Pure one makes greater effiencey claim than stp Extended life and fram ultra

Status
Not open for further replies.
Twenty is a whole number, no + or - anything. No particle in the universe is 20 microns. There is no @ 20 microns exactly. So they correctly say >. When they say @ they are just looking at 20 written on a graph and seeing what the % is at that line. https://www.mathsisfun.com/whole-numbers.html
49.gif
 
Originally Posted by SirTanon
Originally Posted by Duffyjr
Warranty Details (30 DAY REPLACEMENT IF DEFECTIVE)

If it tears in the first 30 days you can get you money back...


I drive a LOT, and it still takes me about 3 months to complete an OCI (7,500 miles). Even if I just did 5,000 miles, it would still take 2 months. a 30-day warranty is pretty much useless on a product like this.



Is the 30 day warranty a store (ADAP etc.) warranty, or is it the Manufacturer's warranty?
 
Originally Posted by goodtimes
Twenty is a whole number, no + or - anything. No particle in the universe is 20 microns. There is no @ 20 microns exactly. So they correctly say >. When they say @ they are just looking at 20 written on a graph and seeing what the % is at that line. https://www.mathsisfun.com/whole-numbers.html
49.gif


You're back, where were have you been?
 
Originally Posted by goodtimes
Twenty is a whole number, no + or - anything. No particle in the universe is 20 microns. There is no @ 20 microns exactly. So they correctly say >. When they say @ they are just looking at 20 written on a graph and seeing what the % is at that line. https://www.mathsisfun.com/whole-numbers.html
49.gif


Well if we want to be really literal, apart from the presence of an intelligent observer
all that really exist is energy- waves of potential. However speaking in terms of human perception all small localized objects to which can be ascribed physical or chemical properties such as volume, density or mass eg. iron dust, pollen,mold spores etc. that measure .0331 inches are 20 micron objects. We can call it particulate if it makes you feel better.
> =Greater than â¥=greater than or equal to. The greater than sign(>) means a number to the left is greater than the number on the right just like your 3rd grade teacher taught you. The absence of a number on either side is inconclusive. They should list their beta ratio instead of the caca they do. A nominal rating would be nice. Especially since either 5u to 10u or 10u to 20u , depending on who you ask, cause the most wear.
I'm liking the sounds of dual stage filters better and better as I go.
 
Originally Posted by Ablebody
They should list their beta ratio instead of the caca they do. A nominal rating would be nice. Especially since either 5u to 10u or 10u to 20u , depending on who you ask, cause the most wear.


Beta ratio is just another way to say xx% @ yy microns.

Go search for the ISO 4548-12 test prodedure, and you'll see that they define the measured efficiency test points as ">5u", ">10u", ">15u" etc. But as has been said many times in these discussions, 20.00001 is still >20, so for all practical purposes as the size approaches 20 it's fine to say "@20u".

As far as expressing the efficiency in a standard way, most filter companies would show the efficiency "@20u". But some companies will show the "99%" with a larger micron size because they realize most people understand percentage, but not necessarily microns. Expressing it that way makes the efficiency seem better. Or they will just say "99% dirt removal power" or some similar nonsense with no mention of micron size. Which one sounds better to the guy not up on filters - "50% @ 20u" or "99% @ 40u" or "99% efficiency at removing harmful particles" (with no mention of micron size).
 
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by goodtimes
Twenty is a whole number, no + or - anything. No particle in the universe is 20 microns. There is no @ 20 microns exactly. So they correctly say >. When they say @ they are just looking at 20 written on a graph and seeing what the % is at that line. https://www.mathsisfun.com/whole-numbers.html
49.gif


Well if we want to be really literal, apart from the presence of an intelligent observer
all that really exist is energy- waves of potential. However speaking in terms of human perception all small localized objects to which can be ascribed physical or chemical properties such as volume, density or mass eg. iron dust, pollen,mold spores etc. that measure .0331 inches are 20 micron objects. We can call it particulate if it makes you feel better.
> =Greater than â¥=greater than or equal to. The greater than sign(>) means a number to the left is greater than the number on the right just like your 3rd grade teacher taught you. The absence of a number on either side is inconclusive. They should list their beta ratio instead of the caca they do. A nominal rating would be nice. Especially since either 5u to 10u or 10u to 20u , depending on who you ask, cause the most wear.
I'm liking the sounds of dual stage filters better and better as I go.



