Ellen MacArthur wrote:
. At least then you don't have to pretend your a girl sailor.


Cheers,
Ellen

Noted.

Joe

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Re-piped ? Is your hard piped? What kind of tanks & capacity?


New lines (industrial (ie not refrigeration) 3/8" copper
tubing (which is overkill, but it's easier to work with & I
like it), new valves, a new manifold, plus the new filter
housing.


I use copper on the gauge lines,

I'm wary due to vibration fatique on copper to pipe fuel with copper.


Which one? We started out with the 900FG (in fact I still
have it) which IIRC the elements were about that. But it's
designed for a 90gph engine, whereas ours is only going to
demand 1/20th of that at full throttle.


You might have a problem with it, if it has a water seperator at the
bottom of the housing you need the 90gph flow for the seperator to work
properly.


Well, you at least need a high percentage of that 90 gph for
the turbine to get any centrifugal action. OTOH, the bowl is
large enough that at very low flow, the water will just
settle out. The ones we use, 50 gph rating, also have a
large bowl and the centrifugal element should work at much
lower flow rates.

The real answer is, I don't know, I have only seen a very
small amount of water in the seperator once.


It can be a problem if you get a bad load of fuel, you night consider
a smaller seperate inline seperator rated for your flow. I use to think
bigger was better too, but it's almost the opposite in this case.


The price is right, I'm assuming the twin mount is in line to your
engine and not for a polishing system.

Currently, yes. When I put in a polishing system, it will be
a pressure feed system using the same filter/seperator
though. I will only use it when the engine is off line.

Same here, Why pressure fed vs suction?


One important point I just learned: in a polishing system,
the return should be to the bottom of the tank. If it spills
in at the top, it does not scour the bottom of the tank
sufficiently and there will still be pockets of crud.

My tanks are full of baffles, 175 gallons each, i think the returns are
piped the same as the suctions..1/2" off the bottoms.


I use a vaccume gauge in-line to
avoid shutting down. I should go to a dual system, sure is nice in a
bind to just switch and deal with the filter later.


Yes, very much so.



My main and gen have a racor, then 2 secondary filters on the main and
one on the genset.


Same here. The genset isn't bad, but the s
filters on our engine are guaranteed to spill fuel and are a
PITA to get to when the engine is hot. I change them once a
year whether they need it or not, the benefit of using 2m
filter elements.


Ok so your primary is 2micron..what are your secondary?

Why did you go 2m on the primary, I have the same and wonder if I
should go to 10 and let the secondary's deal with below 10m. Like you I
change the secondarys once a year regardless, or if heading far
offshore. Would get more time on the primary, but wonder how much risk
that sends to the 2 secondary's.



And I can say definitely that their claims of use on
military & gov't vessels is bordering on fraud. NAVSEA would
make a dartboard out of the balls of any engineering CPO who
put in such a system without authorization.


Never heard of a military use, mostly trawler trash.... ;0)

Joe


DSK

"Joe" wrote in message oups.com...

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Re-piped ? Is your hard piped? What kind of tanks & capacity?


New lines (industrial (ie not refrigeration) 3/8" copper
tubing (which is overkill, but it's easier to work with & I
like it), new valves, a new manifold, plus the new filter
housing.


I use copper on the gauge lines,

I'm wary due to vibration fatique on copper to pipe fuel with copper.


Which one? We started out with the 900FG (in fact I still
have it) which IIRC the elements were about that. But it's
designed for a 90gph engine, whereas ours is only going to
demand 1/20th of that at full throttle.


You might have a problem with it, if it has a water seperator at the
bottom of the housing you need the 90gph flow for the seperator to work
properly.


Well, you at least need a high percentage of that 90 gph for
the turbine to get any centrifugal action. OTOH, the bowl is
large enough that at very low flow, the water will just
settle out. The ones we use, 50 gph rating, also have a
large bowl and the centrifugal element should work at much
lower flow rates.

The real answer is, I don't know, I have only seen a very
small amount of water in the seperator once.


It can be a problem if you get a bad load of fuel, you night consider
a smaller seperate inline seperator rated for your flow. I use to think
bigger was better too, but it's almost the opposite in this case.


The price is right, I'm assuming the twin mount is in line to your
engine and not for a polishing system.

Currently, yes. When I put in a polishing system, it will be
a pressure feed system using the same filter/seperator
though. I will only use it when the engine is off line.

Same here, Why pressure fed vs suction?


One important point I just learned: in a polishing system,
the return should be to the bottom of the tank. If it spills
in at the top, it does not scour the bottom of the tank
sufficiently and there will still be pockets of crud.

My tanks are full of baffles, 175 gallons each, i think the returns are
piped the same as the suctions..1/2" off the bottoms.


I use a vaccume gauge in-line to
avoid shutting down. I should go to a dual system, sure is nice in a
bind to just switch and deal with the filter later.


