That's what Fram said 17+ years ago. Technology, lab equipment and test methods improve over time. Recent thread with a video showing how a super efficient filter cleans up soot added to clean oil mentions the efficiency of that filter was 99.63% at 2.7 microns, as measured by the SWRI.
Pentius ultraflow extended life LXL3614 oil filter
- Thread starter Run
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Maybe you have paperwork to show you are in charge of what others can say? Fram says 98.67% is the max efficiency data point, anything more there aren't enough particles to be statistically significant. If they have some new info I suggest you ask them to change what they said. I didn't make this up, I am only quoting what Fram says, the messenger. You don't have to like it. It still is what they say, Yes/ No?
Look who's talking, lol. You keep repeating the same statement, and as ZeeOSix and others have stated, it is no longer applicable today ... but you don't acknowledge what they say. Maybe you think you're in charge of others and what they can know and say.
Maybe you have paperwork to show you are in charge of what others can say? Fram says 98.67% is the max efficiency data point, anything more there aren't enough particles to be statistically significant. If they have some new info I suggest you ask them to change what they said. I didn't make this up, I am only quoting what Fram says, the messenger. You don't have to like it. It still is what they say, Yes/ No?
Look who's talking, lol. You keep repeating the same statement, and as ZeeOSix and others have stated, it is no longer applicable today ... but you don't acknowledge what they say. Maybe you think you're in charge of others and what they can know and say.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
That's what Fram said 17+ years ago. Technology, lab equipment and test methods improve over time. Recent thread with a video showing how a super efficient filter cleans up soot added to clean oil mentions the efficiency of that filter was 99.63% at 2.7 microns, as measured by the SWRI.
You are correct. I've seen you have this debate with him before, and there really is no point to it anymore. He makes the same statement regardless of what you or anyone else says, as if it really matters anyway. I'm finished with this thread and this particular subject.
And to the OP ... The filter looks good. Thank you for the C&P.
That's what Fram said 17+ years ago. Technology, lab equipment and test methods improve over time. Recent thread with a video showing how a super efficient filter cleans up soot added to clean oil mentions the efficiency of that filter was 99.63% at 2.7 microns, as measured by the SWRI.
You are correct. I've seen you have this debate with him before, and there really is no point to it anymore. He makes the same statement regardless of what you or anyone else says, as if it really matters anyway. I'm finished with this thread and this particular subject.
And to the OP ... The filter looks good. Thank you for the C&P.
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
He makes the same statement regardless of what you or anyone else says, as if it really matters anyway.
Yeah, I just chuckle when I see it repeated over and over. Hey, don't want to look like a "technical bully".
He makes the same statement regardless of what you or anyone else says, as if it really matters anyway.
Yeah, I just chuckle when I see it repeated over and over. Hey, don't want to look like a "technical bully".
Originally Posted By: Tony10s
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Maybe you have paperwork to show you are in charge of what others can say? Fram says 98.67% is the max efficiency data point, anything more there aren't enough particles to be statistically significant. If they have some new info I suggest you ask them to change what they said. I didn't make this up, I am only quoting what Fram says, the messenger. You don't have to like it. It still is what they say, Yes/ No?
Look who's talking, lol. You keep repeating the same statement, and as ZeeOSix and others have stated, it is no longer applicable today ... but you don't acknowledge what they say. Maybe you think you're in charge of others and what they can know and say.
The Fram article has nothing to do with equipment. It is actually about as simple as eating apple pie to understand what they say.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Maybe you have paperwork to show you are in charge of what others can say? Fram says 98.67% is the max efficiency data point, anything more there aren't enough particles to be statistically significant. If they have some new info I suggest you ask them to change what they said. I didn't make this up, I am only quoting what Fram says, the messenger. You don't have to like it. It still is what they say, Yes/ No?
Look who's talking, lol. You keep repeating the same statement, and as ZeeOSix and others have stated, it is no longer applicable today ... but you don't acknowledge what they say. Maybe you think you're in charge of others and what they can know and say.
The Fram article has nothing to do with equipment. It is actually about as simple as eating apple pie to understand what they say.
Particle counters are what obtains the upstream and downstream test data to determine an efficiency, so yes it certainty does have to do with the capability of the test equipment. Read ISO 11171 and ISO 4548-12 as already suggested.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Particle counters are what obtains the upstream and downstream test data to determine an efficiency, so yes it certainty does have to do with the capability of the test equipment. Read ISO 11171 and ISO 4548-12 as already suggested.
