Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Polishing, in general
In article . com, Skip
Gundlach wrote: Is this the effective equivalent of what happens with resistors vs capacitors in series and parallel? Putting these in parallel would more than double the effectiveness, whereas in series diminishes the effectiveness? No not at all. Has to do with the laws of exponential decay .... the decay of the absolute amount of particles in the tank. The reason is that the faster that you 'dilute' the residence of particles the faster the decay to some finite level of particulate; the slower the filter, the slower the recovery .... a 1 uM filter will have approx. 1/15-1/20th the flow rate of a 15uM ; plus the 15uM filter will have capture sites (at a low efficiency of 1uM). Reciruclation filtration takes the advantaage of using inexpensive very high flow rate filters to arrive a MUCH lower retention ratings as if you'd filter in a 'series' mode. Hm. I've never cleaned the tank - and nothing I got in the otherwise pretty complete records suggests it's been done in the last 15 years. For whatever it's worth, however, we had a very rough trip over when we took possession and brought it 500 miles through the nasty conditions in the Gulf, and had no issues whatever; the filter, while dirty, shows no lumps or identifiable spots. Fuel begins to degrade at the interface between the fuel and water layers by fungi and bacteria using the oil (and the tanks walls) as a nutrient source. If the fuel is produced as distillate it will be more stable from breakdown than a 'cracked' fuel. There's lots of opinions from API engineers ab out what is happening versus decomposition but Im one who considers that cracked fuel (the most common i n the USA readily breaks down in heavy alkene fractions, etc. .... which do not burn well in the combustion chamber and usually settle downstream in the exhaust section as coke which can block the exhaust .... these are probably the large 'liquid particles' that extrude through filters or block them. About the length of time to accomplish, I'm not sure I understand why that should be so. I'm operating on the presumption, despite the previous, that I have a lousy tank condition. The point of the 30 followed by the 10 is the presumption that I'll have crud which we'll dislodge pretty quickly. The suction gauge shows a very low level of suction, so I presume there's little obstruction. I don't know about "humongous" as a pump, but it seems to be doing reasonably well so far with the 30 followed by 10. I've not put a bucket under the output to test what the actual volume is, but opening a small unused port on the tank to see what's going on shows theres a notable amount of fuel being moved. When using two filters in series the purpose the first stage is to protect the second stage and give life extension to the second stage ..... in a properly designed two stage system you want to aim so that the particle distribution is such that both filters plug almost simultaneously. You need some fancy instrumentation to determine the actual weight - particle size distribution. Hm, again. I don't have an easy means of doing the discharge you suggest. Currently, the discharge is straight down - no tube, no directional difference. The pickup is the same as the Racors, however far down that is. We've never experienced (yet, of course -and all this is in an effort to make sure we don't get the first) a clog in the old (very rotted by the time I tore it out) fuel lines. However, an inspection of the tank through that small port above showed no bubbles evident. Dunno why, as it seems it should be happening, after many hours of running the fuel through. The pump is evidently a diaphragm variety, as initially it was very fast and noisy, but that was only until it sucked up the fuel in the line and filled the filters, whereupon it settled down very quickly to a very quiet pulsing sound - so, perhaps that's why no froth? If you 'drop' oil onto itself you will most assuredly mix up air into the tank oil. When the engine is running this air will eventually separate from the oil and form bubbles in the most elevated sections of the piping. Depending on how and how much air comes out and is trapped these collected large bubbles can 'accumulate' and eventually stall the injector pump, etc. Not a good practice to 'drop' oil into a tank, especially if you're pumpin about *3 gallons per minute* back to the tank from a Walbro transfer pump. Flodded discharge from the recirculation system is proper. Hm. Makes the toilet paper and paper towel type filter seem more effective, doesn't it? No, Not al all as paper towels and especially toilet paper has no or VERY little resin binder to hold the filbers together. This makes TWO problems: 1. upon increasing differential pressure a non-resinated 'paper' will unload particles as the cellulose fibers flex. 2. Cellulosic fibers that arent resin bound are easily attacked and digested by water - toilet paper is *made* to fall apart after its in water for a short time - if your ever have the chance to go to a sewqage treatment plant you will