WIX Filter Beta Numbers

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EMPIRE

Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
402
Location
AZ
this is a follow-up to another thread where a small debate came up about Wix filters Beta reporting.

long story short i thought Wix was reporting a different way, hence my argument was clarified and i was wrong. i have not yet spoken to the testing guy but i did get a email back from them. i still wish to talk to the guy to inquire about their testing method because it seems odd that they use such a large varying selection of particle sizes and many of them are odd sizes at that:

"Thank you for your inquiry.

Beta Ratios 2/20=22/40 B2/20, 2 represents 50% efficiency and 20 represents 95% efficiency. The latter numbers are micron sizes. So, B2 =22 and B20 = 40. Filter is 50% efficient at removing 22 micron size particles and 95% efficient at removing 40 micron size particles."
 
Thanks for admitting you were wrong. It is very rare in the human experiance!
thumbsup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: EMPIRE
this is a follow-up to another thread where a small debate came up about Wix filters Beta reporting.

long story short i thought Wix was reporting a different way, hence my argument was clarified and i was wrong. i have not yet spoken to the testing guy but i did get a email back from them. i still wish to talk to the guy to inquire about their testing method because it seems odd that they use such a large varying selection of particle sizes and many of them are odd sizes at that:

"Thank you for your inquiry.

Beta Ratios 2/20=22/40 B2/20, 2 represents 50% efficiency and 20 represents 95% efficiency. The latter numbers are micron sizes. So, B2 =22 and B20 = 40. Filter is 50% efficient at removing 22 micron size particles and 95% efficient at removing 40 micron size particles."


I'm sure they probably test per some SAE standard. I think they would have to use a whole range of particle sizes to see where the efficiency points are. In other words, WIX likes to report 50% and 95% efficiencies (Beta 2/20), so they would have to use a range of particle sizes to see at what micron size the 50% and 95% filtering efficiency points occur at. That's why they end up with micron sizes like 6 and 19 for instance (ie, Beta 2/20 = 6/19 ... which is the actual Beta Ratio for a WIX 51356).
 
First of all kudos to Wix for presenting Beta Ratios on their site. I wish everyone did this. But most of us consumers seem to ask the question differently than how Wix does the test. Perhaps it is a standard to control the efficiency number and let the particle size be the variable. But we weem to focus on how efficient the filter is at capturing a know size particle such as 10 micron, 20 micron, 30 micron, etc and then first pass, multi pass. But either way at least it gives us some sense of the filters capabilities. It would be very interesting if someone had the facilies to do a Beta Ratio test on a bunch of filters and publish it.
 
Grease's study did that ..more or less ..and lots more. The unfortunate thing about any massive undertaking like that for a hobby (Grease's test was done by another member that had access to a bubble and other testing machines at PALL Filtration), is that the data is passe~. Since that study a few of the manufacturers have changed hands ...changed alleged spec's ..and whole designs. Look at the original (whatever)'zine filter study. It was obsolte by the time most people noticed it. About the only thing constant is the cardboard endcap Fram.
 
Quote:
i still wish to talk to the guy to inquire about their testing method because it seems odd that they use such a large varying selection of particle sizes and many of them are odd sizes at that:


You need to get with the Baldwin/Hastings crew. They can have both using oddball numbers, especially the bypass filters. (not stated for truth- just an example) ..like Beta6=3.5 (swap it around if it makes more sense).

Then you can find them both odd.
55.gif



I just can't see a reason why we should expect both the beta ratio and the particle size to be uniform and tidy. You can make things that way if you want to and aren't restricted to size. Then you merely adjust the length or the diameter of the can to fit more media. That would still require some tweaking of the pore distribution to assure that all the divisions: Beta2,20,75,200,1000 at tidy numbers (10,20,30,40, etc. )
 
Then I was wrong too. Apparently, WIX does there beta backwards order from what the Filter Council explains in how to read them.
 
the issue is syntax. Wix website uses syntax like this:
"Beta Ratio: 2/20=14/31"
actual text for 51516.

now, notice the email reply i got in post #1, they added "B2/20" which is not in their syntax.

"B2/20" means Beta-2 and Beta-20. the confusion can be solved if Wix just fixes their website to use this syntax instead of using the text "Beta Ratio:"

or, they just need to add the "B" in the right spot like this:
"Beta Ratio: B2/20=14/31".

i will email Wix and make this request.


Originally Posted By: Gary Allan


I just can't see a reason why we should expect both the beta ratio and the particle size to be uniform and tidy. You can make things that way if you want to and aren't restricted to size. Then you merely adjust the length or the diameter of the can to fit more media. That would still require some tweaking of the pore distribution to assure that all the divisions: Beta2,20,75,200,1000 at tidy numbers (10,20,30,40, etc. )

because if you dont make a constant somewhere it becomes nearly impossible to compare filters.

so tell me which one of these are a better filter:
Beta Ratio: B2/20=14/61
or
Beta Ratio: B10/15=20/60
 
Empire ..you're really over complicating it. Way over complicating it.

2
20
75
1000

All typical and VERY CONSISTENTLY UNIFORM beta efficiencies.

Medias come in all types of pore distribution ..hence there will be all kinds of particle capture efficiencies.


