Which WIX to use?

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: EMPIRE

... actually, almost every passenger vehicle filter on their website lists beta as: "Beta Ratio: 2/20=X/Y"

2/20 is common on every one of them.


Yes ... and it probably is representing the 50% / 95% efficiency ratings.

Ideally, when testing effiecencies, they should have particle of many sizes that range from 1 micron to 100+ microns (or whatever the upper limit is they test to).

So, if the whole range of particles is in the test mix, and it's found that the filter removes 50% of all particles 10 microns and above, and alsp removes 95% of all particles 30 microns and above, then they would advertise the Beta Ratio as:

Beta Ratio: 2/20 = 10/30

50% efficient for 10+ u
95% efficient for 30+ u

They don't need any "weird sized" particles ... just a good range so they can determine at what size the filter meets 50% and 95% efficiency if they are quoting 2/20 for beta ratios.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
imagine calling up your particle rep and saying "i need some 13u, 20u, 10u, 2u, 47u, 18u, and some 12u particles". 2u, 10u, and 20u seems normal. 13u, 18u, and 47u seems like some weird particles sizes to be testing with. besides that, how would you suggest testing 2-100u sized particles for any given filter?


Well, no one calls up a filter rep and specifies a particle size for automotive use. Well, they may, but it will be expressed under the normal beta ratios.

Now a piece of machinery may specify a give particle size ..and that typically falls into some sensible distribution (5/10/25) ..Donaldson's site lists lots of them.

The variable numbers are the results of fixed efficiency standards. That's why they're all over the place.

The Gresen hydraulic filter I have is listed with sensible particle numbers (mostly) with the standard efficiency ratings.

(read right off of the filter)

ISO 4572-1981 (I assume obsolete) TWA=time weighted average
TWA Beta10=2
TWA Beta20=20
TWA Beta22=75

Your confusion is due to it also making mathematical sense if done the other way around.

You're interpreting the above as:
90% of the 2um
95% of the 20um
95.4% of the 75um

So ..it does appear to support the theory ..except that the incredible jump in particle size yields very little in capture ratio increase.

 

[EMPIRE]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa


Yes ... and it probably is the 50% / 95% efficiency ratings.

Ideally, when they test they should have particle sizes that range from 1 micron to 100+ microns (or whatever the upper limit is they test).

So, if the whole range of particles is in the test mix, and it's found that the filter removes 50% of all particles 10 microns and above, and removes 95% of all particles 30 microns and above, then they would advertise the Beta Ratio as:

Beta Ratio: 2/20 = 10/30

They don't need any "weird sized" particles ... just a good range so they can determine at what size the filter meets 50% and 95% efficiency if they are quoting 2/20 for beta ratios.

well, you're in a catch-22. go look at various filters, note the widely varying #'s on the right hand side of the "=". 51346 beta is 2/20=18/38. and filter 51040 has beta 2/20=15/31. 15u, 18u, 31u, and 38u seems like normal sized particles to you?. to report 18/38 or 15/31 means they had to use these particle sizes. certainly possible to get such odd sized particles, but i have my doubts...

 

[EMPIRE]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


(read right off of the filter)

ISO 4572-1981 (I assume obsolete) TWA=time weighted average
TWA Beta10=2
TWA Beta20=20
TWA Beta22=75

Your confusion is due to it also making mathematical sense if done the other way around.

You're interpreting the above as:
90% of the 2um
95% of the 20um
95.4% of the 75um

So ..it does appear to support the theory ..except that the incredible jump in particle size yields very little in capture ratio increase.

well, this nomanclature looks completely opposite of what you say. the #'s on right side of "=" look like beta #'s, and the #'s next to "beta" look like particle size (basically a "function" but they used the text "beta" instead of "B(x)=#"). why? because 10,20,22 seem like standard partcle sizes and seem relevant to oil filter filtering ability. the 75 does not seem like a relevant particle size. and, 20 to 75 beta is just a couple % diff in eficiency, makes sense since 20 to 22 is a small diff, etc.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: EMPIRE
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa


Yes ... and it probably is the 50% / 95% efficiency ratings.

Ideally, when they test they should have particle sizes that range from 1 micron to 100+ microns (or whatever the upper limit is they test).

So, if the whole range of particles is in the test mix, and it's found that the filter removes 50% of all particles 10 microns and above, and removes 95% of all particles 30 microns and above, then they would advertise the Beta Ratio as:

Beta Ratio: 2/20 = 10/30

They don't need any "weird sized" particles ... just a good range so they can determine at what size the filter meets 50% and 95% efficiency if they are quoting 2/20 for beta ratios.

well, you're in a catch-22. go look at various filters, note the widely varying #'s on the right hand side of the "=". 51346 beta is 2/20=18/38. and filter 51040 has beta 2/20=15/31. 15u, 18u, 31u, and 38u seems like normal sized particles to you?. to report 18/38 or 15/31 means they had to use these particle sizes. certainly possible to get such odd sized particles, but i have my doubts...


Who says that the particle sizes have to be exactly 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 ... etc, etc (or whatever size steps they might use) and are "normal sized" particles? Do you think it's easier to make a 20 micron particle vs. a 21 or 23 or 37 micron particle? If their sized is manufactured in a controlled way, then theoretically any size could be made just as easily as the next.

Even if they did use such steps in particle sizes, it's possible they "interpolate" the results to some odd sized particle between the steps.