find that there is very little 'visible' toilet paper in such plants .... by the time the toilet paper gets to such plants its all essentially broken down into individual fibers or is essentially dissolved. There is ALWAYS water (emulsions and free water) in fuel oil that is stored long term - it gets in there by chemical equilibrium (not condensation). I admit to being entirely unknowledgeable about all this, other than what I thought I remembered from discussions on filtration over the many years I've been looking at it, before having a real life application of my own. What I *thought* I remembered was that you absolutely didn't want to have pressure on the filters, but suction. And, I presume there's some explanation in fluid dynamics or some such of which I am likewise totally unaware, but I don't know why it should be one way or the other. Is it that particles are being sucked *in*, vs pushed *on*, the filter? And, in the case of Racors, why is it that they have to be suction? With vacuum feed there is little tendancy of the particles to form a 'cake' of debris on the upper surface of the filter, so the cake forms more INSIDE the filter taking up space and closing down the flow paths. With pressure filtration the cake more readily forms on the upstream surface ... and then for quite a while the 'cake' becomes the filter media - ie.: the dirt is now filtering out more dirt. This is all velocity dependent so the lower the flow rate (face velocity) the more apt the dirt will form on the upper surface as a 'cake'. With higher velocities (or with vacuum feed) the dirt gets driven deeply into the filter media and quickly plugs it. ed you Heh. Well, so far, it appears that it's not well designed - though it meets all the various inputs I'd stored over many years while getting ready for this point. I even had a couple of what looked like professional designs in pdf. However, my recollection has you with umpteen years in the filtration biz (recalling some of the endless threads with jax and and perhaps some others), so my presumption is you come from an industry perspective, rather than conjecture... Disagree .... as ANY mode of recirculation filtration is VASTLY superior to 'in-line' filtration when it comes to keep low particles in a tank. Hell, a pressure pot filled with pubic hair or shredded kotex can be effective. So, if I understand you correctly, I should either completely disassemble my currently installed unit and start over, or, at a minimum, reverse the flow, change the suction gauge for a pressure gauge, and leave one of the canisters empty and, after lots of 30 filter hours, go to only 10 filter and replacements?? Nah, leave it alone. Next time you build a system do it the other way. As I state ANY recirculation is a far superior approach. probably NEVER will encounter ANY challenge of particles to the racors. My intent and expectation is that it will be on any time the engine is running, as well as any time we're sailing with full batteries (the wind generator should more than keep up with the load, if there's enough wind to be sailing). I'd assumed that would provide the very best opportunities for clean fuel other than to have it running nonstop (never mind how it's powered in that case...). Dont do this 'stuff' blindly ..... use the glass and strong light. Then you know what you are about. Well, that's comforting to know - though, having already made the investment, and installed, a dual racor (change on the fly), I expect I'll keep it. However, I'll also keep a very close eye on the bowls for water. Currently there's the flame-arrest bowls with not only the spin-off-the-bowl, but a plug in the bottom. I believe I'll trade the plugs for a valved nipple so I can drain and check what's there without the flood which would result in removing the flame arrestor, or even just the plug... Those clear bottom racors will show you when to drain out any water that gets trapped in them. IT sometimes takes a bit of time for any emulsion and mixed-up large amounts of free water to settle out. The better you filter the tank contents removes the submicronic particles that are the nucleation sites upon which larger and large particles 'grow'/aggloerate. Stands to reason if you continually remove these very small particles ... then you will have infinitely less particles growing. The caveat here is that you still have to get inside the tank every few years and clean out all the crap thats stuck to the walls .... but not as often as if didnt have a recirculation filtration system. In our particular installation, that's a bit challenging, as the only access is in the top (bow) deep corner, 1.5", other than some major disassembly. It's my presumption that it's never been done in this boat... My Racor setup has the same (make, model, not literally the same) vacuum gauge as the polishing system. I expected to use that as my guide - but it's vacuum... Vacuum feed is OK for filtration, just *not as good* as pressure feed. Vacuum feed on boats has been driven by the boat builders being cheap and dirty ..... the engine comes with the lift pump and its just so cheap and