P179089

LPS04 ELEM 1/CTN
LPS04 element assy, 10 micron absolute, 7.9'' long

View Product Line Drawing




Hydraulic Filters Product Attributes
A - OD (Inches): 3.66
B - Thread Size (Inches): 1-12
C - Length (Inches): 7.87
D - Gasket OD (Inches): 2.81
E - Gasket ID (Inches): 2.42
Product Type Description: HYDRAULIC SPIN-ON
Primary Application: Donaldson LPS04 SPIN-ON
Media Type: Synthetic
Efficiency Beta 2 (Micron): 2
Efficiency Beta 20 (Micron): 7
Efficiency Beta 75 (Micron): 10
Application Note: 10 MICRON ABS. SYNTHETIC MEDIA
Product Group: FH



You can't mandate things to fall into some given order by decree

Amsoil spec's 15um absolute. Now the "MAY" manage to have the other efficiency numbers fall into some number that agrees with your reasoning ..but there's no reason to expect it to. Beta 1000 may be 29 ..49 ..whatever.
 
Originally Posted By: EMPIRE
the issue is syntax. Wix website uses syntax like this:
"Beta Ratio: 2/20=14/31"
actual text for 51516.

now, notice the email reply i got in post #1, they added "B2/20" which is not in their syntax.

"B2/20" means Beta-2 and Beta-20. the confusion can be solved if Wix just fixes their website to use this syntax instead of using the text "Beta Ratio:"

or, they just need to add the "B" in the right spot like this:
"Beta Ratio: B2/20=14/31".


On WIX's website is says (using your example):

"Beta Ratio: 2/20=14/31"

So if they replaced the words "Beta Ratio" with the letter "B", it would read:

"B 2/20=14/31" or "B2/20=14/31"

The two numbers on the side of the "Beta Ratio" or "B" are the efficiency numbers. That's pretty clear IMO.

If they did it the other way, then they would have to use the subscript format, as explained by the Filter Counsel" link I showed above.

The Beta Ratios of 2/10/20/75/100/200/1000 are all nice uniform efficiency related numbers. The particle size in microns is then associated with these … that’s how WIX does it, and they like to use Beta 2 (50%) and Beta 20 (95%), probably so you can relate each WIX filter at these same efficiencies. IMO, this makes more sense then having nice uniform particle size numbers with odd ball Beta Ratios like 2.8 or 9.6 or 21.4, etc.
 
not over complicating it. what i was saying is that Wix reports most of their filters at Beta-2 and Beta-20, what varies is the particle sizes. they hold Beta constant, makes it easy to compare their filters within their line, etc.
 
Originally Posted By: EMPIRE
not over complicating it. what i was saying is that Wix reports most of their filters at Beta-2 and Beta-20, what varies is the particle sizes. they hold Beta constant, makes it easy to compare their filters within their line, etc.



Yes ..it is easy for WIX

but I don't get this:

Quote:
because if you dont make a constant somewhere it becomes nearly impossible to compare filters.

so tell me which one of these are a better filter:
Beta Ratio: B2/20=14/61
or
Beta Ratio: B10/15=20/60


Neither of the lower sets conform to any set of sensible beta numbers. The 10 and 15 work for particles ..but the 20 AND the 60 don't. Wix will never publish such numbers ..and anyone else will publish the numbers in a manner to that will allow differentiation.

As I said, if you see some Baldwin papers ..the tech sheets (a fellow member faxed me one - they faxed it to him), it was in a table form where the un level was listed ..and the Beta number did work out to a fraction. Even if they had left me swinging, while there's a dimensional sensibility to 3.5um ..there's no reason to think of some filter working out to a Beta3.5=6 were the "6" is the efficiency ..and the particle is 3.5um. NOW a .5um is surely done ..but not a 1.5430007 nor a 3.75um particle. Since I don't think we can reason a reason for a .5 efficiency (.5-1/.5 or -1 ..implying that you infuse 6um particles into the fluid from the filter), we can reasonably assume that it's a particle size and that the "6" is the ratio.
 
Originally Posted By: EMPIRE

so tell me which one of these are a better filter:
Beta Ratio: B2/20=14/61
or
Beta Ratio: B10/15=20/60


The 1st one. It's slightly better filtering at 60u. 60u particles are more likely to cause damage than 14 or 15u particles.

Just go with a PureONE and be done with it ... Beta 1000 @ 20u.
19.gif
 
Originally Posted By: river_rat
Originally Posted By: SuperBusa
river_rat said:
I thought the Filter Council talked about both of the two different methods used in industry to describe the Beta Ratio. Read it carefully.
wink.gif


http://www.filtercouncil.org/uploads/docs/TSB/English/89-5R3.pdf


Ah yes. I see. I wish WIX had been clear on which they were using though.


I hear ya ... it is confusing and not real clear until you do some study on the subject. Too bad there are two "industry standard" ways of showing filter Beta Ratio info. There should be one way, or at least a more clear standard and practiced format to show the two different ways so people know what data is what.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
Beta Ratio and how and why to use it instead of efficiency rating
Replies
8
Views
2K
ZeeOSix
RevRider
K&N 171 - Forum Article in Response To Their Oil Filter Performance For Harley’s
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
johnmyster
T
Oil Filter Media Efficiency Spec's
Replies
15
Views
3K
RagnarokCamaro
C
understanding beta ratio.
Replies
19
Views
2K
ZeeOSix
M
The Great Oil Filter Cross-Spec Mystery
Replies
13
Views
4K
mphilleo
Back
Top