|
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
I don't think I would use one for an engine filter, but they seem to
be well suited to polishing. My Yanmar distributor said that using any filter less than 30 micron would void my warranty. Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:XL2xb.53016$xV6.46931@lakeread04... Mastry, my Yanmar distributor, does not like the paper towel filters AT ALL. Doug Dotson wrote: I'n not convinced that these paper towel filter elements are a great thing. When I pull a sheet off of a roll I can usually notice a fine dust if I look close. Doug "Keith" wrote in message ... See http://www.trawlerworld.com/features_06.htm for a good polishing system based on the Gulf Coast F-1 filter and Walbro pump. I installed one like this on my Krogen and love it. "Rufus" wrote in message news:ORTwb.231078$9E1.1259476@attbi_s52... goggle "fuel polishing lv-ab" for starters Doug Dotson wrote: I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
I did the reversing pump so I can select which main to draw from when
filling the day tank from the nav station. Once I get an accurate measure of the flow rate I can calibrate a timer to transfer an exact amount of fuel to the day tank. That should simplify fuel management. Just set the timer, make a log entry and forget it. I see my set up not so much as a fuel polishing system as a pre-filter. As a practical matter, full polishing is rather rarely required. When I do get a gunked up load I will just have set it to recirculate and sacrifice a filter. I understand that Parker/Racor makes a washable diesel filter but I can't find any data on it. Doug Dotson wrote: Sounds like a good system. I've designed mine so that a reversing pump is not necessary, and I can switch the filter in or out. The idea is that bypassing the filter I can transfer fuel faster if the fuel is already clean. One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. I was always thinking of using Raycors but now I have to do some more research. Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:nZ%wb.52966$xV6.15766@lakeread04... Doug, I have been through this myself. Actually you do have more of a filter problem than a pump problem. The 500 is just to small for a practical polishing system. You need a 1000 at a minimum. The smallest transfer pumps (Reverso) are rated at 180 GPH at zero head which is the max rating for the 1000. Racor says that when you get close to the max rating the turbine can scour water out of the bowl but you have head loss in the piping and the filter itself so the actual flow will be somewhat below the max rating. It would take four 1000's to keep up with a Jabsco VR050 and two to handle a Groco SP06. While the Reverso filters can handle up to 15 PSI, Reverso incourages upstream installation to avoid the possibilities of pressureized leakage and slightly better filtering performance. My system consist of 40 gal port and stbd mains and a 30 gal "day" tank. The mains have Racor 1000s on their pickup lines and there is no external fill for the day tank. Any fuel reaching it has to go through a filter first. I am using the Reverso GP301 3 GPM reversable with four check valves and two 3-way selector valves. By changing the direction of the pump rotation I can pull from either main tank and with one 3-way selector can route the output to any of the three tanks. The second 3-way allows me to bypass the day tank and pull from either of the mains should the Reverso crap out. With this arangement I can fill the day tank with freshly filtered fuel, polish a single tank or move fuel to the windward tank for trim. Whenever fuel moves it gets filtered. Doug Dotson wrote: I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
I did the reversing pump so I can select which main to draw from when
filling the day tank from the nav station. Once I get an accurate measure of the flow rate I can calibrate a timer to transfer an exact amount of fuel to the day tank. That should simplify fuel management. Just set the timer, make a log entry and forget it. I see my set up not so much as a fuel polishing system as a pre-filter. As a practical matter, full polishing is rather rarely required. When I do get a gunked up load I will just have set it to recirculate and sacrifice a filter. I understand that Parker/Racor makes a washable diesel filter but I can't find any data on it. Doug Dotson wrote: Sounds like a good system. I've designed mine so that a reversing pump is not necessary, and I can switch the filter in or out. The idea is that bypassing the filter I can transfer fuel faster if the fuel is already clean. One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. I was always thinking of using Raycors but now I have to do some more research. Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:nZ%wb.52966$xV6.15766@lakeread04... Doug, I have been through this myself. Actually you do have more of a filter problem than a pump problem. The 500 is just to small for a practical polishing system. You need a 1000 at a minimum. The smallest transfer pumps (Reverso) are rated at 180 GPH at zero head which is the max rating for the 1000. Racor says that when you get close to the max rating the turbine can scour water out of the bowl but you have head loss in the piping and the filter itself so the actual flow will be somewhat below the max rating. It would take four 1000's to keep up with a Jabsco VR050 and two to handle a Groco SP06. While the Reverso filters can handle up to 15 PSI, Reverso incourages upstream installation to avoid the possibilities of pressureized leakage and slightly better filtering performance. My system consist of 40 gal port and stbd mains and a 30 gal "day" tank. The mains have Racor 1000s on their pickup lines and there is no external fill for the day tank. Any fuel reaching it has to go through a filter first. I am using the Reverso GP301 3 GPM reversable with four check valves and two 3-way selector valves. By changing the direction of the pump rotation I can pull from either main tank and with one 3-way selector can route the output to any of the three tanks. The second 3-way allows me to bypass the day tank and pull from either of the mains should the Reverso crap out. With this arangement I can fill the day tank with freshly filtered fuel, polish a single tank or move fuel to the windward tank for trim. Whenever fuel moves it gets filtered. Doug Dotson wrote: I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
|
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
|
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: "Doug Dotson" See below. "LaBomba182" wrote in message ... Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump From: "Doug Dotson" I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Why not just ask Racor? http://www.parker.com/ead/cm1.asp?cmid=392 It's not a filter question. Sure it is. It's all interrelated. And I believe Racors are designed to be drawn through not pushed into. Again, ask Racor. From experts I know, pushing fuel through a filter is more efficient. Yes, but with what type of filter system? If the filter system is not designed to be "pushed through" you may have a problem. It may effect the coalescing action. That's why I said "ask Racor". Or are they to "experts" you are speaking of? And fuel "polishing" is a joke IMHO. And you would be wrong. Not based on the fact that most people seem to only run their system (if they have one) or have a company "polish" their fuel at the dock. Unless the fuel in the tank/s is well stirred up all you are doing is filtering what is already clean, settled out fuel. Well, in an ideal world. Perhaps drawing the fuel into to polishing system lower in the tank than that feeding the engine. You're still just drawing fuel out of one baffeled area of the tank. Unless you can get all the fuel in the tank stired up really well you are not doing a very good job of "polishing" it. Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: "Doug Dotson" See below. "LaBomba182" wrote in message ... Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump From: "Doug Dotson" I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Why not just ask Racor? http://www.parker.com/ead/cm1.asp?cmid=392 It's not a filter question. Sure it is. It's all interrelated. And I believe Racors are designed to be drawn through not pushed into. Again, ask Racor. From experts I know, pushing fuel through a filter is more efficient. Yes, but with what type of filter system? If the filter system is not designed to be "pushed through" you may have a problem. It may effect the coalescing action. That's why I said "ask Racor". Or are they to "experts" you are speaking of? And fuel "polishing" is a joke IMHO. And you would be wrong. Not based on the fact that most people seem to only run their system (if they have one) or have a company "polish" their fuel at the dock. Unless the fuel in the tank/s is well stirred up all you are doing is filtering what is already clean, settled out fuel. Well, in an ideal world. Perhaps drawing the fuel into to polishing system lower in the tank than that feeding the engine. You're still just drawing fuel out of one baffeled area of the tank. Unless you can get all the fuel in the tank stired up really well you are not doing a very good job of "polishing" it. Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: "Doug Dotson" One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. Well, they would be wrong. Like Glenn said, you need to use the right size filter for the job. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. Yeah no doubt. Things designed to wipe your kitchen counter and wipe your ass will beat a Racor for filtering fuel everytime. Next you'll be adding an Algea-X into the mix. :-) Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: "Doug Dotson" One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. Well, they would be wrong. Like Glenn said, you need to use the right size filter for the job. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. Yeah no doubt. Things designed to wipe your kitchen counter and wipe your ass will beat a Racor for filtering fuel everytime. Next you'll be adding an Algea-X into the mix. :-) Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: (LaBomba182) Date: 11/26/03 10:29 AM Eastern Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump From: Glenn Ashmore Glenn, are you getting any of our calls and Emails? Got it. Call when you are "free". :-) Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: (LaBomba182) Date: 11/26/03 10:29 AM Eastern Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump From: Glenn Ashmore Glenn, are you getting any of our calls and Emails? Got it. Call when you are "free". :-) Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
I guess it depend upon how the plumbing is designed whether or not
a reversing pump is necessary. My design is totally separate from the supply/return system used by the engine and genset. How do you protect against overfilling a tank? Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:rE3xb.53022$xV6.495@lakeread04... I did the reversing pump so I can select which main to draw from when filling the day tank from the nav station. Once I get an accurate measure of the flow rate I can calibrate a timer to transfer an exact amount of fuel to the day tank. That should simplify fuel management. Just set the timer, make a log entry and forget it. I see my set up not so much as a fuel polishing system as a pre-filter. As a practical matter, full polishing is rather rarely required. When I do get a gunked up load I will just have set it to recirculate and sacrifice a filter. I understand that Parker/Racor makes a washable diesel filter but I can't find any data on it. Doug Dotson wrote: Sounds like a good system. I've designed mine so that a reversing pump is not necessary, and I can switch the filter in or out. The idea is that bypassing the filter I can transfer fuel faster if the fuel is already clean. One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. I was always thinking of using Raycors but now I have to do some more research. Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:nZ%wb.52966$xV6.15766@lakeread04... Doug, I have been through this myself. Actually you do have more of a filter problem than a pump problem. The 500 is just to small for a practical polishing system. You need a 1000 at a minimum. The smallest transfer pumps (Reverso) are rated at 180 GPH at zero head which is the max rating for the 1000. Racor says that when you get close to the max rating the turbine can scour water out of the bowl but you have head loss in the piping and the filter itself so the actual flow will be somewhat below the max rating. It would take four 1000's to keep up with a Jabsco VR050 and two to handle a Groco SP06. While the Reverso filters can handle up to 15 PSI, Reverso incourages upstream installation to avoid the possibilities of pressureized leakage and slightly better filtering performance. My system consist of 40 gal port and stbd mains and a 30 gal "day" tank. The mains have Racor 1000s on their pickup lines and there is no external fill for the day tank. Any fuel reaching it has to go through a filter first. I am using the Reverso GP301 3 GPM reversable with four check valves and two 3-way selector valves. By changing the direction of the pump rotation I can pull from either main tank and with one 3-way selector can route the output to any of the three tanks. The second 3-way allows me to bypass the day tank and pull from either of the mains should the Reverso crap out. With this arangement I can fill the day tank with freshly filtered fuel, polish a single tank or move fuel to the windward tank for trim. Whenever fuel moves it gets filtered. Doug Dotson wrote: I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
I guess it depend upon how the plumbing is designed whether or not
a reversing pump is necessary. My design is totally separate from the supply/return system used by the engine and genset. How do you protect against overfilling a tank? Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:rE3xb.53022$xV6.495@lakeread04... I did the reversing pump so I can select which main to draw from when filling the day tank from the nav station. Once I get an accurate measure of the flow rate I can calibrate a timer to transfer an exact amount of fuel to the day tank. That should simplify fuel management. Just set the timer, make a log entry and forget it. I see my set up not so much as a fuel polishing system as a pre-filter. As a practical matter, full polishing is rather rarely required. When I do get a gunked up load I will just have set it to recirculate and sacrifice a filter. I understand that Parker/Racor makes a washable diesel filter but I can't find any data on it. Doug Dotson wrote: Sounds like a good system. I've designed mine so that a reversing pump is not necessary, and I can switch the filter in or out. The idea is that bypassing the filter I can transfer fuel faster if the fuel is already clean. One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. I was always thinking of using Raycors but now I have to do some more research. Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:nZ%wb.52966$xV6.15766@lakeread04... Doug, I have been through this myself. Actually you do have more of a filter problem than a pump problem. The 500 is just to small for a practical polishing system. You need a 1000 at a minimum. The smallest transfer pumps (Reverso) are rated at 180 GPH at zero head which is the max rating for the 1000. Racor says that when you get close to the max rating the turbine can scour water out of the bowl but you have head loss in the piping and the filter itself so the actual flow will be somewhat below the max rating. It would take four 1000's to keep up with a Jabsco VR050 and two to handle a Groco SP06. While the Reverso filters can handle up to 15 PSI, Reverso incourages upstream installation to avoid the possibilities of pressureized leakage and slightly better filtering performance. My system consist of 40 gal port and stbd mains and a 30 gal "day" tank. The mains have Racor 1000s on their pickup lines and there is no external fill for the day tank. Any fuel reaching it has to go through a filter first. I am using the Reverso GP301 3 GPM reversable with four check valves and two 3-way selector valves. By changing the direction of the pump rotation I can pull from either main tank and with one 3-way selector can route the output to any of the three tanks. The second 3-way allows me to bypass the day tank and pull from either of the mains should the Reverso crap out. With this arangement I can fill the day tank with freshly filtered fuel, polish a single tank or move fuel to the windward tank for trim. Whenever fuel moves it gets filtered. Doug Dotson wrote: I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
The vent on the day tank goes to the return port of the main tanks to