easy to add the filters and fuel lines to the 'other side' of the pump. With a pressure feed system you need a (lift) pump at the tank and bombproof tubes and fitting so that you dont inadvertently fill the bilge with oil. With a vacuum feed system if you have a leak the system sucks air and the whole system automatically shuts down .... good for EPA and Coast Guard but not for a boat operator who needs to keep moving. know WHEN to change the filters. Ditto on the recirculation system. ALL filters should have an operational 'recommendation' of liters per minute versus 'differential pressure' .... when the operating flow to the engine is getting close (flow through the filter vs. what the gagte is telling you - then its time to change the filter ---- READ the technical specification that come with the filter or go to the filter manufacturers website for the 'tech' / flow data. Be aware that the Interesting - neither the Racors nor the other have any such data with the documentation. IN the case of Racor, I have not had any luck trying to get information about them, at all. However, the others are rather more mainstream, so I might be able to discover something about them... Go to the Paker .com website (www.parker.com) then ----"marine" then ultimately to the Racor Division... its all there in the 'technical data' section .... or at least is was the last time I looked. Dont get lost in the 'european' sub-website stay in the USA dcata sections of the site. If you dont find the data, call Racor ask for an Application engineer and have them send you the *flow vs. delta-P* curves for your filters. Phew! I only *thought* I thought like an engineer. I'm in way over my head, here. I'm not sure there's much info on our 30 year old engine WRT consumption/HP/pressure/vac. I'm pretty sure I'll have to go by the seat of my pants for the first several changes, after which I can have the baseline to use... Get the data from Parker Racor ... or keep records and build an operational history of your set-up. Before you add a recirculations system .... better to get inside the tank and scrub out and mechanically remove all the crap .... then you wont NEED all those expensive 'filters'. Filters only remove 'symptoms', the cause is usually a dirty tank or taking onboard extremely dirty fuel. Heh. Fortunately, the polishing system filters aren't all that expensive, and are huge by the Racor 500 standards of what will follow all that polishing. And, of course, it was the symptoms, of which I've had none, yet, that I was looking to address. The RAcor 500 has huge comparative surface area .... that will allow LONG term service life, especially if you engine is only drawing 1 gallons per minute at WOT. ;-) |
#12
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Polishing, in general
Well first of all filters are not screen doors. The filter media in
fuel oil filters is a 'felt' made of microfibers bound together with a waterproof resin. Pressure feed and correct flow rate will establish that the flow is very slow asw it crosses the face of the filter media. If designed correctly the dirt will form a 'cake' ON the surface of the media ... and the dirt will begin to filter out other dirt. If the velocities are too great the cake will collapse and become very dense .... and the filter will shut down/plug. With vacuum filtration the cake forms IN the filter media, and there is less space - because the filbers of the filter media are also found there. Once the filter gets dirt IN the filter the fluid velocities become higher and higher thus driving the dirt deeper into the media due to the increased fluid velocity and quickly shuts down the fluid flow because there are few flow paths still open. In all filtration the larger the upstream surface area, the slower the fluid velocity, the lower the viscosity of the fluid .... all make for 'happy' long lasting filters. When selecting a filter always choose the LARGEST you can fit or afford ..... it will save you $$$$$$$ in the long term. |
#13
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Polishing, in general
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:08:07 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote: Well first of all filters are not screen doors. The filter media in fuel oil filters is a 'felt' made of microfibers bound together with a waterproof resin. Pressure feed and correct flow rate will establish that the flow is very slow asw it crosses the face of the filter media. If designed correctly the dirt will form a 'cake' ON the surface of the media ... and the dirt will begin to filter out other dirt. If the velocities are too great the cake will collapse and become very dense .... and the filter will shut down/plug. With vacuum filtration the cake forms IN the filter media, and there is less space - because the filbers of the filter media are also found there. Once the filter gets dirt IN the filter the fluid velocities become higher and higher thus driving the dirt deeper into the media due to the increased fluid velocity and quickly shuts down the fluid flow because there are few flow paths still open. In