plate using pressurized water to prove or disprove the "super swirling tornado" flow field coming out of the tear dropped holes. It's not going to be anything like Fram's advertising shows.

I actually have the filter adapters that I was going to use for a filter relocation project, but I've learned Farnsworth is not going to believe my video is real even if I did the experiment.

It's just not worth teaching a student unwilling to learn.
 
I actually have the filter adapters that I was going to use for a filter relocation project, but I've learned Farnsworth is not going to believe my video is real even if I did the experiment.

It's just not worth teaching a student unwilling to learn.
That's imagined baloney. Actually I was going to cut a similar shape myself and test it. You see, it isn't about me or you or 06 being right, it's if Fram is right. Under all this is the undeniable fact Fram, a large respected company, advertises and even gives the holes a special name. You are spending a lot of time trying to prove someone is wrong , but it's a waste of time. because I am not the one advertising it. I offered some explanation in support of Fram, and so far I haven't read anything that proves Fram wrong. If they are wrong and making it all up that's a bad mark on Fram, not me. Not sure I would trust other things Fram claims. It's pretty funny actually, and what this is really all about, how the board controller makes sure his opinions are the ones the board follows. Disagree or question, and we all see what happens.
 
Last edited:
I actually have the filter adapters that I was going to use for a filter relocation project, but I've learned Farnsworth is not going to believe my video is real even if I did the experiment.

It's just not worth teaching a student unwilling to learn.

And do it with the ADBV in place with the cartridge end cap also in place so the ADBV will only raise up ~1/4" like in real life. Even if there was a little "swirling", it would instantly be destroyed when it hits the ADBV and changes direction drastically.
 
Last edited:
That's imagined baloney. Actually I was going to cut a similar shape myself and test it. You see, it isn't about me or you or 06 being right, it's if Fram is right.

The only way to do any kind of full test would be like I described in post #27 above. Even if a test was done on only the base plate without the ADBV and media cartridge end cap air gap in the configuration, it's not going to "swirl" like Fram depicts in the animation.

Under all this is the undeniable fact Fram, a large respected company, advertises and even gives the holes a special name. You are spending a lot of time trying to prove someone is wrong , but it's a waste of time. because I am not the one advertising it. I offered some explanation in support of Fram, and so far I haven't read anything that proves Fram wrong. If they are wrong and making it all up that's a bad mark on Fram, not me. Not sure I would trust other things Fram claims. It's pretty funny actually, and what this is really all about, how the board controller makes sure his opinions are the ones the board follows. Disagree or question, and we all see what happens.

People follow logic and fact - isn't that what this chat board is about. And lots of people on this board have Engineering career backgrounds and aren't flat earthers that believe things that don't follow the laws of physics. 😏
 
Last edited:
I agree it's not about proving you wrong Farnsworth. It's about showing the believed science behind a claim is correct, or not. A lot of people believe Fram's marketing is exactly that, marketing. You just happen to take the hard stance against the norm. I would say you don't do your research, but then again most people don't bring evidence forward to show the class so I can't say much there (I'm part of that group).

But, here's another brand showing "swirling" on a venturi effect filter. The venturi effect says nothing about swirling, but about pressure differences. So, not the first time marketing has lied to sell something.

 


I believe that more than Fram's swirling tornado claim animation. The venturi is simply causing more turbluent (chaotic flow as shown by the annimation) as the flow expands into a larger flow cross sectional area.
 
I believe that more than Fram's swirling tornado claim animation. The venturi is simply causing more turbluent (chaotic flow as shown by the annimation) as the flow expands into a larger flow cross sectional area.
I think the turbulence would be chaotic, and more of a roll than a spin (more like a wave on a beach than water going down a drain). It definitely plays a part, but I wonder if it really helps or if the reduced opening causes more harm than just leaving it a smooth all open cylinder.
 
I agree it's not about proving you wrong Farnsworth. It's about showing the believed science behind a claim is correct, or not. A lot of people believe Fram's marketing is exactly that, marketing. You just happen to take the hard stance against the norm. I would say you don't do your research, but then again most people don't bring evidence forward to show the class so I can't say much there (I'm part of that group).

But, here's another brand showing "swirling" on a venturi effect filter. The venturi effect says nothing about swirling, but about pressure differences. So, not the first time marketing has lied to sell something.


Good to hear one listened, and that it isn’t me that came up with the swirling idea but Fram. Someone call them and chew on them. See how far that goes. When I see someone elses work and there is a certain amount of validity on who they are like Fram, immediately I try to understand what they did. My stance is Fram shouldn’t be advertising something not true, so there is a reason even if I don’t understand it. I don’t go at it like I am the world expert and know it all. I don’t see too much if any false advertising from Fram. So thats it.
 
Do the test I described in post #27, and also do the same test on an Ultra with round base plate holes to see if there's any difference. I say there will be none based on what I know about fluid flow dynamics. It won't be anything even close, if even anything like Fram's "swirling" animation. Sucked in by exaggerated marketing, like the marketing department's main goal.
 
I think this thread has run its course. The points have been made...over and over...And over...

In this and other threads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top