handle the overflow. Return from the engine goes to the day tank so if the transfer pump craps out running the engine off of one of the mains will gradually refill the day tank. Doug Dotson wrote: I guess it depend upon how the plumbing is designed whether or not a reversing pump is necessary. My design is totally separate from the supply/return system used by the engine and genset. How do you protect against overfilling a tank? Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:rE3xb.53022$xV6.495@lakeread04... I did the reversing pump so I can select which main to draw from when filling the day tank from the nav station. Once I get an accurate measure of the flow rate I can calibrate a timer to transfer an exact amount of fuel to the day tank. That should simplify fuel management. Just set the timer, make a log entry and forget it. I see my set up not so much as a fuel polishing system as a pre-filter. As a practical matter, full polishing is rather rarely required. When I do get a gunked up load I will just have set it to recirculate and sacrifice a filter. I understand that Parker/Racor makes a washable diesel filter but I can't find any data on it. Doug Dotson wrote: Sounds like a good system. I've designed mine so that a reversing pump is not necessary, and I can switch the filter in or out. The idea is that bypassing the filter I can transfer fuel faster if the fuel is already clean. One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. I was always thinking of using Raycors but now I have to do some more research. Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:nZ%wb.52966$xV6.15766@lakeread04... Doug, I have been through this myself. Actually you do have more of a filter problem than a pump problem. The 500 is just to small for a practical polishing system. You need a 1000 at a minimum. The smallest transfer pumps (Reverso) are rated at 180 GPH at zero head which is the max rating for the 1000. Racor says that when you get close to the max rating the turbine can scour water out of the bowl but you have head loss in the piping and the filter itself so the actual flow will be somewhat below the max rating. It would take four 1000's to keep up with a Jabsco VR050 and two to handle a Groco SP06. While the Reverso filters can handle up to 15 PSI, Reverso incourages upstream installation to avoid the possibilities of pressureized leakage and slightly better filtering performance. My system consist of 40 gal port and stbd mains and a 30 gal "day" tank. The mains have Racor 1000s on their pickup lines and there is no external fill for the day tank. Any fuel reaching it has to go through a filter first. I am using the Reverso GP301 3 GPM reversable with four check valves and two 3-way selector valves. By changing the direction of the pump rotation I can pull from either main tank and with one 3-way selector can route the output to any of the three tanks. The second 3-way allows me to bypass the day tank and pull from either of the mains should the Reverso crap out. With this arangement I can fill the day tank with freshly filtered fuel, polish a single tank or move fuel to the windward tank for trim. Whenever fuel moves it gets filtered. Doug Dotson wrote: I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
The vent on the day tank goes to the return port of the main tanks to
handle the overflow. Return from the engine goes to the day tank so if the transfer pump craps out running the engine off of one of the mains will gradually refill the day tank. Doug Dotson wrote: I guess it depend upon how the plumbing is designed whether or not a reversing pump is necessary. My design is totally separate from the supply/return system used by the engine and genset. How do you protect against overfilling a tank? Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:rE3xb.53022$xV6.495@lakeread04... I did the reversing pump so I can select which main to draw from when filling the day tank from the nav station. Once I get an accurate measure of the flow rate I can calibrate a timer to transfer an exact amount of fuel to the day tank. That should simplify fuel management. Just set the timer, make a log entry and forget it. I see my set up not so much as a fuel polishing system as a pre-filter. As a practical matter, full polishing is rather rarely required. When I do get a gunked up load I will just have set it to recirculate and sacrifice a filter. I understand that Parker/Racor makes a washable diesel filter but I can't find any data on it. Doug Dotson wrote: Sounds like a good system. I've designed mine so that a reversing pump is not necessary, and I can switch the filter in or out. The idea is that bypassing the filter I can transfer fuel faster if the fuel is already clean. One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. I was always thinking of using Raycors but now I have to do some more research. Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:nZ%wb.52966$xV6.15766@lakeread04... Doug, I have been through this myself. Actually you do have more of a filter problem than a pump problem. The 500 is just to small for a practical polishing system. You need a 1000 at a minimum. The smallest transfer pumps (Reverso) are rated at 180 GPH at zero head which is the max rating for the 1000. Racor says that when you get close to the max rating the turbine can scour water out of the bowl but you have head loss in the piping and the filter itself so the actual flow will be somewhat below the max rating. It would take four 1000's to keep up with a Jabsco VR050 and two to handle a Groco SP06. While the Reverso filters can handle up to 15 PSI, Reverso incourages upstream installation to avoid the possibilities of pressureized leakage and slightly better filtering performance. My system consist of 40 gal port and stbd mains and a 30 gal "day" tank. The mains have Racor 1000s on their pickup lines and there is no external fill for the day tank. Any fuel reaching it has to go through a filter first. I am using the Reverso GP301 3 GPM reversable with four check valves and two 3-way selector valves. By changing the direction of the pump rotation I can pull from either main tank and with one 3-way selector can route the output to any of the three tanks. The second 3-way allows me to bypass the day tank and pull from either of the mains should the Reverso crap out. With this arangement I can fill the day tank with freshly filtered fuel, polish a single tank or move fuel to the windward tank for trim. Whenever fuel moves it gets filtered. Doug Dotson wrote: I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Can you transfer fuel between the mains? If so, how do you prevent
overflow there? Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:278xb.53074$xV6.39166@lakeread04... The vent on the day tank goes to the return port of the main tanks to handle the overflow. Return from the engine goes to the day tank so if the transfer pump craps out running the engine off of one of the mains will gradually refill the day tank. Doug Dotson wrote: I guess it depend upon how the plumbing is designed whether or not a reversing pump is necessary. My design is totally separate from the supply/return system used by the engine and genset. How do you protect against overfilling a tank? Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:rE3xb.53022$xV6.495@lakeread04... I did the reversing pump so I can select which main to draw from when filling the day tank from the nav station. Once I get an accurate measure of the flow rate I can calibrate a timer to transfer an exact amount of fuel to the day tank. That should simplify fuel management. Just set the timer, make a log entry and forget it. I see my set up not so much as a fuel polishing system as a pre-filter. As a practical matter, full polishing is rather rarely required. When I do get a gunked up load I will just have set it to recirculate and sacrifice a filter. I understand that Parker/Racor makes a washable diesel filter but I can't find any data on it. Doug Dotson wrote: Sounds like a good system. I've designed mine so that a reversing pump is not necessary, and I can switch the filter in or out. The idea is that bypassing the filter I can transfer fuel faster if the fuel is already clean. One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. I was always thinking of using Raycors but now I have to do some more research. Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:nZ%wb.52966$xV6.15766@lakeread04... Doug, I have been through this myself. Actually you do have more of a filter problem than a pump problem. The 500 is just to small for a practical polishing system. You need a 1000 at a minimum. The smallest transfer pumps (Reverso) are rated at 180 GPH at zero head which is the max rating for the 1000. Racor says that when you get close to the max rating the turbine can scour water out of the bowl but you have head loss in the piping and the filter itself so the actual flow will be somewhat below the max rating. It would take four 1000's to keep up with a Jabsco VR050 and two to handle a Groco SP06. While the Reverso filters can handle up to 15 PSI, Reverso incourages upstream installation to avoid the possibilities of pressureized leakage and slightly better filtering performance. My system consist of 40 gal port and stbd mains and a 30 gal "day" tank. The mains have Racor 1000s on their pickup lines and there is no external fill for the day tank. Any fuel reaching it has to go through a filter first. I am using the Reverso GP301 3 GPM reversable with four check valves and two 3-way selector valves. By changing the direction of the pump rotation I can pull from either main tank and with one 3-way selector can route the output to any of the three tanks. The second 3-way allows me to bypass the day tank and pull from either of the mains should the Reverso crap out. With this arangement I can fill the day tank with freshly filtered fuel, polish a single tank or move fuel to the windward tank for trim. Whenever fuel moves it gets filtered. Doug Dotson wrote: I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Can you transfer fuel between the mains? If so, how do you prevent
