If a 0.000000000002 micrometer rated filter has enough surface area it
will operate with LESS differential pressure than a small surface area
filter with 3 METERS pore size.

This is a vacuum pump ... meaning that it only has to deliver 15 psi
motive pressure plus about 2-3 feet of static head. A small dog can ****
harder than that.
The service advisory simply admits that Yanmar has a WEAK pump!!!!!!! A
pump that cant run against a 'dead-head'is cheap, ill designed, etc.

A clogged filter will always place stress on the pump. A filter begins
to become 'clogged' when approx 85% of its 'dirt capacity' is used, less
than that the pressure drop is linear, after that it rapidly accelerates
the rate of 'clogging' (becomes exponential) ..... thats why you NEED a
gauge to monitor it.

I'm installing a gauge as well, readable from the steering station. When
I owned the Yanmar, I chose to abide by what the manufacturer said
rather than risk my warranty. I'm funny like that. New system is going to
take into account all the good advise you and other have offered. I'm
not going to get caught with a dead engine again.

DOug

ps. Get a bigger dog

"RichH" wrote in message
...
If a 0.000000000002 micrometer rated filter has enough surface area it
will operate with LESS differential pressure than a small surface area
filter with 3 METERS pore size.

This is a vacuum pump ... meaning that it only has to deliver 15 psi
motive pressure plus about 2-3 feet of static head. A small dog can ****
harder than that.
The service advisory simply admits that Yanmar has a WEAK pump!!!!!!! A
pump that cant run against a 'dead-head'is cheap, ill designed, etc.

A clogged filter will always place stress on the pump. A filter begins
to become 'clogged' when approx 85% of its 'dirt capacity' is used, less
than that the pressure drop is linear, after that it rapidly accelerates
the rate of 'clogging' (becomes exponential) ..... thats why you NEED a
gauge to monitor it.

Subject: New style (spin on) Raycor (diesel) fuel filters
From: "Doug Dotson"

I'm installing a gauge as well, readable from the steering station. When
I owned the Yanmar, I chose to abide by what the manufacturer said
rather than risk my warranty. I'm funny like that. New system is going to
take into account all the good advise you and other have offered. I'm
not going to get caught with a dead engine again.

If you're going to all that trouble you might as well install the water probes
and alarms while you're at it.

Capt. bill

Good idea.

"LaBomba182" wrote in message
...
Subject: New style (spin on) Raycor (diesel) fuel filters
From: "Doug Dotson"

I'm installing a gauge as well, readable from the steering station. When
I owned the Yanmar, I chose to abide by what the manufacturer said
rather than risk my warranty. I'm funny like that. New system is going to
take into account all the good advise you and other have offered. I'm
not going to get caught with a dead engine again.

If you're going to all that trouble you might as well install the water
probes
and alarms while you're at it.

Capt. bill

Here's my experience with vacuum gages. I have a Lehman 135. The primary
filter is a Racor 900 with 2 micron filters. The final is now a Racor
Spin-on with a 2 micron cartridge. I always check the vacuum gage on the
Racor underway, and it NEVER shows any vacuum. I even let that filter go too
long and pulled it out looking like it was coated with black jelly... still
no vacuum or effect on the engine. The filter is just HUGE compared to what
the Lehman sips... about 4 gallons/hr. consumed, 1.5 GPH or so returned. I
even took the vacuum gage off awhile back to make sure it was working; it
was fine.

If you have a filter that's really big compared to what your engine uses,
you'll almost never show any vacuum.

--


Keith
__
It's only unethical if you get caught.
"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I'm installing a gauge as well, readable from the steering station. When
I owned the Yanmar, I chose to abide by what the manufacturer said
rather than risk my warranty. I'm funny like that. New system is going to
take into account all the good advise you and other have offered. I'm
not going to get caught with a dead engine again.

DOug

ps. Get a bigger dog

"RichH" wrote in message
...
If a 0.000000000002 micrometer rated filter has enough surface area it
will operate with LESS differential pressure than a small surface area
filter with 3 METERS pore size.

This is a vacuum pump ... meaning that it only has to deliver 15 psi
motive pressure plus about 2-3 feet of static head. A small dog can ****
harder than that.
The service advisory simply admits that Yanmar has a WEAK pump!!!!!!! A
pump that cant run against a 'dead-head'is cheap, ill designed, etc.

