K & N Filter --- worth it??

That is because it is. He never got past 2nd grade math or even first grade logic when you look at this.

think about it

math is not your strong point, is it ?

Obviously more so than yours. The numbers that you are using are already percentages so multiplying the result by 100 makes the result a percentage of a percentage which is at best fuzzy meaningless math and at worst, a complete failure in comprehension and meaningful logic.

From what I am reading from you here, I can see that Dick and Jane is about as far as you got in your education.

Sure it does but the real question is what does .03 and .02 stand for on their own and the answer is nothing at all. And if they stand for nothing as is, what in the hell does the 1.5 you get by dividing them stand for? I think that you will find the answer is the same as the last one, nothing. For this reason alone, it either shows a failure in your logic or that you are a graduate in the GWB fuzzy math academy. Your calculation is nothing more than a percentage of a percentage and when you do that, you lose just about all valid meaning.

This is meaningless math because those numbers stand for nothing at all.

I didn't intend to stir it up again, it was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek reminder. At least it's in a K&N thread again. I believe we agreed to disagree on this one the last time around.

for the momory-impaired, such as yourself, '0.03' stands for amount of dirt ( 3 %) allowed to pass by a K&N, and '0.02' (2%) is the amount passed by an OEM filter

therefore, a K&N pases 150 % ,or '50 % more' dirt than an OEM

get up to speed, will ya ?

Once again, your logic fails. As I said, you are taking a percentage of percentages which has no valid meaning in itself. Then on top of that, your wording is wrong. If we were to use your logic, it would let in 150% AS MUCH dirt as a paper filter, not MORE than a paper one. If it was 150% MORE, then it would be allowing 2 .5 times the dirt as paper and this is not true. It lets in up to 1.5 times as much dirt but when you look at how little dirt the paper element lets in, 1.5 times just about nothing is still just about nothing. Any way that you want to look at it, from a valid baseline, the K&N will allow up to 1% more dirt in than a high quality paper filter, big deal.

not trying to start a new argument here but, why use it then if it isn't any different than a paper one?

What you need to do is measure number of "bits" of dirt getting through. If .03% of 1,000,000 pits pass through the filter,300 bits got through. If the stock filter only allowed .02% to pass, 200 bits got through., so yes, the K&N (if that is what is being compared) passed half again as much, or 50% more dirt than the stock filter. Put a different way, the stock filter is 33% better. - Assuming the numbers are correct - which I doubt.

FWIW, I fully understand TransSurgeon's math and logic, it is correct. How you choose to interpret and apply it is up to you. I can hardly believe you are arguing about it...

You are showing either ignorance or a closed mind when you say a "percentage of a percentage" is meaningless. How about a fraction of a fraction, or a decimal divided by a decimal. A percentage is simply a fraction where the denominator is 100, and as such can be divided, multiplied, added and subtracted.

If the paper element allows 2% and the K&N 3% The K&N will allow 50% more dirt than the paper. If the paper element allows "N" amount of dirt to pass, the K&N will allow (N x 1.5) or 150% when compared to the *total* allowed by the paper element.

What could be simpler?

DJ

yes, and that '1 %' is 50 per cent more

nothing could be simpler

it's just so much fun to watch BoneHeaD spin in circles

LOL, yes, but it is still fuzzy math because there is no way to know if this huge difference is because the K&N is really bad or that the paper filter is really good. You want it to make the K&N sound horrible when in fact it is damn close to the paper filter (only 1% less effective) and still within factory spec.. BTW, now you are saying 50% more when befor it was 150% more. Make up your mind or at least get your english correct.

wrong, Einstein

it passes 50% more dirt than an OEM

(0.03 / 0.02 = 1.50)

you know, when I have to re-phrase it so even you can understand it, then it's time for you to admit you're in over your head

" therefore, a K&N passes 150 % as much as ,or '50 % more' dirt than an OEM"

reduced to semantic flames, are you ?

you're really TOO easy........................

Depends on which spec. you're talking about. For my engine, the manufacturer specs. a filter with 99.5% first-pass efficiency. There's only a couple of aftermarket filters that can meet that spec., and K&N isn't one of them.

I am arguing about it because it is a load of shit. While the math may be "correct", it does not provide a valid representation of the truth.

Hahahahahahahahahaha, you are joking, right?!?!?!?! A decimal and a fraction are simple numeric values and have no meaning on their own. When attached to a standard unit of measure or quantity then they have a clear meaning on their own. Because they are actual values, further mathematical function can be performed on them with no loss of meaning. A percent is a CALCULATED relationship between two of these quantities and has no definitive or clear meaning without knowing the values it was calculated from and using them in further calculations simply further abstracts what the numbers actually stand for so your comparison is about as invalid as Gary's.

Because it is a meaningless value. Who really cares about this relationship? It's only real purpose is to distort the reality of how much more actual dirt the K&N filter lets in.

How about the clear truth as in the paper filter is 1% better and both are within factory spec.

And neither are most paper ones at that unrealistic level.