overflow there? Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:278xb.53074$xV6.39166@lakeread04... The vent on the day tank goes to the return port of the main tanks to handle the overflow. Return from the engine goes to the day tank so if the transfer pump craps out running the engine off of one of the mains will gradually refill the day tank. Doug Dotson wrote: I guess it depend upon how the plumbing is designed whether or not a reversing pump is necessary. My design is totally separate from the supply/return system used by the engine and genset. How do you protect against overfilling a tank? Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:rE3xb.53022$xV6.495@lakeread04... I did the reversing pump so I can select which main to draw from when filling the day tank from the nav station. Once I get an accurate measure of the flow rate I can calibrate a timer to transfer an exact amount of fuel to the day tank. That should simplify fuel management. Just set the timer, make a log entry and forget it. I see my set up not so much as a fuel polishing system as a pre-filter. As a practical matter, full polishing is rather rarely required. When I do get a gunked up load I will just have set it to recirculate and sacrifice a filter. I understand that Parker/Racor makes a washable diesel filter but I can't find any data on it. Doug Dotson wrote: Sounds like a good system. I've designed mine so that a reversing pump is not necessary, and I can switch the filter in or out. The idea is that bypassing the filter I can transfer fuel faster if the fuel is already clean. One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. I was always thinking of using Raycors but now I have to do some more research. Doug "Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:nZ%wb.52966$xV6.15766@lakeread04... Doug, I have been through this myself. Actually you do have more of a filter problem than a pump problem. The 500 is just to small for a practical polishing system. You need a 1000 at a minimum. The smallest transfer pumps (Reverso) are rated at 180 GPH at zero head which is the max rating for the 1000. Racor says that when you get close to the max rating the turbine can scour water out of the bowl but you have head loss in the piping and the filter itself so the actual flow will be somewhat below the max rating. It would take four 1000's to keep up with a Jabsco VR050 and two to handle a Groco SP06. While the Reverso filters can handle up to 15 PSI, Reverso incourages upstream installation to avoid the possibilities of pressureized leakage and slightly better filtering performance. My system consist of 40 gal port and stbd mains and a 30 gal "day" tank. The mains have Racor 1000s on their pickup lines and there is no external fill for the day tank. Any fuel reaching it has to go through a filter first. I am using the Reverso GP301 3 GPM reversable with four check valves and two 3-way selector valves. By changing the direction of the pump rotation I can pull from either main tank and with one 3-way selector can route the output to any of the three tanks. The second 3-way allows me to bypass the day tank and pull from either of the mains should the Reverso crap out. With this arangement I can fill the day tank with freshly filtered fuel, polish a single tank or move fuel to the windward tank for trim. Whenever fuel moves it gets filtered. Doug Dotson wrote: I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com -- Glenn Ashmore I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: "Doug Dotson" Unfortunately that fuel clogs up the filters. That is the entire problem. Having clean fuel in the engine fuel system avoids the problem. Just go up a size or two in your filters. The surface area difference between a 500 Racor and a 900 Racor is tremendous. Many times on a boat with filter clogging problems, I have just installed a larger filter system and the time between changes has gone back to normal with no more clogging in heavy seas problems. Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: "Doug Dotson" Unfortunately that fuel clogs up the filters. That is the entire problem. Having clean fuel in the engine fuel system avoids the problem. Just go up a size or two in your filters. The surface area difference between a 500 Racor and a 900 Racor is tremendous. Many times on a boat with filter clogging problems, I have just installed a larger filter system and the time between changes has gone back to normal with no more clogging in heavy seas problems. Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Makes sense, but there is quite alot of evidence out there that
a polishing system is a good thing to have. I can't really increase the size of my on-engine filter. I could increase the size of the Raycor, but at the pore sizes I run (30 micron) in it make it necessary to change the on-engine filter regularly as well. Bigger Raycor won't fix the problem. Doug "LaBomba182" wrote in message ... Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump From: "Doug Dotson" Unfortunately that fuel clogs up the filters. That is the entire problem. Having clean fuel in the engine fuel system avoids the problem. Just go up a size or two in your filters. The surface area difference between a 500 Racor and a 900 Racor is tremendous. Many times on a boat with filter clogging problems, I have just installed a larger filter system and the time between changes has gone back to normal with no more clogging in heavy seas problems. Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Makes sense, but there is quite alot of evidence out there that
a polishing system is a good thing to have. I can't really increase the size of my on-engine filter. I could increase the size of the Raycor, but at the pore sizes I run (30 micron) in it make it necessary to change the on-engine filter regularly as well. Bigger Raycor won't fix the problem. Doug "LaBomba182" wrote in message ... Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump From: "Doug Dotson" Unfortunately that fuel clogs up the filters. That is the entire problem. Having clean fuel in the engine fuel system avoids the problem. Just go up a size or two in your filters. The surface area difference between a 500 Racor and a 900 Racor is tremendous. Many times on a boat with filter clogging problems, I have just installed a larger filter system and the time between changes has gone back to normal with no more clogging in heavy seas problems. Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:49:20 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
wrote: I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista Doug, I just finished building a fuel polishing system for my boat, using a Walbro pump. I had an old Fram filter (using a Wix element) and purchased a new Racor. With the system I can change filters while the engine is running. I can also monitor the filters with a vacuum gage so I know in advance when a filter is getting clogged. I wanted a pump that would pull fuel through the system faster than the Walbro so that I could do more filtering in a set period of time. But beginning with advice from contributors to this newsgroup and then researching on my own, I found that the filters would not filter properly if the fuel were pulled through faster. So, unless you are willing to purchase very large (and expensive) filters or several filters in parallel (also expensive), you will need a pump like the Walbro for fuel polishing and a separate pump for fuel transfer, if you want to transfer quickly. Also note that the Walbro is specified for continuous operation while some other fuel tolerant pumps are not. You need continuous operation for polishing. To solve the question of only polishing clean fuel while the crud remained on the bottom of the tank, I have a sealable opening in the top of the tank and enough room to put in a long stick to stir the fuel. My 100 gallon tank does not seem to have baffles that would render this method less effective. I would have installed a Gulf Coast filter (paper towels) instead of the old Fram, but I could not afford one. They are damned expensive. I have no personal knowledge nor objective research results that back up their claims of superior filtering. I just accepted the hype. BTW I saw a Walbro pump for sale on E-Bay two days after I purchased mine, and for half the price I paid. The seller seemed to have several available. Lee Huddleston s/v Truelove |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:49:20 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