all filtration the larger the upstream surface area, the slower the fluid velocity, the lower the viscosity of the fluid .... all make for 'happy' long lasting filters. When selecting a filter always choose the LARGEST you can fit or afford .... it will save you $$$$$$$ in the long term. That didn't really answer the question, which is WHY does the "cake" form IN the filter media for vacuum fed but ON the surface for pressure fed? I would think that, all else being equal, it would work the other way because the pump is operating more efficiently with pressure fed, so the velocity would be higher, driving the dirt deeper in the media. Other than that, I don't understand how the felt media knows whether the pressure differential across it is caused by pressure on one side or vacuum on the other. Theoretically, it shouldn't matter. So I'm just trying to understand the physical "real world" process that causes it not to behave according to theory. Steve |
#14
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Polishing, in general
That didn't really answer the question, which is WHY does the "cake"
form IN the filter media for vacuum fed but ON the surface for pressure fed? I would think that, all else being equal, it would work the other way because the pump is operating more efficiently with pressure fed, so the velocity would be higher, driving the dirt deeper in the media. Other than that, I don't understand how the felt media knows whether the pressure differential across it is caused by pressure on one side or vacuum on the other. Theoretically, it shouldn't matter. So I'm just trying to understand the physical "real world" process that causes it not to behave according to theory. Steve Possibly the Vac system is more constant, whereas the pumped system pulsates, this may affect the level of turbulence causing the crap to lie long ways across the filter, but with a more smooth flow (vac system)the crap will align with the flow and penetrate deeper into the filter media. This is a blind guess, but may prompt someone who knows about these things. |
#15
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Polishing, in general
I
Retention of particulate in/on a filter is an extremely complex entity due to simultaneous and varied 'capture mechanisms'. that 'hold' the particles in place: seiving - where the statistical pores of the filter structure are smaller than the particle; inertial impaction - where the particles leave the flow stream when the flow stream takes sharp bends; aDsorption - where the particles are held to the filter media subtrate by weak electronic bonding (van der waals forces); the formation of a "cake" on the upper surface and into the upper 10-15% of the depth of filter medium; Polarization of gel-forms, etc. All filtration is 'particle specific' .... and depends exactly which mechanism of capture 'predominates' for which type of particle you want to remove. For fuel oil, etc. filtration where probably there are more 'deformable' particles or particles that can change shape under increasing differential pressure and then are subject to extrusion either through or partly through the media (settling deeper into the media) thus 'blinding it' ..... vacuum filtration has historically shown the least efficacy of on-stream service life versus pressure filtration. Apparently vacuum feed filtration allows the deformables and smaller than 'seiving' size particles to partly extrude more deeply into the matrix, partly closees off the statistical pores which increases the face velocity of the fluid in the cross sections of the filter matrix. The increasing face velocity of the fluid through the sections creates an untowards physical event (as per the standard D'Arcys equation) derived to be: On stream life (T1/T2) being a function of the ratio of face velocities to the 'n-th' power where 'n' - approximately approaches to the 2/3 power). My 'guess' (after 35 years of observation, etc.) is that in vacuum filtration the capture involves an *accelerating* particle; while pressure feed involves a *decelerating* particle. Simplistically and historically, vacuum draws the deformables and smaller than the target 'seiving sized' particles deeper into the matrix, shuts down the open flow paths quicker than in pressure feed --- all apparently internal velocity dependent. Filtration hydrodynamics is probably very similar to aerodynamics where intuition and simple logic will always produce the wrong answer. I've been deeply involved in ultra-purity filtration and 'separations' engineering (and the physical chemistry of) for almost 35 years and still dont know all the answers .... although I do know that vacuum feed filtration will *always* have comparatively shorter service life than pressure feed (for just about ALL filtrations) ... and for that reason alone is good enough for me and most others to stay away from vacuum feed filtration. There's probably a doctoral discertation waiting for someone who can correctly figure this one out - many have tried but none have ever been successful. Like I posted earlier, filtration has nothing to do with 'screen doors' and is an extremely variable complex entity at below the macroscopic level. Dont attempt to 'rationalize' it as you will ultimately always wind up with the wrong solution. It's really an 'art-form'. |