Nope, it has only to do with the fact there are too few particles to be significant. According to Fram. Other tests are not relevant either. They are talking about the specific multi pass test for oil filters using the specific test dust. It has nothing to do with equipment, and Fram says nothing about equipment. There are too few particles, that isn't hard to understand. It isn't that they can't be counted, it's that, for example, if there are 10 particles left and further running shows 9, it means nothing, type of thing. Write to Fram. The whole bulletin is about not falling into the error you are falling into with data. This is like trying to explain why greater than 20 also means 20 in the real world.
Particle counters are what obtains the upstream and downstream test data to determine an efficiency, so yes it certainty does have to do with the capability of the test equipment. Read ISO 11171 and ISO 4548-12 as already suggested.
Nope, it has only to do with the fact there are too few particles to be significant. According to Fram. Other tests are not relevant either. They are talking about the specific multi pass test for oil filters using the specific test dust. It has nothing to do with equipment, and Fram says nothing about equipment. There are too few particles, that isn't hard to understand. It isn't that they can't be counted, it's that, for example, if there are 10 particles left and further running shows 9, it means nothing, type of thing. Write to Fram. The whole bulletin is about not falling into the error you are falling into with data. This is like trying to explain why greater than 20 also means 20 in the real world.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Particle counters are what obtains the upstream and downstream test data to determine an efficiency, so yes it certainty does have to do with the capability of the test equipment. Read ISO 11171 and ISO 4548-12 as already suggested.
Nope, it has only to do with the fact there are too few particles to be significant. According to Fram. Other tests are not relevant either. They are talking about the specific multi pass test for oil filters using the specific test dust. It has nothing to do with equipment, and Fram says nothing about equipment. There are too few particles, that isn't hard to understand.
What Fram is talking about is too few particles for an inaccurate particle counter to distinguish a low number of particles, thereby losing measurement confidence at the high efficiency end of the spectrum. Again, Fram's paper was 17+ years ago information when particle counters weren't as good as they are today.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It isn't that they can't be counted, it's that, for example, if there are 10 particles left and further running shows 9, it means nothing, type of thing. Write to Fram. The whole bulletin is about not falling into the error you are falling into with data. This is like trying to explain why greater than 20 also means 20 in the real world.
It is about them not being able to count low levels of particles accurately because it's all about the performance and accuracy of the particle counters - it's the only thing that gives numbers to do the efficiency calculations per ISO 4548-12. If you could invent a particle counter that could count every single particle and its size 100% accurately upstream and downstream of the filter, you could measure an efficiency from 0% to 100% with complete accuracy.
If you could count every last particle 100% accurately then every last particle would be significant in the efficiency calculation. If you measured 1,000,000 particles upstream and measured 1,000 particles downstream with 100% complete accuracy, then the beta ratio would be 1,000 (99.9% efficiency).
The confidence of your test results depend on the accuracy and resolution of your test equipment, and the accuracy of the test procedure. That's true for any kind of lab testing.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Particle counters are what obtains the upstream and downstream test data to determine an efficiency, so yes it certainty does have to do with the capability of the test equipment. Read ISO 11171 and ISO 4548-12 as already suggested.
Nope, it has only to do with the fact there are too few particles to be significant. According to Fram. Other tests are not relevant either. They are talking about the specific multi pass test for oil filters using the specific test dust. It has nothing to do with equipment, and Fram says nothing about equipment. There are too few particles, that isn't hard to understand.
What Fram is talking about is too few particles for an inaccurate particle counter to distinguish a low number of particles, thereby losing measurement confidence at the high efficiency end of the spectrum. Again, Fram's paper was 17+ years ago information when particle counters weren't as good as they are today.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It isn't that they can't be counted, it's that, for example, if there are 10 particles left and further running shows 9, it means nothing, type of thing. Write to Fram. The whole bulletin is about not falling into the error you are falling into with data. This is like trying to explain why greater than 20 also means 20 in the real world.
It is about them not being able to count low levels of particles accurately because it's all about the performance and accuracy of the particle counters - it's the only thing that gives numbers to do the efficiency calculations per ISO 4548-12. If you could invent a particle counter that could count every single particle and its size 100% accurately upstream and downstream of the filter, you could measure an efficiency from 0% to 100% with complete accuracy.
If you could count every last particle 100% accurately then every last particle would be significant in the efficiency calculation. If you measured 1,000,000 particles upstream and measured 1,000 particles downstream with 100% complete accuracy, then the beta ratio would be 1,000 (99.9% efficiency).
