I used a general purpose replacement truck fuel pump, that pumps at
around 60GPH according to the label, but probably really at around 30gph.
It is a free-flow pump, in that the engine can draw fuel through it while
it is sitting idle. The pump draws fuel through either a single Racor
10Micron filter, or the Racor and a Fram 1 Micron, and it can be setup to
return the fuel to the thank via the fuel return line, or to the engine,
priming it. This pump is available from Car Parts Stores for around $65.

Larry DeMers
s/v DeLaMer
Cape Dory 30 Lake Superior

Steven Dubnoff wrote:

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:49:20 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
wrote:
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... What happens when a 5.5 GPM pump
(Jabsco) is pushing fuel through a filter rated at 60 GPH (RACOR 500)?

It won't pump at its rated flow. The simplest thing to do is to put
in the three valves that are necessary to bypass the pump. You can
then bypass the pump for transfer purposes and put it back when you
are running your engine.

While you are at it, it would be good to put in an extra Racor and the
necessary plumbing to switch between two while you are underway.

Steve

----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Dubnoff
Circle Systems We make your data instantly usable.
Download Stat/Transfer from http://www.stattransfer.com
1001 Fourth Avenue, #3200 (206) 682-3783
Seattle, WA 98154 Fax (206) 328-4788

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:00:00 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

Thats entirely untrue (Im being 'kind' here)

If you generate a bacterial slime/gel, that slime will 'de-polarize'
and block the flow based on surface area. Just compare the surface of
an open spaced (pleats not toughing together) pleated filter versus the
surface area of a cylindrical paper roll.

This appears to be the benefit held out by depth filters: their
effective surface area is higher than pleated resin coated paper
filters, because the filter surface is spread through the depth of
the medium.

Also show me ANY data that you have on removal capacity on a per weight
basis vs. particle retention for a "roll of paper" filter.

Weight basis versus particle retention?
Not sure what you mean here.

You can of course document to an industry wide standard OSU F-2 test
stand test regime ???? I think not.

I don't know.

Do you have any retention efficiencies versus face velocity or
gpm/psid??

The retention efficiency is extended to smaller particle sizes for
depth type filters than surface type filters.
This ought not to be surprizing - the same effect is seen in any depth
type filter: for example, the glass filters you place in the home air
conditioner can have a ball point pressed through them, yet retain
rather small particles....

Whats the wet-strength of a roll of Charmin? Bounty? What is thier
average retention rating?

Heavy water contamination would be a weakness of non- resin paper
elements, in my view. But then again, allowing significant water to
remain in a fuel sytem is asking for trouble. The usual remedies are
1) Sump sampling/draining.
2) Water separation cup/drain in the feed line (even tractors have had
these for about 80 years!)

Would you prefer the water to get through a resin coated paper surface
filter and stop the engine?

If you cant, its just SNAKE-OIL.

Actually no.

It's a non-sequitor to say what is not documented, is thereby
demonstrated as mythical ('snake-oil')

Can you document the particle retention profile of the air
conditioning filters that you PERSONALLY use????
I think not (to use your turn of phrase...)

Brian W

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:00:00 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

Thats entirely untrue (Im being 'kind' here)

If you generate a bacterial slime/gel, that slime will 'de-polarize'
and block the flow based on surface area. Just compare the surface of
an open spaced (pleats not toughing together) pleated filter versus the
surface area of a cylindrical paper roll.

This appears to be the benefit held out by depth filters: their
effective surface area is higher than pleated resin coated paper
filters, because the filter surface is spread through the depth of
the medium.

Also show me ANY data that you have on removal capacity on a per weight
basis vs. particle retention for a "roll of paper" filter.

Weight basis versus particle retention?
Not sure what you mean here.

You can of course document to an industry wide standard OSU F-2 test
stand test regime ???? I think not.

I don't know.

Do you have any retention efficiencies versus face velocity or
gpm/psid??

The retention efficiency is extended to smaller particle sizes for
depth type filters than surface type filters.
This ought not to be surprizing - the same effect is seen in any depth
type filter: for example, the glass filters you place in the home air
conditioner can have a ball point pressed through them, yet retain
rather small particles....

Whats the wet-strength of a roll of Charmin? Bounty? What is thier
average retention rating?