A clogged filter will always place stress on the pump. A filter begins
to become 'clogged' when approx 85% of its 'dirt capacity' is used, less
than that the pressure drop is linear, after that it rapidly accelerates
the rate of 'clogging' (becomes exponential) ..... thats why you NEED a
gauge to monitor it.

Uhmmm....

RichH wrote:

If a 0.000000000002 micrometer rated filter has enough surface area it
will operate with LESS differential pressure than a small surface area
filter with 3 METERS pore size.

Hardly! You need to study the issue of "bubble point" before making this
type of assertion. Basically, surface tension becomes the dominant
factor in backpressure when porosity is decreased to sub-micron levels.
In GENERAL, one can overcome delta-p issues due to lower average
porosity by increasing surface area, but certainly not allways.

Oh, and "small surface area" and "3 METERS" together do not make a
filter. It's a "HOLE". A BIG hole :-)

Keith Hughes

ummmmmmm yourself

Bubble point is related to retention efficiency ---- ONLY.

If your were filtering a 60/40 mixture of isopropyl alcohol and water
your statement would have (some) validity .... but ONLY if your were
using uniform porosity polymeric *membranes* at retention levels below
0,45uM. It is a mathematical/physical impossibility to consider 'bubble
point' for such fixed media (fiberous) and comparatively HUGE retention
sizes. If you know what a bubble pointg is, then you also know that such
fixed fibrous media has inconsistant porosity and permeability - ie. a
2uM media will have 'pores' approaching 50 or 100uM!!! Bubble point is
simply not applicable.
For yourself I respectfully suggest that you look up the filtration
regimes as defined by the ASTM "OSU F-1 protocols"

Operating differential pressure is SOLEY due to the absolute viscosity
of the fluid!!!!

Bubble point is a nondestructive CORELATION or a bacterial (specified
test organism) challenge (or latex spheres) ... to a plugging situation
using specific test organisms on MEMBRAWES. Oil filters use a fiberous
media ... where bubble point is totally nonapplicable: 1. non uniform
media, 2. retention matrix larger than 1uM. Tell me where on this
planet that one can do a 'bubble point' (or forward flow diffusion) on
the media type used in fuel oil filters? - is fiberous and non-uniform
in permeability; and thus, are unable to be tested via bubble point as
the contact wetting angle of surface tension vs. the media is
nonuniform. Bubble point is ONLY perfomed on MEMBRANES of ?0.45uM used
in filtration .... not on fiberous nonuniform porosity media.

Differential pressue of a CLEAN filter is SOLELY due to the absolute
viscosity (viscous shear) of the fluid being filtered. Surface tension
is irrelevent with respect to viscous shear/?P. Changing the surface
tension (wetting angles) will ONLY affect the *retention* ability under
varying intrusion pressures ... ie:. modifying the van der walls
absorbtive attraction at the BET surface of the media or membrane.
Differential pressure affects the internal velocity of the fluid THROUGH
filter media/membrane AND those media with high ?P will have/approach
insufficient contact or residence time for absorbtion mechanism of
capture; thus, leaving only mechanical means of 'captu'seiving',
direct interception and inertial impaction. You can matematically
predict by the (area1/area2)E1.66 = (velocity2/velocity1)E1.66 =
((Q/deltaP1)/(Q/deltaP2))E1.66 ...as a LIFE performance predictor (the
exponential varies between 1 for high viscosity non-newtonian fludis to
approx 1.666 for newtonian fluids.... no surface tension/wetting angles
involved.

sorry, the greek delta was ASCII transmitted as a: ?
therefore the "?P" characters in the previous posting should be read as
"delta P"

Thanks Rich,

I've been doing filter validation for 20 years, so yes, I know of what
you speak. Now, show me either of:

A spun depth filter with "a 0.000000000002 micrometer" absolute
porosity,
OR

ANY spun filter with any absolute porosity rating.

The point is, you were wildly exaggerating, and I was pointing that out.
If you *could* create a filter of the listed porosity, the surface
tension alone would create such a high pressure you'd never get any flow
at all. As you obviously know.

Oh, and you might want to reconsider statements about "differential
pressure is SOLEY due to the absolute viscosity" of the liquid. Never
had the fun of filtering thixotropic products eh?

Keith Hughes


RichH wrote:

ummmmmmm yourself

Bubble point is related to retention efficiency ---- ONLY.