The confidence of your test results depend on the accuracy and resolution of your test equipment, and the accuracy of the test procedure. That's true for any kind of lab testing.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Particle counters are what obtains the upstream and downstream test data to determine an efficiency, so yes it certainty does have to do with the capability of the test equipment. Read ISO 11171 and ISO 4548-12 as already suggested.
Nope, it has only to do with the fact there are too few particles to be significant. According to Fram. Other tests are not relevant either. They are talking about the specific multi pass test for oil filters using the specific test dust. It has nothing to do with equipment, and Fram says nothing about equipment. There are too few particles, that isn't hard to understand.
What Fram is talking about is too few particles for an inaccurate particle counter to distinguish a low number of particles, thereby losing measurement confidence at the high efficiency end of the spectrum. Again, Fram's paper was 17+ years ago information when particle counters weren't as good as they are today.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It isn't that they can't be counted, it's that, for example, if there are 10 particles left and further running shows 9, it means nothing, type of thing. Write to Fram. The whole bulletin is about not falling into the error you are falling into with data. This is like trying to explain why greater than 20 also means 20 in the real world.
It is about them not being able to count low levels of particles accurately because it's all about the performance and accuracy of the particle counters - it's the only thing that gives numbers to do the efficiency calculations per ISO 4548-12. If you could invent a particle counter that could count every single particle and its size 100% accurately upstream and downstream of the filter, you could measure an efficiency from 0% to 100% with complete accuracy.
If you could count every last particle 100% accurately then every last particle would be significant in the efficiency calculation. If you measured 1,000,000 particles upstream and measured 1,000 particles downstream with 100% complete accuracy, then the beta ratio would be 1,000 (99.9% efficiency).
The confidence of your test results depend on the accuracy and resolution of your test equipment, and the accuracy of the test procedure. That's true for any kind of lab testing.
No, Fram wasn't talking about inaccurate particle counters. What you are trying to believe is they only saw a few particles then, and a new counter would see all the invisible particles they couldn't see, bringing up the particle data to be relevant. That is frankly ridiculous. You add information to make yourself believe you are right. And the other lab test with 2.7 micron(?) particles does not apply to this standardized auto oil filter test.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Particle counters are what obtains the upstream and downstream test data to determine an efficiency, so yes it certainty does have to do with the capability of the test equipment. Read ISO 11171 and ISO 4548-12 as already suggested.
Nope, it has only to do with the fact there are too few particles to be significant. According to Fram. Other tests are not relevant either. They are talking about the specific multi pass test for oil filters using the specific test dust. It has nothing to do with equipment, and Fram says nothing about equipment. There are too few particles, that isn't hard to understand.
What Fram is talking about is too few particles for an inaccurate particle counter to distinguish a low number of particles, thereby losing measurement confidence at the high efficiency end of the spectrum. Again, Fram's paper was 17+ years ago information when particle counters weren't as good as they are today.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It isn't that they can't be counted, it's that, for example, if there are 10 particles left and further running shows 9, it means nothing, type of thing. Write to Fram. The whole bulletin is about not falling into the error you are falling into with data. This is like trying to explain why greater than 20 also means 20 in the real world.
It is about them not being able to count low levels of particles accurately because it's all about the performance and accuracy of the particle counters - it's the only thing that gives numbers to do the efficiency calculations per ISO 4548-12. If you could invent a particle counter that could count every single particle and its size 100% accurately upstream and downstream of the filter, you could measure an efficiency from 0% to 100% with complete accuracy.
If you could count every last particle 100% accurately then every last particle would be significant in the efficiency calculation. If you measured 1,000,000 particles upstream and measured 1,000 particles downstream with 100% complete accuracy, then the beta ratio would be 1,000 (99.9% efficiency).
The confidence of your test results depend on the accuracy and resolution of your test equipment, and the accuracy of the test procedure. That's true for any kind of lab testing.
No, Fram wasn't talking about inaccurate particle counters. What you are trying to believe is they only saw a few particles then, and a new counter would see all the invisible particles they couldn't see, bringing up the particle data to be relevant. That is frankly ridiculous. You add information to make yourself believe you are right. And the other lab test with 2.7 micron(?) particles does not apply to this standardized auto oil filter test.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Particle counters are what obtains the upstream and downstream test data to determine an efficiency, so yes it certainty does have to do with the capability of the test equipment. Read ISO 11171 and ISO 4548-12 as already suggested.
Nope, it has only to do with the fact there are too few particles to be significant. According to Fram. Other tests are not relevant either. They are talking about the specific multi pass test for oil filters using the specific test dust. It has nothing to do with equipment, and Fram says nothing about equipment. There are too few particles, that isn't hard to understand.