Twenty is a whole number, which means it has no fractions or decimals. There is no @20, it doesn't exist. > is the more correct way to show efficiency unless one realizes the @ twenty is just an approximate number very close to twenty. Unless the definition of whole numbers is now deemed wrong by someone on an oil filter forum.
There won't be any particles in an engine spherical to one micron let alone tenths or thousandths, nanometers, so the whole argument Fram is pulling a fast one with > is just nonsense blown up to try and make something come true that isn't.
 
Originally Posted by goodtimes
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by goodtimes
Twenty is a whole number, no + or - anything. No particle in the universe is 20 microns. There is no @ 20 microns exactly. So they correctly say >. When they say @ they are just looking at 20 written on a graph and seeing what the % is at that line. https://www.mathsisfun.com/whole-numbers.html
49.gif


Well if we want to be really literal, apart from the presence of an intelligent observer
all that really exist is energy- waves of potential. However speaking in terms of human perception all small localized objects to which can be ascribed physical or chemical properties such as volume, density or mass eg. iron dust, pollen,mold spores etc. that measure .0331 inches are 20 micron objects. We can call it particulate if it makes you feel better.
> =Greater than â¥=greater than or equal to. The greater than sign(>) means a number to the left is greater than the number on the right just like your 3rd grade teacher taught you. The absence of a number on either side is inconclusive. They should list their beta ratio instead of the caca they do. A nominal rating would be nice. Especially since either 5u to 10u or 10u to 20u , depending on who you ask, cause the most wear.
I'm liking the sounds of dual stage filters better and better as I go.



Twenty is a whole number, which means it has no fractions or decimals. There is no @20, it doesn't exist. > is the more correct way to show efficiency unless one realizes the @ twenty is just an approximate number very close to twenty. Unless the definition of whole numbers is now deemed wrong by someone on an oil filter forum.
There won't be any particles in an engine spherical to one micron let alone tenths or thousandths, nanometers, so the whole argument Fram is pulling a fast one with > is just nonsense blown up to try and make something come true that isn't.

No it's not at all and we're not just talking about one product actually or 1 manufacturer. If they could safety list @20u they would. Assuming your correct that they really do mean anything greater than 20, and it's not just shady language, they should round up to the nearest whole#21. Rounding down would be fradulant. But as it stands its really just left to the imagination.
If you really love Kool-Aid that much you should start making your own.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Ablebody
They should list their beta ratio instead of the caca they do. A nominal rating would be nice. Especially since either 5u to 10u or 10u to 20u , depending on who you ask, cause the most wear.


Beta ratio is just another way to say xx% @ yy microns.

Go search for the ISO 4548-12 test prodedure, and you'll see that they define the measured efficiency test points as ">5u", ">10u", ">15u" etc. But as has been said many times in these discussions, 20.00001 is still >20, so for all practical purposes as the size approaches 20 it's fine to say "@20u".

As far as expressing the efficiency in a standard way, most filter companies would show the efficiency "@20u". But some companies will show the "99%" with a larger micron size because they realize most people understand percentage, but not necessarily microns. Expressing it that way makes the efficiency seem better. Or they will just say "99% dirt removal power" or some similar nonsense with no mention of micron size. Which one sounds better to the guy not up on filters - "50% @ 20u" or "99% @ 40u" or "99% efficiency at removing harmful particles" (with no mention of micron size).

It doesn't matter how many times something is said or discussed it doesn't make it true or false. Now if something is repeated long enough often enough the masses have tended to start believing it. Politicians and marketers understand that fact all to well.
 
Originally Posted by goodtimes
Agree with that. Just trying to help you understand the Fram data is stated correctly. Good luck with everything.

I see. Thank you sir.
 
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Ablebody
They should list their beta ratio instead of the caca they do. A nominal rating would be nice. Especially since either 5u to 10u or 10u to 20u , depending on who you ask, cause the most wear.

Beta ratio is just another way to say xx% @ yy microns.

Go search for the ISO 4548-12 test prodedure, and you'll see that they define the measured efficiency test points as ">5u", ">10u", ">15u" etc. But as has been said many times in these discussions, 20.00001 is still >20, so for all practical purposes as the size approaches 20 it's fine to say "@20u".