wrote: I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista Doug, I just finished building a fuel polishing system for my boat, using a Walbro pump. I had an old Fram filter (using a Wix element) and purchased a new Racor. With the system I can change filters while the engine is running. I can also monitor the filters with a vacuum gage so I know in advance when a filter is getting clogged. I wanted a pump that would pull fuel through the system faster than the Walbro so that I could do more filtering in a set period of time. But beginning with advice from contributors to this newsgroup and then researching on my own, I found that the filters would not filter properly if the fuel were pulled through faster. So, unless you are willing to purchase very large (and expensive) filters or several filters in parallel (also expensive), you will need a pump like the Walbro for fuel polishing and a separate pump for fuel transfer, if you want to transfer quickly. Also note that the Walbro is specified for continuous operation while some other fuel tolerant pumps are not. You need continuous operation for polishing. To solve the question of only polishing clean fuel while the crud remained on the bottom of the tank, I have a sealable opening in the top of the tank and enough room to put in a long stick to stir the fuel. My 100 gallon tank does not seem to have baffles that would render this method less effective. I would have installed a Gulf Coast filter (paper towels) instead of the old Fram, but I could not afford one. They are damned expensive. I have no personal knowledge nor objective research results that back up their claims of superior filtering. I just accepted the hype. BTW I saw a Walbro pump for sale on E-Bay two days after I purchased mine, and for half the price I paid. The seller seemed to have several available. Lee Huddleston s/v Truelove |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
"Doug Dotson" wrote in message ... I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought [snip] polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Probably nothing much will happen to the filter - as you increase the flow through the filter, the resistance increases. The increased resistance reduces the output of the pump (5.5 GPM is probably with no resistance). At some point you'll reach an equilibrium condition where the increased resistance of the filter meets the fuel pump's output curve. You could talk to Racor (now owned by Parker I think) about exceeding the rated flow rates and see if they have a contrary opinion. Perhaps the filtering action is impeeded by the higher flow rate. You could also install a gate valve in the system to throttle the pump output. You could check the pump output by pumping into a temporary container and measuring the output. Whatever brand of pump you get, make sure it is rated for pumping fuel. -- Evan Gatehouse you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me ceilydh AT 3web dot net (fools the spammers) |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
"Doug Dotson" wrote in message ... I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought [snip] polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Probably nothing much will happen to the filter - as you increase the flow through the filter, the resistance increases. The increased resistance reduces the output of the pump (5.5 GPM is probably with no resistance). At some point you'll reach an equilibrium condition where the increased resistance of the filter meets the fuel pump's output curve. You could talk to Racor (now owned by Parker I think) about exceeding the rated flow rates and see if they have a contrary opinion. Perhaps the filtering action is impeeded by the higher flow rate. You could also install a gate valve in the system to throttle the pump output. You could check the pump output by pumping into a temporary container and measuring the output. Whatever brand of pump you get, make sure it is rated for pumping fuel. -- Evan Gatehouse you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me ceilydh AT 3web dot net (fools the spammers) |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Are you guys sure you really need all this stuff?
I fueled in some pretty suspicious places with questionable fuel in a lot of third world countries. I used a Baja filter for all the fuel entering the 1 (one) and only fuel tank. It would usually pick up a few ounces of water and a lot of crud in the first filter element. The one and only time bad fuel stopped our engine was in the ICW after picking up a load of very water logged fuel. Just anchored, changed the filter, and emptied about 1 quart water from the filter bowl. Because I was in the US, where bad fuel is seldom a problem, I didn't use the Baja filter....I must have been that guy's only customer that year. Just my experience after 3-1/2 years cruising. -- Evan Gatehouse you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me ceilydh AT 3web dot net (fools the spammers) |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Are you guys sure you really need all this stuff?
I fueled in some pretty suspicious places with questionable fuel in a lot of third world countries. I used a Baja filter for all the fuel entering the 1 (one) and only fuel tank. It would usually pick up a few ounces of water and a lot of crud in the first filter element. The one and only time bad fuel stopped our engine was in the ICW after picking up a load of very water logged fuel. Just anchored, changed the filter, and emptied about 1 quart water from the filter bowl. Because I was in the US, where bad fuel is seldom a problem, I didn't use the Baja filter....I must have been that guy's only customer that year. Just my experience after 3-1/2 years cruising. -- Evan Gatehouse you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me ceilydh AT 3web dot net (fools the spammers) |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Well fellow asshole, I got a pair of circumnav's - what lake you
learning in. On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:39:34 -0600, "Keith" wrote: Ever think about running a polishing system while underway, or right after you come back from a "rolly bouncy" trip? Opinions are just like assholes... everybody's got one. "jlp2550" wrote in message .. . This is so true it isn't funny - but these marina sailors don't know that - so they invent these stupid designs - like the guy with 6 or 8 or 12 fuel tanks in a 50' boat - what total stupidity. Get a life - go cruising - instead of being "wanna-be" naval architects. LISTEN UP - all the **** sits on the bottom till the 1st rolly bouncy storm - then it gets stirred into suspension - and sucked into the filters and clogs them quickly. BTW, throw away your epirbs and radios so you can't call someone out into danger to rescue your stupid ass. And fuel "polishing" is a joke IMHO. Unless the fuel in the tank/s is well stirred up all you are doing is filtering what is already clean, settled out fuel. Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Well fellow asshole, I got a pair of circumnav's - what lake you
learning in. On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:39:34 -0600, "Keith" wrote: Ever think about running a polishing system while underway, or right after you come back from a "rolly bouncy" trip? Opinions are just like assholes... everybody's got one. "jlp2550" wrote in message .. . This is so true it isn't funny - but these marina sailors don't know that - so they invent these stupid designs - like the guy with 6 or 8 or 12 fuel tanks in a 50' boat - what total stupidity. Get a life - go cruising - instead of being "wanna-be" naval architects. LISTEN UP - all the **** sits on the bottom till the 1st rolly bouncy storm - then it gets stirred into suspension - and sucked into the filters and clogs them quickly. BTW, throw away your epirbs and radios so you can't call someone out into danger to rescue your stupid ass. And fuel "polishing" is a joke IMHO. Unless the fuel in the tank/s is well stirred up all you are doing is filtering what is already clean, settled out fuel. Capt. Bill |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Doug-
RCI Fuel Purifiers have capacities from 1.5 to 400 gpm...they have no moving parts and no element to change. The purification is done with baffle and coalescer plates. These purifiers remove particulate down to less than 10 microns and 99.9% of water. Their website is: http://www.rcipurifier.com/ In all honesty, I am associated with this company (and with Gulf Coast Filters) and I manufacture onboard fuel polishers. -- Charlie Johnson JTB Marine Service St. Petersburg, FL 727.560.9065 "Doug Dotson" wrote in message ... I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Doug-
RCI Fuel Purifiers have capacities from 1.5 to 400 gpm...they have no moving parts and no element to change. The purification is done with baffle and coalescer plates. These purifiers remove particulate down to less than 10 microns and 99.9% of water. Their website is: http://www.rcipurifier.com/ In all honesty, I am associated with this company (and with Gulf Coast Filters) and I manufacture onboard fuel polishers. -- Charlie Johnson JTB Marine Service St. Petersburg, FL 727.560.9065 "Doug Dotson" wrote in message ... I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
....and didn't learn a thing. Survived by accident. Don't feel bad. It
happens. "jlp2550" wrote in message ... Stupid ****. |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
....and didn't learn a thing. Survived by accident. Don't feel bad. It
happens. "jlp2550" wrote in message ... Stupid ****. |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
"Doug Dotson" wrote in message ...