#16
posted to rec.boats.cruising,rec.boats.building
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel Polishing, in general
Not to mention that vacuum filtration is intrinsically less robust from
a purely mechanical perspective. Under vacuum filtration, you have, at most, atmospheric pressure and tank head pressure available to generate filter DP (which, even with 10' of head - very unlikely in a boat - amounts to 20psi). Under pressure filtration, you're limited only by pump size/flow curve, and filter specifications. If you have a filter rated for 65psid, why would you want to toss it when the DP is 15psi (at which point the resulting flow rate, using vacuum, would likely be negligible)? Vacuum filtration, using any realistic type of circulation pump, results in a low discharge pressure (i.e. open tank return line) and very low suction pressure (increasing with filter load), which is a recipe for cavitation and low/no flow conditions. Pressure filtration, on the other hand, maintains pressure (typical installation with sufficient head on the pump) on the suction side, and a higher discharge pressure (increasing with filter load). Thus filter loading decreases the chances of pump cavitation for pressure filtration, versus increasing chances under vacuum filtration. So, whether you agree with Rich's observations or not, there are sound hydraulic reasons for pressure filtration instead of vacuum filtration. Keith Hughes Rich Hampel wrote: I Retention of particulate in/on a filter is an extremely complex entity due to simultaneous and varied 'capture mechanisms'. that 'hold' the particles in place: seiving - where the statistical pores of the filter structure are smaller than the particle; inertial impaction - where the particles leave the flow stream when the flow stream takes sharp bends; aDsorption - where the particles are held to the filter media subtrate by weak electronic bonding (van der waals forces); the formation of a "cake" on the upper surface and into the upper 10-15% of the depth of filter medium; Polarization of gel-forms, etc. All filtration is 'particle specific' .... and depends exactly which mechanism of capture 'predominates' for which type of particle you want to remove. For fuel oil, etc. filtration where probably there are more 'deformable' particles or particles that can change shape under increasing differential pressure and then are subject to extrusion either through or partly through the media (settling deeper into the media) thus 'blinding it' ..... vacuum filtration has historically shown the least efficacy of on-stream service life versus pressure filtration. Apparently vacuum feed filtration allows the deformables and smaller than 'seiving' size particles to partly extrude more deeply into the matrix, partly closees off the statistical pores which increases the face velocity of the fluid in the cross sections of the filter matrix. The increasing face velocity of the fluid through the sections creates an untowards physical event (as per the standard D'Arcys equation) derived to be: On stream life (T1/T2) being a function of the ratio of face velocities to the 'n-th' power where 'n' - approximately approaches to the 2/3 power). My 'guess' (after 35 years of observation, etc.) is that in vacuum filtration the capture involves an *accelerating* particle; while pressure feed involves a *decelerating* particle. Simplistically and historically, vacuum draws the deformables and smaller than the target 'seiving sized' particles deeper into the matrix, shuts down the open flow paths quicker than in pressure feed --- all apparently internal velocity dependent. Filtration hydrodynamics is probably very similar to aerodynamics where intuition and simple logic will always produce the wrong answer. I've been deeply involved in ultra-purity filtration and 'separations' engineering (and the physical chemistry of) for almost 35 years and still dont know all the answers .... although I do know that vacuum feed filtration will *always* have comparatively shorter service life than pressure feed (for just about ALL filtrations) ... and for that reason alone is good enough for me and most others to stay away from vacuum feed filtration. There's probably a doctoral discertation waiting for someone who can correctly figure this one out - many have tried but none have ever been successful. Like I posted earlier, filtration has nothing to do with 'screen doors' and is an extremely variable complex entity at below the macroscopic level. Dont attempt to 'rationalize' it as you will ultimately always wind up with the wrong solution. It's really an 'art-form'. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Despite fuel prices, towboat captains report no general nationwide decrease in boating | General | |||
Volvo 4.3 Suddenly Quits | General | |||
Fuel Polishing | General | |||
Let there be heat! | General | |||
fuel polishing help needed | Boat Building |