The only way you'll ever find out for sure is to research the testing standard to see if such details are given.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
well, this nomanclature looks completely opposite of what you say. the #'s on right side of "=" look like beta #'s, and the #'s next to "beta" look like particle size (basically a "function" but they used the text "beta" instead of "B(x)=#"). why? because 10,20,22 seem like standard partcle sizes and seem relevant to oil filter filtering ability. the 75 does not seem like a relevant particle size. and, 20 to 75 beta is just a couple % diff in eficiency, makes sense since 20 to 22 is a small diff, etc.


You're losing me after the first sentence there.

The traditional way you'll see a beta ratio expressed is

Beta(particle size)= (efficiency)

Beta10=2 is 10um.

It would not be out of the question to see it expressed the other way.

..but note this image...

and this image...

The numbers on the left are not particle sizes ..they're calculation factors applied to results.


..or is this another debate that (from my perspective) turns around in mid-stream into some agreement that no one informed me of?

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

..or is this another debate that (from my perspective) turns around in mid-stream into some agreement that no one informed me of?


Hummm ... sounds familiar.

 

[labman]

Particle sizes available could relate to common screen mesh. If I remember correctly, anything bigger than 30 microns won't pass through a 600 mesh (wires per inch) screen. I don't know why 220 and 325 are commonly available screen meshes.

Screens are uniform and accurate, but fill up and blind quickly. Great for testing, but poor filters.

 

[EMPIRE]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


You're losing me after the first sentence there.

The traditional way you'll see a beta ratio expressed is

Beta(particle size)= (efficiency)

Beta10=2 is 10um.

It would not be out of the question to see it expressed the other way.

..but note this image...

and this image...

The numbers on the left are not particle sizes ..they're calculation factors applied to results.


..or is this another debate that (from my perspective) turns around in mid-stream into some agreement that no one informed me of?


yes, these images show the definition of Beta:
B = # of particles trapped upstream / # of particles that got by

this is not the confusion. the confusion is that the relationship between Beta and particle size can be written different ways. one vendor may write "Beta10=2" and another may write "Beta2=10" and another may write "B(2)=10", and WIX writes "Beta: 2/20=10/40", and they could all mean the same thing, or not.

i am attempting to get clarity from WIX on how they report their Beta #'s.

 

[EMPIRE]

well, at this time juncture it looks like i might need to stand corrected. i called WIX and spoke to a woman in the tech dept. she did say the 1st set of #'s are the Beta #'s and the 2nd set are the particle sizes, however, she could not explain the widely varying #'s for particle sizes so she gave me the name of the guy there who runs testing, but he's out until wed.

so at this time my argument has not been validated and as of right now it stands as follows:

for WIX, eg, "Beta: 2/20 = 18/40"
the 2/20 are the Beta #'s and the 18/40 are the particle sizes.

so back to the OP's question, as i 1st posted and others have stated, the 1st filter listed (51058) does filter better.

darn #'s.

 

[SuperBusa]

Originally Posted By: EMPIRE
i called WIX and spoke to a woman in the tech dept. she did say the 1st set of #'s are the Beta #'s and the 2nd set are the particle sizes ..

for WIX, eg, "Beta: 2/20 = 18/40"
the 2/20 are the Beta #'s and the 18/40 are the particle sizes.


Thanks for verifying how WIX was showing beta info. Good thing you didn't take any bets.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
Originally Posted By: EMPIRE
i called WIX and spoke to a woman in the tech dept. she did say the 1st set of #'s are the Beta #'s and the 2nd set are the particle sizes ..

for WIX, eg, "Beta: 2/20 = 18/40"
the 2/20 are the Beta #'s and the 18/40 are the particle sizes.


Thanks for verifying how WIX was showing beta info. Good thing you didn't take any bets.

Indeed. And good to see he is being a good sport about it as well.

 

[EMPIRE]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Indeed. And good to see he is being a good sport about it as well.


when i'm wrong i'm wrong, when i'm right i'm right. no big deal going from wrong to right (no gloating), or right to wrong (no bitterness), etc. its in my background to investigate in an effort to obtain the correct information, and learn along the way, etc. cheers.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: EMPIRE
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Indeed. And good to see he is being a good sport about it as well.


when i'm wrong i'm wrong, when i'm right i'm right. no big deal going from wrong to right (no gloating), or right to wrong (no bitterness), etc. its in my background to investigate in an effort to obtain the correct information, and learn along the way, etc. cheers.


That is a fantastic attitude to have. Cheers to you as well sir.

 

[Buick92]

I have a 05 caravan, I have purchased wix filters from the local mom and pop auto store in the past, they've always given me the 51085, around $6 if I remember correctly. I have a Fram on there right now (yes a fram),no problems yet.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: EMPIRE
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


Indeed. And good to see he is being a good sport about it as well.


when i'm wrong i'm wrong, when i'm right i'm right. no big deal going from wrong to right (no gloating), or right to wrong (no bitterness), etc. its in my background to investigate in an effort to obtain the correct information, and learn along the way, etc. cheers.


Well, it's not like you looked like an idiot or anything. Your assumptions were well supported. A critical thinking person has to have things add up. When it doesn't ..it nags the heck out of them. We grab the first plausible route to relieving that anxiety.

If I couldn't find the supporting visual aids and text, there was little to dismantle your argument beyond "trust me. Take my word for it"