Makes sense, but there is quite alot of evidence out there that a polishing system is a good thing to have. I can't really increase the size of my on-engine filter. I could increase the size of the Raycor, but at the pore sizes I run (30 micron) in it make it necessary to change the on-engine filter regularly as well. Bigger Raycor won't fix the problem. Doug "LaBomba182" wrote in message Just go up a size or two in your filters. The surface area difference between a 500 Racor and a 900 Racor is tremendous. Actually the larger surface area of the element of the 900 or 1000 might help; My theory was independent polisher with small pore size (Racor) but RichH (who has not contributed to this thread) on polishing explained it this way: Complete Thread (26 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.boats.cruising Date: 2003-09-17 07:33:31 PST RichH wrote: If your polishing system is 'off line' ... not a part of the normal fuel distribution and return loop the following will exponentially improve the retention ability and 'speed of recovery' if you happen to get a load a cruddy fuel or the sea state breaks a slug of particale loose from the tank walls, etc.: Dont use 2uM filters in the loop! .... increase the nominal retention rating to 10 or 15uM and the resultant final particle distribution *in the tank* will be essentially zero and accomplish this level FASTER. .... here's why: Fibrous media filters have retention capability at essentially ALL particle size levels. A 15uM fuel filter will remove approx 85 to 95% of of 15uM particles in a one single pass of the fluid through it, at 10uM 50%, at 5uM perhaps 30%, at 2uM maybe 15%. A 15uM filter will have approx 4 to 5 times the flow rate capacity (gallons per minute per psid) of a 2uM filter ... meaning that the 15uM filter will cause less work for the pump and overall flow will be FASTER. A 2uM filter will deposit 2uM particles primarily on the surface of the media, a larger retention media will capture 2uM particles down deep in the media (for *more* capacity of small particles) Since a polishing system is a closed recirculation system you are constantly filtering the same fluid over and over and over, each time the fluid passes through the filter it leaves a few percent of smaller particles behind in the filter, since a larger retention filter has better flow characteristics the pump will push through MORE fluid per minute and have less amperage draw. When using a 2uM filter, the fluid returned during recirculation to the tank is again mixed with particle/debris laden fluid. A larger retention filter will do the same job, to the same level of particles in the tank ..... and do it faster because the larger retention filter has less resistance to flow. With less resistance to flow a larger retention filter will have less probability of extruding and releasing SOFT/DEFORMABLE particles at it approaches differential pressures that would 'clog' a filter. Another benefit - If for example you have a crud contamination hanging on the walls of the tank and the sea state causes the attached particles/crud to break free and enter the fluid, the larger retention filter (because of its less resistance to flow) will recover the tank back to an acceptable particle distribution (particle recovery) FASTER than a smaller retention filter. Same story when taking onboard a load of fuel that is contaminated. Recirculation filtration is exponentially faster, more efficient, and vastly more cost effective than single pass filtration. Use the largest filter retention possible (~10-20uM) to effect the fastest tank turn-over... the tank will after a few turn-overs be to the same level of residence particles. For the mathematicians, what is happening is an exponential decay of resident particles *in the tank*; since the larger retention filter (even with less efficiency with respect to the 'target retention') is Faster because the exponential decay 'in the tank' is faster. If you have time to burn, take ANY filter (includes compressed pubic hair), recirculate for looooong times and you will have essentially ZERO particles in the tank. Typically in industry a recirc. filter is sized about 5 to 10 times the size of the target residual retention. hope this helps. (RichH) --- Captkeywest wrote: no bs at all... my permanently installed independent polishing system draws about 5 gallons (100 gallon tank) every 6.5 minutes through a racor 1000 with 2 micron (can switch to racor 900 when 1000's vacuum increases) the engine has a racor 500 with 10 micron , then racor 500 with 2 micron, then the perkins 4-108 engine mounted filter. as rich points out the 1000 elements aren't much more expensive than the 500 elements, don't let the 500/1000 designations throw you, the surface area of the 1000 is MUCH greater than twice the surface area of the 500...... source: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...4%40NOSPAM.net |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
"Doug Dotson" wrote in message ...
Makes sense, but there is quite alot of evidence out there that a polishing system is a good thing to have. I can't really increase the size of my on-engine filter. I could increase the size of the Raycor, but at the pore sizes I run (30 micron) in it make it necessary to change the on-engine filter regularly as well. Bigger Raycor won't fix the problem. Doug "LaBomba182" wrote in message Just go up a size or two in your filters. The surface area difference between a 500 Racor and a 900 Racor is tremendous. Actually the larger surface area of the element of the 900 or 1000 might help; My theory was independent polisher with small pore size (Racor) but RichH (who has not contributed to this thread) on polishing explained it this way: Complete Thread (26 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.boats.cruising Date: 2003-09-17 07:33:31 PST RichH wrote: If your polishing system is 'off line' ... not a part of the normal fuel distribution and return loop the following will exponentially improve the retention ability and 'speed of recovery' if you happen to get a load a cruddy fuel or the sea state breaks a slug of particale loose from the tank walls, etc.: Dont use 2uM filters in the loop! .... increase the nominal retention rating to 10 or 15uM and the resultant final particle distribution *in the tank* will be essentially zero and accomplish this level FASTER. .... here's why: Fibrous media filters have retention capability at essentially ALL particle size levels. A 15uM fuel filter will remove approx 85 to 95% of of 15uM particles in a one single pass of the fluid through it, at 10uM 50%, at 5uM perhaps 30%, at 2uM maybe 15%. A 15uM filter will have approx 4 to 5 times the flow rate capacity (gallons per minute per psid) of a 2uM filter ... meaning that the 15uM filter will cause less work for the pump and overall flow will be FASTER. A 2uM filter will deposit 2uM particles primarily on the surface of the media, a larger retention media will capture 2uM particles down deep in the media (for *more* capacity of small particles) Since a polishing system is a closed recirculation system you are constantly filtering the same fluid over and over and over, each time the fluid passes through the filter it leaves a few percent of smaller particles behind in the filter, since a larger retention filter has better flow characteristics the pump will push through MORE fluid per minute and have less amperage draw. When using a 2uM filter, the fluid returned during recirculation to the tank is again mixed with particle/debris laden fluid. A larger retention filter will do the same job, to the same level of particles in the tank ..... and do it faster because the larger retention filter has less resistance to flow. With less resistance to flow a larger retention filter will have less probability of extruding and releasing SOFT/DEFORMABLE particles at it approaches differential pressures that would 'clog' a filter. Another benefit - If for example you have a crud contamination hanging on the walls of the tank and the sea state causes the attached particles/crud to break free and enter the fluid, the larger retention filter (because of its less resistance to flow) will recover the tank back to an acceptable particle distribution (particle recovery) FASTER than a smaller retention filter. Same story when taking onboard a load of fuel that is contaminated. Recirculation filtration is exponentially faster, more efficient, and vastly more cost effective than single pass filtration. Use the largest filter retention