If your were filtering a 60/40 mixture of isopropyl alcohol and water
your statement would have (some) validity .... but ONLY if your were
using uniform porosity polymeric *membranes* at retention levels below
0,45uM. It is a mathematical/physical impossibility to consider 'bubble
point' for such fixed media (fiberous) and comparatively HUGE retention
sizes. If you know what a bubble pointg is, then you also know that such
fixed fibrous media has inconsistant porosity and permeability - ie. a
2uM media will have 'pores' approaching 50 or 100uM!!! Bubble point is
simply not applicable.
For yourself I respectfully suggest that you look up the filtration
regimes as defined by the ASTM "OSU F-1 protocols"

Operating differential pressure is SOLEY due to the absolute viscosity
of the fluid!!!!

Bubble point is a nondestructive CORELATION or a bacterial (specified
test organism) challenge (or latex spheres) ... to a plugging situation
using specific test organisms on MEMBRAWES. Oil filters use a fiberous
media ... where bubble point is totally nonapplicable: 1. non uniform
media, 2. retention matrix larger than 1uM. Tell me where on this
planet that one can do a 'bubble point' (or forward flow diffusion) on
the media type used in fuel oil filters? - is fiberous and non-uniform
in permeability; and thus, are unable to be tested via bubble point as
the contact wetting angle of surface tension vs. the media is
nonuniform. Bubble point is ONLY perfomed on MEMBRANES of ?0.45uM used
in filtration .... not on fiberous nonuniform porosity media.

Differential pressue of a CLEAN filter is SOLELY due to the absolute
viscosity (viscous shear) of the fluid being filtered. Surface tension
is irrelevent with respect to viscous shear/?P. Changing the surface
tension (wetting angles) will ONLY affect the *retention* ability under
varying intrusion pressures ... ie:. modifying the van der walls
absorbtive attraction at the BET surface of the media or membrane.
Differential pressure affects the internal velocity of the fluid THROUGH
filter media/membrane AND those media with high ?P will have/approach
insufficient contact or residence time for absorbtion mechanism of
capture; thus, leaving only mechanical means of 'captu'seiving',
direct interception and inertial impaction. You can matematically
predict by the (area1/area2)E1.66 = (velocity2/velocity1)E1.66 =
((Q/deltaP1)/(Q/deltaP2))E1.66 ...as a LIFE performance predictor (the
exponential varies between 1 for high viscosity non-newtonian fludis to
approx 1.666 for newtonian fluids.... no surface tension/wetting angles
involved.

You're welcome, but this is not a place to show off that one can
properly open the correct box of filters.

Lets get back to helping simple boating folks to keep the crud and
critters out of their fuel and diesel engines in the simplest and most
efficient, less costly way possible, please.

As applied to simple plain vanilla fuel oil systems .... Ill stand pat
and depend on 35+ years of experience in engineering, design, tech
support, marketing, consulting, in high tech filtration and separation
technology, ... with the 'major' players and with the up-and-comers (&
some down and goners).

For the last time ..................

Now, show me either of:

A spun depth filter with "a 0.000000000002 micrometer" absolute
porosity,
OR
cant fathom hyperbole, and simplified exaggeration to attempt to explain
to the non-technical.


ANY spun filter with any absolute porosity rating.
Pall Profile, Osmonics Selex, are a few of the more common examples ....
last time I looked these were absolute to a beta 5000 efficiency which
would equate to a approx 1X10E7 / sq. cm. titre reduction (LRV) for "up
to" but not quite sterilizing requirements. Ya gotta remember before
macro-foam polymer membranes the industry used such things as potassium
titanate fibers, asbestos, etc. to effect single pass 'absolute' level
filtration.


The point is, you were wildly exaggerating,
No, I was being "mister wizard" to the Saturday morning science class.


If you *could* create a filter of the listed porosity, the surface
tension alone would create such a high pressure you'd never get any flow
at all. As you obviously know.
News to me, you must have had a 'public school education' ;-) ...
1. absolute visosity is the prime factor of viscous shear hence
differential pressure ... Ill stand on that statement, unless they've
recently changed physical chemistry, chemical engineering, and the laws
of fluid dynamics.


Never
had the fun of filtering thixotropic products eh?
Biological gels or protenaceous concentrations? .... about once every
3-4 months but with tangential filtration levels in the nanometer or
10000 Dalton range. I actually prefer viscoelastics.

If you want to take this offline, my professional fees are $175/hr.