What Fram is talking about is too few particles for an inaccurate particle counter to distinguish a low number of particles, thereby losing measurement confidence at the high efficiency end of the spectrum. Again, Fram's paper was 17+ years ago information when particle counters weren't as good as they are today.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It isn't that they can't be counted, it's that, for example, if there are 10 particles left and further running shows 9, it means nothing, type of thing. Write to Fram. The whole bulletin is about not falling into the error you are falling into with data. This is like trying to explain why greater than 20 also means 20 in the real world.
It is about them not being able to count low levels of particles accurately because it's all about the performance and accuracy of the particle counters - it's the only thing that gives numbers to do the efficiency calculations per ISO 4548-12. If you could invent a particle counter that could count every single particle and its size 100% accurately upstream and downstream of the filter, you could measure an efficiency from 0% to 100% with complete accuracy.
If you could count every last particle 100% accurately then every last particle would be significant in the efficiency calculation. If you measured 1,000,000 particles upstream and measured 1,000 particles downstream with 100% complete accuracy, then the beta ratio would be 1,000 (99.9% efficiency).
The confidence of your test results depend on the accuracy and resolution of your test equipment, and the accuracy of the test procedure. That's true for any kind of lab testing.
No, Fram wasn't talking about inaccurate particle counters. What you are trying to believe is they only saw a few particles then, and a new counter would see all the invisible particles they couldn't see, bringing up the particle data to be relevant. That is frankly ridiculous. You add information to make yourself believe you are right. And the other lab test with 2.7 micron(?) particles does not apply to this standardized auto oil filter test.
It's not rediculous if you understand the testing involved, and the basic knowlege about how particle counters work and what their capabilities are. If you would have read what I suggested you might have put the pieces together. Some critical thinking is required at times to see beyond what a few sentences written 17 years ago is trying to convey.
As said before, the particle counter performance has everything to do with the accuracy and resolution of the measured efficiency. What else does the counting for the calculations - it's not "particle fairies" doing the counting. We'll just have to agree to disagree because a broken record get old.
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
Particle counters are what obtains the upstream and downstream test data to determine an efficiency, so yes it certainty does have to do with the capability of the test equipment. Read ISO 11171 and ISO 4548-12 as already suggested.
Nope, it has only to do with the fact there are too few particles to be significant. According to Fram. Other tests are not relevant either. They are talking about the specific multi pass test for oil filters using the specific test dust. It has nothing to do with equipment, and Fram says nothing about equipment. There are too few particles, that isn't hard to understand.
What Fram is talking about is too few particles for an inaccurate particle counter to distinguish a low number of particles, thereby losing measurement confidence at the high efficiency end of the spectrum. Again, Fram's paper was 17+ years ago information when particle counters weren't as good as they are today.
Originally Posted By: goodtimes
It isn't that they can't be counted, it's that, for example, if there are 10 particles left and further running shows 9, it means nothing, type of thing. Write to Fram. The whole bulletin is about not falling into the error you are falling into with data. This is like trying to explain why greater than 20 also means 20 in the real world.
It is about them not being able to count low levels of particles accurately because it's all about the performance and accuracy of the particle counters - it's the only thing that gives numbers to do the efficiency calculations per ISO 4548-12. If you could invent a particle counter that could count every single particle and its size 100% accurately upstream and downstream of the filter, you could measure an efficiency from 0% to 100% with complete accuracy.
If you could count every last particle 100% accurately then every last particle would be significant in the efficiency calculation. If you measured 1,000,000 particles upstream and measured 1,000 particles downstream with 100% complete accuracy, then the beta ratio would be 1,000 (99.9% efficiency).
The confidence of your test results depend on the accuracy and resolution of your test equipment, and the accuracy of the test procedure. That's true for any kind of lab testing.
No, Fram wasn't talking about inaccurate particle counters. What you are trying to believe is they only saw a few particles then, and a new counter would see all the invisible particles they couldn't see, bringing up the particle data to be relevant. That is frankly ridiculous. You add information to make yourself believe you are right. And the other lab test with 2.7 micron(?) particles does not apply to this standardized auto oil filter test.
It's not rediculous if you understand the testing involved, and the basic knowlege about how particle counters work and what their capabilities are. If you would have read what I suggested you might have put the pieces together. Some critical thinking is required at times to see beyond what a few sentences written 17 years ago is trying to convey.
As said before, the particle counter performance has everything to do with the accuracy and resolution of the measured efficiency. What else does the counting for the calculations - it's not "particle fairies" doing the counting. We'll just have to agree to disagree because a broken record get old.
- Status
Similar threads