possible (~10-20uM) to effect the fastest tank turn-over... the tank will after a few turn-overs be to the same level of residence particles. For the mathematicians, what is happening is an exponential decay of resident particles *in the tank*; since the larger retention filter (even with less efficiency with respect to the 'target retention') is Faster because the exponential decay 'in the tank' is faster. If you have time to burn, take ANY filter (includes compressed pubic hair), recirculate for looooong times and you will have essentially ZERO particles in the tank. Typically in industry a recirc. filter is sized about 5 to 10 times the size of the target residual retention. hope this helps. (RichH) --- Captkeywest wrote: no bs at all... my permanently installed independent polishing system draws about 5 gallons (100 gallon tank) every 6.5 minutes through a racor 1000 with 2 micron (can switch to racor 900 when 1000's vacuum increases) the engine has a racor 500 with 10 micron , then racor 500 with 2 micron, then the perkins 4-108 engine mounted filter. as rich points out the 1000 elements aren't much more expensive than the 500 elements, don't let the 500/1000 designations throw you, the surface area of the 1000 is MUCH greater than twice the surface area of the 500...... source: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...4%40NOSPAM.net |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters
don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. LaBomba182 wrote: Well, they would be wrong. Like Glenn said, you need to use the right size filter for the job. If the filter is clogging up, that's because it is doing it's job. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. Yeah no doubt. Things designed to wipe your kitchen counter and wipe your ass will beat a Racor for filtering fuel everytime. Next you'll be adding an Algea-X into the mix. :-) Now now, be polite. FWIW I agree about paper towel filters. They can't possibly do as good a job as a filter element, although maybe they absorb water better. Why do people want to save $1.50 on something that can ruin a $10K engine? BTW I saw an ad for a paper towel lube oil filter system that proclaimed how it was used by the USCG and the military... hate to say it but any military installation has to be MILSPEC and anybody who modifies gov't power plants without all proper authorization is likely going to end up in Leavenworth, or at very least washing the world's largest pile of dirty dishes. Why are people so gullible? Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
One poster mentioned that Raycor type filters
don;t make good polishing filters because they are surface filters and clog up quickly. LaBomba182 wrote: Well, they would be wrong. Like Glenn said, you need to use the right size filter for the job. If the filter is clogging up, that's because it is doing it's job. The paper towel and toilet paper types are better for polishing. Yeah no doubt. Things designed to wipe your kitchen counter and wipe your ass will beat a Racor for filtering fuel everytime. Next you'll be adding an Algea-X into the mix. :-) Now now, be polite. FWIW I agree about paper towel filters. They can't possibly do as good a job as a filter element, although maybe they absorb water better. Why do people want to save $1.50 on something that can ruin a $10K engine? BTW I saw an ad for a paper towel lube oil filter system that proclaimed how it was used by the USCG and the military... hate to say it but any military installation has to be MILSPEC and anybody who modifies gov't power plants without all proper authorization is likely going to end up in Leavenworth, or at very least washing the world's largest pile of dirty dishes. Why are people so gullible? Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
This helps alot, thanks! LaBomba suggested that just amking
the primary filter bigger would solve the problem. I was thinking that this might be a easier solution, but it appears that a separate polishing system does have advantages over just using a filter that does not clog up so quickly. My intended strategy is to oly fill one tank at a time, set the newly filled tank to polishing while running the engine off of the other tank. Then when the engine tank gets low, switch the engine to the polished tank, then fill and polish the other tank. That way I always have clean fuel ready and waiting (and plenty of it) and I don;t have to rush to fill again. I'm still in a quandry about Raycor style filters vs the paper towel roll type. Perhaps RichH will chime in on this one since he is an expert on filtration systems. Does Safeway carry 15 uM paper towels? Doug s/v Callista "Roy G. Biv" wrote in message om... "Doug Dotson" wrote in message ... Makes sense, but there is quite alot of evidence out there that a polishing system is a good thing to have. I can't really increase the size of my on-engine filter. I could increase the size of the Raycor, but at the pore sizes I run (30 micron) in it make it necessary to change the on-engine filter regularly as well. Bigger Raycor won't fix the problem. Doug "LaBomba182" wrote in message Just go up a size or two in your filters. The surface area difference between a 500 Racor and a 900 Racor is tremendous. Actually the larger surface area of the element of the 900 or 1000 might help; My theory was independent polisher with small pore size (Racor) but RichH (who has not contributed to this thread) on polishing explained it this way: Complete Thread (26 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.boats.cruising Date: 2003-09-17 07:33:31 PST RichH wrote: If your polishing system is 'off line' ... not a part of the normal fuel distribution and return loop the following will exponentially improve the retention ability and 'speed of recovery' if you happen to get a load a cruddy fuel or the sea state breaks a slug of particale loose from the tank walls, etc.: Dont use 2uM filters in the loop! .... increase the nominal retention rating to 10 or 15uM and the resultant final particle distribution *in the tank* will be essentially zero and accomplish this level FASTER. ... here's why: Fibrous media filters have retention capability at essentially ALL particle size levels. A 15uM fuel filter will remove approx 85 to 95% of of 15uM particles in a one single pass of the fluid through it, at 10uM 50%, at 5uM perhaps 30%, at 2uM maybe 15%. A 15uM filter will have approx 4 to 5 times the flow rate capacity (gallons per minute per psid) of a 2uM filter ... meaning that the 15uM filter will cause less work for the pump and overall flow will be FASTER. A 2uM filter will deposit 2uM particles primarily on the surface of the media, a larger retention media will capture 2uM particles down deep in the media (for *more* capacity of small particles) Since a polishing system is a closed recirculation system you are constantly filtering the same fluid over and over and over, each time the fluid passes through the filter it leaves a few percent of smaller particles behind in the filter, since a larger retention filter has better flow characteristics the pump will push through MORE fluid per minute and have less amperage draw. When using a 2uM filter, the fluid returned during recirculation to the tank is again mixed with particle/debris laden fluid. A larger retention filter will do the same job, to the same level of particles in the tank .... and do it faster because the larger retention filter has less resistance to flow. With less resistance to flow a larger retention filter will have less probability of extruding and releasing SOFT/DEFORMABLE particles at it approaches differential pressures that would 'clog' a filter. Another benefit - If for example you have a crud contamination hanging on the walls of the tank and the sea state causes the attached particles/crud to break free and enter the fluid, the larger retention filter (because of its less resistance to flow) will recover the tank back to an acceptable particle distribution (particle recovery) FASTER than a smaller retention filter. Same story when taking onboard a load of fuel that is contaminated. Recirculation filtration is exponentially faster, more efficient, and vastly more cost effective than single pass filtration. Use the largest filter retention possible (~10-20uM) to effect the fastest tank turn-over... the tank will after a few turn-overs be to the same level of residence particles. For the mathematicians, what is happening is an exponential decay of resident particles *in the tank*; since the larger retention filter (even with less efficiency with respect to the 'target retention') is Faster because the exponential decay 'in the tank' is faster. If you have time to burn, take ANY filter (includes compressed pubic hair), recirculate for looooong times and you will have essentially ZERO particles in the tank. Typically in industry a recirc. filter is sized about 5 to 10 times the size of the target residual retention. hope this helps. (RichH) --- Captkeywest wrote: no bs at all... my permanently installed independent polishing system draws about 5 gallons (100 gallon tank) every 6.5 minutes through a racor 1000 with 2 micron (can switch to racor 900 when 1000's vacuum increases) the engine has a racor 500 with 10 micron , then racor 500 with 2 micron, then the perkins 4-108 engine mounted filter. as rich points out the 1000 elements aren't much more expensive than the 500 elements, don't let the 500/1000 designations throw you, the surface area of the 1000 is MUCH greater than twice the surface area of the 500...... source: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...4%40NOSPAM.net |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