Heavy water contamination would be a weakness of non- resin paper
elements, in my view. But then again, allowing significant water to
remain in a fuel sytem is asking for trouble. The usual remedies are
1) Sump sampling/draining.
2) Water separation cup/drain in the feed line (even tractors have had
these for about 80 years!)

Would you prefer the water to get through a resin coated paper surface
filter and stop the engine?

If you cant, its just SNAKE-OIL.

Actually no.

It's a non-sequitor to say what is not documented, is thereby
demonstrated as mythical ('snake-oil')

Can you document the particle retention profile of the air
conditioning filters that you PERSONALLY use????
I think not (to use your turn of phrase...)

Brian W

Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: "Doug Dotson"

Because small filters ahead of the lift pump stress the pump and cause
premature failure. No fun.


Not if you run a large enough (as in surface area) filter and change it
regularly. At 1 - 5 gph through a Racor 900 I don't see how you could over
stress a well built lift pump.


Capt. Bill

Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: "Doug Dotson"

Because small filters ahead of the lift pump stress the pump and cause
premature failure. No fun.


Not if you run a large enough (as in surface area) filter and change it
regularly. At 1 - 5 gph through a Racor 900 I don't see how you could over
stress a well built lift pump.


Capt. Bill

Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: Jere Lull

You don't want too fine a filter on the suction side. On Yanmars (and
others), the lift pump can fail sooner due to the restriction.

My point is if you use a large surface area small micron filter and change it
regularly, you should never see high suction pressures.

The idea
is to do the cleaning in stages: 30 micron before the lift pump, 10
micron just before the high pressure pump. That said, we used 10 micron
Racor elements for 8-9 seasons and 1000 hours with no significant ill
effects except when we got a shot of algae.

8-9 years without changing the element! Your perpetuating a stereo type Jere.
:-)

The on-engine filter never
had any significant dirt on it (or in the bowl). That didn't change much
when we went to 30 microns, as it happens.

Note: We were able to limp home when the last filter on board clogged up
during the algae incident: Pulled the filter and gently brushed junk off
of the surface, and drained and cleaned the bowl (again). For a couple
of hours, we could only pull half revs, but the fuel cleaned up nicely
at reduced flow and (after draining the dead bodies from the bowl again)
we had full power for the rest of the season.

Yeah, been there, done that. Lots of fun when there's a sea running.

Capt. Bill

Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: Jere Lull

You don't want too fine a filter on the suction side. On Yanmars (and
others), the lift pump can fail sooner due to the restriction.

My point is if you use a large surface area small micron filter and change it
regularly, you should never see high suction pressures.

The idea
is to do the cleaning in stages: 30 micron before the lift pump, 10
micron just before the high pressure pump. That said, we used 10 micron
Racor elements for 8-9 seasons and 1000 hours with no significant ill
effects except when we got a shot of algae.

8-9 years without changing the element! Your perpetuating a stereo type Jere.
:-)

The on-engine filter never
had any significant dirt on it (or in the bowl). That didn't change much
when we went to 30 microns, as it happens.

Note: We were able to limp home when the last filter on board clogged up
during the algae incident: Pulled the filter and gently brushed junk off
of the surface, and drained and cleaned the bowl (again). For a couple
of hours, we could only pull half revs, but the fuel cleaned up nicely
at reduced flow and (after draining the dead bodies from the bowl again)
we had full power for the rest of the season.

Yeah, been there, done that. Lots of fun when there's a sea running.

Capt. Bill

Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: "Doug Dotson"

Not sure that matters much. If the fuel can negoatiate the baffles
then I suspect the crud can as well. Hence the problem. Once the
fuel is shaken not stirred


Yes, but just bubbling up the fuel in one baffled area doesn't cut it.

Capt. Bill

Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: "Doug Dotson"

Not sure that matters much. If the fuel can negoatiate the baffles
then I suspect the crud can as well. Hence the problem. Once the
fuel is shaken not stirred


Yes, but just bubbling up the fuel in one baffled area doesn't cut it.

Capt. Bill

Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump
From: "Doug Dotson"

I don't think mine is a well built marine fuel tank. But is what I have.
I'll know more when I open it up this winter an peer inside.


Let us know what you find.

Capt. Bill