Trasko spec page

[willkie]

http://www.trasko-usa.com/swtesting.htm

http://www.trasko-usa.com/swtesting.htm


TESTING PERFORMED BY:
S O U T H W E S T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E
San Antonio, Texas / Detroit, Michigan / Washington, D.C.
ISO9002- O.E.M. Mechanical Integrity Tests
Click Here to see Spot Test comparisons.



Resistance to Flow (per hs806)
SAE J806 (Single Pass)
SAE J1858 (Multi Pass)
Click above charts for larger image.



OEM testing procedure measures mechanical characteristics of filters. Shunt type stock filters available in the market provide excellent mechanical efficiencies as high as 94% and capacities up to 21 grams. But, none opt to focus on adsorptive qualities or chemical efficiency. Internal combustion engines produce contaminants other than metal shavings that are less than a micron in size. Purifying circulating oil chemically by suppressing oxidation, removing water content/moisture and maintaining viscosity by extending thermal breakdown point (cooling fins reducing oil temperature by 20%) are the added features to the TRASKO. Spot test and Field tests represent the difference for these added features. TRASKO IS A REFINING UNIT UNDER THE HOOD.

TRASKO RELIEF VALVE (Per HS 806)
TRASKO RELIEF VALVE (PER HS 806) trastst2.jpg - 22.84 K
Click above chart for larger image.

 

[427Z06]

To bad that don't say which size they tested.

 

[John W. Colby]

What I want top know does this mean that X% of particles of a given size remain (permanently) in the oil at that flow, or do they simply get picked up the next time around?

IOW, is the "pressure" through the filter element forcing a certain % of a given particle size through the filter and thus (for example) at 10 gpm 11% of all 5 micron particles in the system remain in the oil at all times?

Or... will 89% be filtered out this pass, then 89% of the remainder be filtered out the next pass, then 89% of the remainder... etc.

 

[Filter guy]

The muti-pass testing is the key.

At 10 microns the efficiency is 73%.

At 50 microns it is 85.5%

That should tell you all you want to know.

This would equate out to a Beta 10=3.7

Or Beta 50=6.9

Beta X=75..where X is the micron you are testing for, is considered absolute efficiency at =75 or 98.7% efficient.

Nominal efficiency would be Beta X=2.
Again X is the micron...2 = 50% efficient.

Eaiset way to think of this is you have a particle count of 1000 particles going into the filter upstream 10 microns and larger. You count the particles that come out of the filter...say 500.

Divide 1000 ( upstream ) by 500 (downstream) = 2
The filter is 50% efficient at 10 microns and larger.

Same filter same 1000 going in only 5 come out. 5 into 1000 = 20. That equates to 95% efficient at 10 microns and larger.

You can look up on the web how to determine a Beta Ratio. It was first developed by Dr. Henry Fitch of Oklahoma State University. A number of filter catalogs have the chart listed..as to what Beta number = what efficiency.

btw.. someone might ask or email Trasko and ask when the test was run by Southwest..SAE J806 is an old version...

This test could be 5-10 years old.

 

[willkie]

3 to 10 microns is high 90s through 4 gpm and then falls for flow >4gpm but 10 microns stays in the high 90s. So does the multi pass test rating measure the real filter performance on average during high and low bypass flow? How many passes in a multipass?
In other words if we have a finite # of particles
and we run without adding any new particles does the filter take more and more particles out? The reason I ask that is the UOA I had came up very clean, very low bearing and ring wear. Since I drive in town [40 mph=1800rpm]quite often would this equate to better filter performance?

I really appreciate the help.

 

[Filter guy]

Let me explain a few things about testing, whether SAE or ISO, or multi-pass.

These sets of organizations have specific criteria in order to run a test. That's it.

Within those criteria are large variances that are dependant on the one wanting the test. Such as flow rate, add contaminant rate, and termination point. ( In some instances it is the OEM that determines the actual procedures they want run, others the filter company or other interested party)

So any filter company can "play" with the parameters in order to get the best results they can.

If you add 5 grams of test dust per hour v 10...which filter will last longer? Unless you know the add rate..when company A says their filter lasts X longer versus Company B's test..are they comparing their own test versus company B's test where they know that company B added more dirt faster? And if company A ran the test adding 10 grams per hour they know their filter wouldn't last as long as company B...but they never lied about the test results, did they?


So with that in mind and not knowing what parameters Trasko asked Southwest to run the multi-pass under...

When you see a multi-pass test, and you want to print your results, according to SAE and multi-pass test procedures you are to show worst case scenario.

As they take the particle count samples at the specific time intervals..a filter may be 90% efficient at one point and 75% efficient at another. If a company is honest and follows test procedures, they will list their filter as 75% efficient at that micron tested.

Why? Becuase they can prove that being worst case their filter will always perform at that level or better.

Companies that show a result as best case...

So when you see a multi-pass test and see better information than what a filter is rated at..that is why..you should look at worst case.

I hope that helped..

 

[RalphPWood]

At one time I spent time at trade shows mixing lamp black in oil and running it thru the TP filters. I have done it with three types of TP filters. The Motor Guard was very effective at removing the lamp black on the first pass. One vendor told me he had something that the Motor Guard couldn't remove on the first pass. It was lamp black that an artist uses. It was the perfect size. After using it for a day of demonstration the TP was half black and half white. Some of it has a base that doesn't mix well with oil. For awhile I was using black mortar color that I purchased from Acme Brick Company.
The Beta tests are very misleading. Unless you are an expert all you are going to do is get mislead. The lamp black test isn't misleading. The oil looks as good on the dipstick as it does out of the bottle using Castrol GTX 10-30 in my sisters Geo Prism. I change the TP every 4,000 miles. The oil is never drained. The oil is beautiful in my Camry. I had Shell Rotella synthetic in it but started adding conventional oil because of a seal leak.
I sent some filters to Cape Canaveral. They have their own lab. I was surprised when the engineer told on a forum that new oil is dirty and gets cleaned with the bypass filter. I always thought that new oil was clean. I peeled the label off a can of Royal Purple barrier fluid that we use for $10,000 seals. It reads that "this oil has been cleaned to an ISO 4406 Cleanliness Code of 14/13/11. This is up to 250 times cleaner than is typical of other new oils."

Ralph

 

[Filter guy]

Ralph..

New oil is not 100% clean. As you've no doubt found out.

We know a micron is 39 millionth of an inch. The lower limit of visibility is 40 microns at 20/20 vision.

All filters take out particles smaller than the eye can see.

After that it's fun to watch the gyrations some go to concerning filters.

Automotive manufacturers claim that particles in the 5-20 micron range cause the most wear within an engine.

By-pass filters do a better job at removing these size particles.

But no lube oil is good forever. It will break down viscosity wise.

The reason oil is not "pure" from contaminant is that the container the oil is put into contains particles of contaminant.

Suppose you have a 55 gallon drum that been recycled. How clean do you think that is on the inside before it is refilled with "new" oil?

How clean do you think the plastic oil quart is before filling it at the oil supplier?

Somethings are beyond their control.