As far as expressing the efficiency in a standard way, most filter companies would show the efficiency "@20u". But some companies will show the "99%" with a larger micron size because they realize most people understand percentage, but not necessarily microns. Expressing it that way makes the efficiency seem better. Or they will just say "99% dirt removal power" or some similar nonsense with no mention of micron size. Which one sounds better to the guy not up on filters - "50% @ 20u" or "99% @ 40u" or "99% efficiency at removing harmful particles" (with no mention of micron size).

It doesn't matter how many times something is said or discussed it doesn't make it true or false. Now if something is repeated long enough often enough the masses have tended to start believing it. Politicians and marketers understand that fact all to well.


If you do more research on the subject matter the light bulb might go on and you'd see you're not understanding it entirely correctly. Some people grasp onto misconceptions pretty tightly until they finally see the correct way of understanding something. This subject has been hashed over many times in this forum over the last 10 years. I've posted ISO test graphs to get the point across. One has to understand how the ISO efficiency test defines the efficiency test points to understand fully.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Ablebody
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Ablebody
They should list their beta ratio instead of the caca they do. A nominal rating would be nice. Especially since either 5u to 10u or 10u to 20u , depending on who you ask, cause the most wear.

Beta ratio is just another way to say xx% @ yy microns.

Go search for the ISO 4548-12 test prodedure, and you'll see that they define the measured efficiency test points as ">5u", ">10u", ">15u" etc. But as has been said many times in these discussions, 20.00001 is still >20, so for all practical purposes as the size approaches 20 it's fine to say "@20u".

As far as expressing the efficiency in a standard way, most filter companies would show the efficiency "@20u". But some companies will show the "99%" with a larger micron size because they realize most people understand percentage, but not necessarily microns. Expressing it that way makes the efficiency seem better. Or they will just say "99% dirt removal power" or some similar nonsense with no mention of micron size. Which one sounds better to the guy not up on filters - "50% @ 20u" or "99% @ 40u" or "99% efficiency at removing harmful particles" (with no mention of micron size).

It doesn't matter how many times something is said or discussed it doesn't make it true or false. Now if something is repeated long enough often enough the masses have tended to start believing it. Politicians and marketers understand that fact all to well.


If you do more research on the subject matter the light bulb might go on and you'd see you're not understanding it entirely correctly. Some people grasp onto misconceptions pretty tightly until they finally see the correct way of understanding something. This subject has been hashed over many times in this forum over the last 10 years. I've posted ISO test graphs to get the point across. One has to understand how the ISO efficiency test defines the efficiency test points to understand fully.

I do t pay much attention to your graphs and stuff. I don't take much of what you say too serious. It was obvious to me after the first day on here that you have a certain clear agenda. It's the same sorta redlight warning someone that's not so gullible gets when a used car salesman approaches them or the Kirby y vaccumm guy knocks on the door and begins to speak. I hear bla blah blah blah blah blah blah....
 
Originally Posted by Ablebody
I do t pay much attention to your graphs and stuff. I don't take much of what you say too serious. It was obvious to me after the first day on here that you have a certain clear agenda. It's the same sorta redlight warning someone that's not so gullible gets when a used car salesman approaches them or the Kirby y vaccumm guy knocks on the door and begins to speak. I hear bla blah blah blah blah blah blah....

So you'd rather remain ignorant than comprehend what is posted? Are you suspicious that his "graphs and stuff" are incorrect or a lie, or are you just unwilling to try and understand it? Because putting your fingers in your ears and calling it "blah blah blah blah..." is exactly that.

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." That's exactly the "certain clear agenda" you accuse him of having.
 
Quote

I do t pay much attention to your graphs and stuff. I don't take much of what you say too serious. It was obvious to me after the first day on here that you have a certain clear agenda. It's the same sorta redlight warning someone that's not so gullible gets when a used car salesman approaches them or the Kirby y vaccumm guy knocks on the door and begins to speak. I hear bla blah blah blah blah blah blah....



+1, as they like to say. Lot of truth in that, some people get very attached to their brands they like and will ignore certain excellent data while accepting poorly referenced data, just to fawn over that brand they like. There can be torn up pieces of garbage shown and excuses will flow like a river for the favorite, and if one defect on a non favorite is shown it's the Ten Commandments forever and ever they are bad.. Like the Delco PF64 one shown torn and all of them now and forever are no good. .
BTW I wasn't trying to be a know it all with the whole numbers. We all learn about whole numbers in school, but forget about the definition as years pass. I had to look it up and be sure the definition is no fractions or decimals attached, not even ,00000001, So there is no equals 20, impossible, just greater than or less than. At 20 is just a less precise way to say it, referring to a graph line, IMO.
 