This helps alot, thanks! LaBomba suggested that just amking
the primary filter bigger would solve the problem. I was thinking that this might be a easier solution, but it appears that a separate polishing system does have advantages over just using a filter that does not clog up so quickly. My intended strategy is to oly fill one tank at a time, set the newly filled tank to polishing while running the engine off of the other tank. Then when the engine tank gets low, switch the engine to the polished tank, then fill and polish the other tank. That way I always have clean fuel ready and waiting (and plenty of it) and I don;t have to rush to fill again. I'm still in a quandry about Raycor style filters vs the paper towel roll type. Perhaps RichH will chime in on this one since he is an expert on filtration systems. Does Safeway carry 15 uM paper towels? Doug s/v Callista "Roy G. Biv" wrote in message om... "Doug Dotson" wrote in message ... Makes sense, but there is quite alot of evidence out there that a polishing system is a good thing to have. I can't really increase the size of my on-engine filter. I could increase the size of the Raycor, but at the pore sizes I run (30 micron) in it make it necessary to change the on-engine filter regularly as well. Bigger Raycor won't fix the problem. Doug "LaBomba182" wrote in message Just go up a size or two in your filters. The surface area difference between a 500 Racor and a 900 Racor is tremendous. Actually the larger surface area of the element of the 900 or 1000 might help; My theory was independent polisher with small pore size (Racor) but RichH (who has not contributed to this thread) on polishing explained it this way: Complete Thread (26 articles) Original Format Newsgroups: rec.boats.cruising Date: 2003-09-17 07:33:31 PST RichH wrote: If your polishing system is 'off line' ... not a part of the normal fuel distribution and return loop the following will exponentially improve the retention ability and 'speed of recovery' if you happen to get a load a cruddy fuel or the sea state breaks a slug of particale loose from the tank walls, etc.: Dont use 2uM filters in the loop! .... increase the nominal retention rating to 10 or 15uM and the resultant final particle distribution *in the tank* will be essentially zero and accomplish this level FASTER. ... here's why: Fibrous media filters have retention capability at essentially ALL particle size levels. A 15uM fuel filter will remove approx 85 to 95% of of 15uM particles in a one single pass of the fluid through it, at 10uM 50%, at 5uM perhaps 30%, at 2uM maybe 15%. A 15uM filter will have approx 4 to 5 times the flow rate capacity (gallons per minute per psid) of a 2uM filter ... meaning that the 15uM filter will cause less work for the pump and overall flow will be FASTER. A 2uM filter will deposit 2uM particles primarily on the surface of the media, a larger retention media will capture 2uM particles down deep in the media (for *more* capacity of small particles) Since a polishing system is a closed recirculation system you are constantly filtering the same fluid over and over and over, each time the fluid passes through the filter it leaves a few percent of smaller particles behind in the filter, since a larger retention filter has better flow characteristics the pump will push through MORE fluid per minute and have less amperage draw. When using a 2uM filter, the fluid returned during recirculation to the tank is again mixed with particle/debris laden fluid. A larger retention filter will do the same job, to the same level of particles in the tank .... and do it faster because the larger retention filter has less resistance to flow. With less resistance to flow a larger retention filter will have less probability of extruding and releasing SOFT/DEFORMABLE particles at it approaches differential pressures that would 'clog' a filter. Another benefit - If for example you have a crud contamination hanging on the walls of the tank and the sea state causes the attached particles/crud to break free and enter the fluid, the larger retention filter (because of its less resistance to flow) will recover the tank back to an acceptable particle distribution (particle recovery) FASTER than a smaller retention filter. Same story when taking onboard a load of fuel that is contaminated. Recirculation filtration is exponentially faster, more efficient, and vastly more cost effective than single pass filtration. Use the largest filter retention possible (~10-20uM) to effect the fastest tank turn-over... the tank will after a few turn-overs be to the same level of residence particles. For the mathematicians, what is happening is an exponential decay of resident particles *in the tank*; since the larger retention filter (even with less efficiency with respect to the 'target retention') is Faster because the exponential decay 'in the tank' is faster. If you have time to burn, take ANY filter (includes compressed pubic hair), recirculate for looooong times and you will have essentially ZERO particles in the tank. Typically in industry a recirc. filter is sized about 5 to 10 times the size of the target residual retention. hope this helps. (RichH) --- Captkeywest wrote: no bs at all... my permanently installed independent polishing system draws about 5 gallons (100 gallon tank) every 6.5 minutes through a racor 1000 with 2 micron (can switch to racor 900 when 1000's vacuum increases) the engine has a racor 500 with 10 micron , then racor 500 with 2 micron, then the perkins 4-108 engine mounted filter. as rich points out the 1000 elements aren't much more expensive than the 500 elements, don't let the 500/1000 designations throw you, the surface area of the 1000 is MUCH greater than twice the surface area of the 500...... source: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...4%40NOSPAM.net |
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
I'll check it out, thanks!
Doug "Charlie J" wrote in message ... Doug- RCI Fuel Purifiers have capacities from 1.5 to 400 gpm...they have no moving parts and no element to change. The purification is done with baffle and coalescer plates. These purifiers remove particulate down to less than 10 microns and 99.9% of water. Their website is: http://www.rcipurifier.com/ In all honesty, I am associated with this company (and with Gulf Coast Filters) and I manufacture onboard fuel polishers. -- Charlie Johnson JTB Marine Service St. Petersburg, FL 727.560.9065 "Doug Dotson" wrote in message ... I am designing a fuel polishing and transfer system. My thought is to use valves to route fuel from any tank to any tank. No problem with that part. I want to be able to just transfer fuel or switch in a filter to polish the fuel while transferring. Since I can select the same tank for source and destination, I can polish fuel in place as well. The problem comes with the selection of a pump. I was looking at a Groco or Jabsco pump which seems good for transfer purposes, but way exceeds the flowrate of the filter when polishing. A Walbro fuel pump (which I have as a priming pump now) seems like a good fit for polishing (33 GPH) but will be slow when just transferring fuel. What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump (Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)? Thanks! Doug s/v Callista |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com