Yes, very much so.



My main and gen have a racor, then 2 secondary filters on the main and
one on the genset.


Same here. The genset isn't bad, but the s
filters on our engine are guaranteed to spill fuel and are a
PITA to get to when the engine is hot. I change them once a
year whether they need it or not, the benefit of using 2m
filter elements.


Ok so your primary is 2micron..what are your secondary?

Why did you go 2m on the primary, I have the same and wonder if I
should go to 10 and let the secondary's deal with below 10m. Like you I
change the secondarys once a year regardless, or if heading far
offshore. Would get more time on the primary, but wonder how much risk
that sends to the 2 secondary's.



And I can say definitely that their claims of use on
military & gov't vessels is bordering on fraud. NAVSEA would
make a dartboard out of the balls of any engineering CPO who
put in such a system without authorization.


Never heard of a military use, mostly trawler trash.... ;0)

Joe


****ing Texas, whopper-telling hypocrite!

You spend half an hour writing about the pros and cons of copper tubing for
supplying diesel fuel to your motor and then you pen a disparaging statement like
"trawler trash." Seems to me the saying, "pot kettle black," applies to you quite well.

You post in a sailing newsgroup like some expert trawler-sized diesel motor mechanic
and then claim to be a sailor. Forgive me, sir, should I doubt the veracity of your
claims.

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Paladin wrote:
"Joe" wrote in message oups.com...

DSK wrote:
Joe wrote:
Re-piped ? Is your hard piped? What kind of tanks & capacity?


New lines (industrial (ie not refrigeration) 3/8" copper
tubing (which is overkill, but it's easier to work with & I
like it), new valves, a new manifold, plus the new filter
housing.


I use copper on the gauge lines,

I'm wary due to vibration fatique on copper to pipe fuel with copper.


Which one? We started out with the 900FG (in fact I still
have it) which IIRC the elements were about that. But it's
designed for a 90gph engine, whereas ours is only going to
demand 1/20th of that at full throttle.


You might have a problem with it, if it has a water seperator at the
bottom of the housing you need the 90gph flow for the seperator to work
properly.


Well, you at least need a high percentage of that 90 gph for
the turbine to get any centrifugal action. OTOH, the bowl is
large enough that at very low flow, the water will just
settle out. The ones we use, 50 gph rating, also have a
large bowl and the centrifugal element should work at much
lower flow rates.

The real answer is, I don't know, I have only seen a very
small amount of water in the seperator once.


It can be a problem if you get a bad load of fuel, you night consider
a smaller seperate inline seperator rated for your flow. I use to think
bigger was better too, but it's almost the opposite in this case.


The price is right, I'm assuming the twin mount is in line to your
engine and not for a polishing system.

Currently, yes. When I put in a polishing system, it will be
a pressure feed system using the same filter/seperator
though. I will only use it when the engine is off line.

Same here, Why pressure fed vs suction?


One important point I just learned: in a polishing system,
the return should be to the bottom of the tank. If it spills
in at the top, it does not scour the bottom of the tank
sufficiently and there will still be pockets of crud.

My tanks are full of baffles, 175 gallons each, i think the returns are
piped the same as the suctions..1/2" off the bottoms.


I use a vaccume gauge in-line to
avoid shutting down. I should go to a dual system, sure is nice in a
bind to just switch and deal with the filter later.


Yes, very much so.



My main and gen have a racor, then 2 secondary filters on the main and
one on the genset.


Same here. The genset isn't bad, but the s
filters on our engine are guaranteed to spill fuel and are a
PITA to get to when the engine is hot. I change them once a
year whether they need it or not, the benefit of using 2m
filter elements.


Ok so your primary is 2micron..what are your secondary?

Why did you go 2m on the primary, I have the same and wonder if I
should go to 10 and let the secondary's deal with below 10m. Like you I
change the secondarys once a year regardless, or if heading far
offshore. Would get more time on the primary, but wonder how much risk
that sends to the 2 secondary's.



And I can say definitely that their claims of use on
military & gov't vessels is bordering on fraud. NAVSEA would
make a dartboard out of the balls of any engineering CPO who
put in such a system without authorization.


Never heard of a military use, mostly trawler trash.... ;0)

Joe


****ing Texas, whopper-telling hypocrite!

You spend half an hour writing about the pros and cons of copper tubing for
supplying diesel fuel to your motor and then you pen a disparaging statement like
"trawler trash." Seems to me the saying, "pot kettle black," applies to you quite well.

You post in a sailing newsgroup like some expert trawler-sized diesel motor mechanic
and then claim to be a sailor. Forgive me, sir, should I doubt the veracity of your
claims.

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)

Disparaging?

Boat trash, oildfield trash, river rat, throttle jockey, all are
favored handles

Joe
Have gun and boat- will journey





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com