Originally Posted by goodtimes
+1, as they like to say. Lot of truth in that, some people get very attached to their brands they like and will ignore certain excellent data while accepting poorly referenced data, just to fawn over that brand they like. There can be torn up pieces of garbage shown and excuses will flow like a river for the favorite, and if one defect on a non favorite is shown it's the Ten Commandments forever and ever they are bad.. Like the Delco PF64 one shown torn and all of them now and forever are no good. .
BTW I wasn't trying to be a know it all with the whole numbers. We all learn about whole numbers in school, but forget about the definition as years pass. I had to look it up and be sure the definition is no fractions or decimals attached, not even ,00000001, So there is no equals 20, impossible, just greater than or less than. At 20 is just a less precise way to say it, referring to a graph line, IMO.

I have never seen any "excellent data" that has in any way contradicted the actual data ZeeOSix has posted.

So where were you for the month of September? Good thing someone else joined right after you disappeared to carry the torch.
 
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by Ablebody
I do t pay much attention to your graphs and stuff. I don't take much of what you say too serious. It was obvious to me after the first day on here that you have a certain clear agenda. It's the same sorta redlight warning someone that's not so gullible gets when a used car salesman approaches them or the Kirby y vaccumm guy knocks on the door and begins to speak. I hear bla blah blah blah blah blah blah....

So you'd rather remain ignorant than comprehend what is posted? Are you suspicious that his "graphs and stuff" are incorrect or a lie, or are you just unwilling to try and understand it? Because putting your fingers in your ears and calling it "blah blah blah blah..." is exactly that.

"Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up." That's exactly the "certain clear agenda" you accuse him of having.


How's the saying go ... "ignorance is bliss".
wink.gif
And science and technology is "scary".
lol.gif


I really don't care if someone believes the technical data or not. It is funny though when they try to argue the facts with misinformation.

Originally Posted by kschachn
So where were you for the month of September? Good thing someone else joined right after you disappeared to carry the torch.


Yeah, I picked up on that too ... could have a sock puppet situation going on now.
whistle.gif
 
Originally Posted by goodtimes


I do t pay much attention to your graphs and stuff. I don't take much of what you say too serious. It was obvious to me after the first day on here that you have a certain clear agenda. It's the same sorta redlight warning someone that's not so gullible gets when a used car salesman approaches them or the Kirby y vaccumm guy knocks on the door and begins to speak. I hear bla blah blah blah blah blah blah....[/quote]


+1, as they like to say. Lot of truth in that, some people get very attached to their brands they like and will ignore certain excellent data while accepting poorly referenced data, just to fawn over that brand they like. There can be torn up pieces of garbage shown and excuses will flow like a river for the favorite, and if one defect on a non favorite is shown it's the Ten Commandments forever and ever they are bad.. Like the Delco PF64 one shown torn and all of them now and forever are no good. .
BTW I wasn't trying to be a know it all with the whole numbers. We all learn about whole numbers in school, but forget about the definition as years pass. I had to look it up and be sure the definition is no fractions or decimals attached, not even ,00000001, So there is no equals 20, impossible, just greater than or less than. At 20 is just a less precise way to say it, referring to a graph line, IMO. [/quote]I think I'm seeing that fact for myself. I do have to wonder if it's not a little bit more than an attachment to a favorite brand with some people. If maybe they're not a little bit more involved with the brand actually. Could be just really over passionate I guess but it seems like a lot of energy to exert lol. I dunno though really because there are all kinds in the world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Fram Ultra not ok for my 2018 Impala??
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
11K
irv
J
  • Locked
Fram Ultra- Honda Filter Comparo
Replies
16
Views
19K
SOHCman
C
  • Locked
The real deal - FRAM from their test lab with pic
2 3
Replies
55
Views
22K
ZeeOSix
G
  • Locked
FL-820S class filters - Sept. 2006
Replies
8
Views
10K
glenncof
B
  • Locked
Oil Filter Reports
Replies
2
Views
6K
Patman
Back
Top