Quote:
|
Originally Posted by P.E.Haiges
With my philosophy of "If it Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It" I was wondering if I was replacing my air filter when it wasn't needed. So I thought of a test that might give me the answer.
So I made 3 runs each of about a mile up hill with the old filter, no filter and a new filter. I started at 50 MPH and ended up at about 57 MPH and also timed the runs with a stop watch.
Without listing all the data there was virtually no difference in either the top speed or the elapsed time of any of the conditions that would show any difference.
Checking the mileage for the last 1200 miles, I got 30 MPG.
Conclusion: Air filter did not have to be replaced. So I gave it a good blow job with an air hose nozzle and reinstalled the used air filter. I'll check it again in about 25,000 miles. The test car is rarely driven on dirt or dusty roads so your results may differ if you drive in dirty or dusty conditions.
P E H
|
OK, P E H, you hit another hot button, nothing personal....
I have no issue with how or if ever you change filters, it is your car.
I do have an issue with people who try to create their own pseudoscience.
This is not a test; it is a placebo with an opinion.
Air filter testing generally costs $3 - 7 million dollars and consumes 18 - 20 vehicles on three continents.
Do you have a calibrated flow stand?
Do you have calibrated particle detectors?
Can you give me the particle density incoming to the filter housing?
What is the particle density entering the intake manifold?
Do you have a mechanically - electrically perfect, thoroughly instrumented, calibrated, blueprinted and wind tunnel tested vehicle?
I have built them and run a durability fleet; there are many professional durability drivers in the Detroit metro area because of the OEM durability fleets running 24 X 7 X 365.
The specification for replacing air filters is a compromise, based on the theoretical average driver and geographic location.
The OEM's count on people not following the listed maintenance to void warranties.
I will not go into the 1200 to 3000 data points needed to certify just air filters and set durability change intervals.
I could arrange for your car to be instrumented properly for the type of data you seem to want, cost would be $185,000.00 - $268,000.00 and would cover only one hundred twenty eight channels with no video, UV or thermal imaging.
For minimum data to be valid, you would need 900,000 miles or nine duplicate vehicles run to 100,000 miles.
Data acquisition and record keeping must be Legal court ready at every moment, with no breaks in the evidence chain.
FYI:
For those who may not know the term pseudoscience.
http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html
pseudoscience
A pseudoscience is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific when they are not scientific.
Scientific theories are characterized by such things as (a) being based upon empirical observation rather than the authority of some sacred text; (b) explaining a range of empirical phenomena; (c) being empirically tested in some meaningful way, usually involving testing specific predictions deduced from the theory; (d) being confirmed rather than falsified by empirical tests or with the discovery of new facts; (e) being impersonal and therefore testable by anyone regardless of personal religious or metaphysical beliefs; (f) being dynamic and fecund, leading investigators to new knowledge and understanding of the interrelatedness of the natural world rather than being static and stagnant leading to no research or development of a better understanding of anything in the natural world; and (g) being approached with skepticism rather than gullibility, especially regarding paranormal forces or supernatural powers, and being fallible and put forth tentatively rather than being put forth dogmatically as infallible.
Some pseudoscientific theories are based upon an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creationists, for example, make observations only to confirm infallible dogmas, not to discover the truth about the natural world. Such theories are static and lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of the natural world.
Some pseudoscientific theories explain what non-believers cannot even observe, e.g. orgone energy.
Some can't be tested because they are consistent with every imaginable state of affairs in the empirical world, e.g., L. Ron Hubbard's engram theory.
Some pseudoscientific theories can't be tested because they are so vague and malleable that anything relevant can be shoehorned to fit the theory, e.g., the enneagram, iridology, the theory of multiple personality disorder, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®, the theories behind many New Age psychotherapies, and reflexology.
Some theories have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them, e.g., astrology, biorhythms, facilitated communication, plant perception, and ESP. Yet, despite seemingly insurmountable evidence contrary to the theories, adherents won't give them up.
Some pseudoscientific theories rely on ancient myths and legends rather than on physical evidence, even when their interpretations of those legends either requires a belief contrary to the known laws of nature or to established facts, e.g., Velikovsky's, von Däniken's, and Sitchen's theories.
Some pseudoscientific theories are supported mainly by selective use of anecdotes, intuition, and examples of confirming instances, e.g., anthropometry, aromatherapy, craniometry, graphology, metoposcopy, personology, and physiognomy.
Some pseudoscientific theories confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims, e.g., the theories of acupuncture, alchemy, cellular memory, Lysenkoism, naturopathy, reiki, rolfing, therapeutic touch, and Ayurvedic medicine.
Some pseudoscientific theories not only confuse metaphysical claims with empirical claims, but they also maintain views that contradict known scientific laws and use ad hoc hypotheses to explain their belief, e.g., homeopathy.
Pseudoscientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their theories with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts. A theory which is contradicted by the facts is obviously not a very good scientific theory, but a theory which is consistent with the facts is not necessarily a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis that plague is due to evil spirits is not established by the correctness of the deduction that you can avoid the disease by keeping out of the reach of the evil spirits" (Beveridge 1957, 118).
See related entries on ad hoc hypothesis, cold reading, communal reinforcement, confirmation bias, control study, Occam's razor, pathological science, the placebo effect, the post hoc fallacy, pseudohistory, science, selective thinking, self-deception, subjective validation, and testimonials.
further reading
Dawes, Robyn M. House of Cards - Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth, (New York: The Free Press, 1994).
Gardner, Martin. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1957).