Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Rich, do you thing that 2 filters in series is a good idea? In a delivery system that has symptoms of gross contamination .... definitely a prefilter (@ approx 5 times the retention size) will VASTLY extend the life the final filter. If you have an active independent recirc. polishing (any kind) then probably: no .... as the challenge to the delivery system filters will approach zero. But a belt and suspenders approach is always good for safety .... your decision. If so then how about vacuum gauges? Shoufl I install one in between the 2 filters? MOST DEFINITE YES!! The ONLY way to monitor filtation operation performance is by gauges ---- then you can monitor WHEN to change the filters. But you should periodically also record the pressures to see which one is in need of replacement. What you will develop is the state of the present entire system (history) versus engine hours ... and then in future change before you reach a critical point .... or ascertain that the system has degraded by bacterial contamination, onload of bad fuel, etc. or worse.... if you see that a value has *decreased* or is less than previous, then you know to change a filter that has a *hole* and is now bypassing. Without gauges .... you just wait until something inevitably "chokes" .... or needlessly throw away a lot of filters with lots of life remaining. If you do have TP filters already installed, put a gauge across them and watch for the differential pressure to vary from day to day .... indicating bypass or unloading. |
#392
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Oops! I meant to say that traditional holders a cheaper than the TP units.
Doug s/v Callista "doug dotson" wrote in message ... I'm pretty much convinced. Traditional filter holders can be had for a little more than TP holders and the filters are not all that expensive. In addition I can pick and choose which filters to used based upon what happens in actual practice. Since the holders are pretty cheap, I am planning to install 2 in series so I can stage filter porosities if necessary. Thanks for the insite Rich. IMHO going with proven industry equipment just makes sense especially since it is not prohibitively expensive. Although the TP and PT units seem attractive, I wouldn't be comfortable with them without a following filter (which seems to be the norm) and that drives the cost up both in terms of space and also elements. Rich, do you thing that 2 filters in series is a good idea? If so then how about vacuum gauges? Shoufl I install one in between the 2 filters? Doug s/v Callista "Rich Hampel" wrote in message ... We're starting to flog a dead horse here .... so my very last comment on all this is: ... take a toilet paper roll, get a container, immerse it in any oil that you want and let it soak, then add 1" of water to settle at the bottom of the container with the TP .... to the bottom of whatever you contain the toilet paper, let sit a week or more, remove and examine that the TP has fallen apart where the water has come in contact with the TP. Now consider that the TP in poorly designed boat system is held in place by a knife edge seal biteing into the end of the TP roll........ What happens later on when there is differential pressure across 'mush' (papier mache) being held by a knife edge seal and has a differential pressure across it. Water in fuel oil is common, as an emulsion from the refinery (errors in handling, etc.) and as the product of condensation on the tank farm walls with water entering the tankage through the tank vent, etc. I've herein posted what is the normal industry methods, 'state-of-the-art' ..... and what is 'snake oil'. .....and thats the final comment from me. You again mention non resin cellulose filters falling apart when wet. The home test I mentioned recently (I thought) would convince you that these filter materials *don't get wet* in the intended application? Ever hear of gravity settling and equlibrium displacement ? Dont consder to ever get a job as a lab tech.... you wont make it. Brian W |
#393
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Oops! I meant to say that traditional holders a cheaper than the TP units.
Doug s/v Callista "doug dotson" wrote in message ... I'm pretty much convinced. Traditional filter holders can be had for a little more than TP holders and the filters are not all that expensive. In addition I can pick and choose which filters to used based upon what happens in actual practice. Since the holders are pretty cheap, I am planning to install 2 in series so I can stage filter porosities if necessary. Thanks for the insite Rich. IMHO going with proven industry equipment just makes sense especially since it is not prohibitively expensive. Although the TP and PT units seem attractive, I wouldn't be comfortable with them without a following filter (which seems to be the norm) and that drives the cost up both in terms of space and also elements. Rich, do you thing that 2 filters in series is a good idea? If so then how about vacuum gauges? Shoufl I install one in between the 2 filters? Doug s/v Callista "Rich Hampel" wrote in message ... We're starting to flog a dead horse here .... so my very last comment on all this is: ... take a toilet paper roll, get a container, immerse it in any oil that you want and let it soak, then add 1" of water to settle at the bottom of the container with the TP .... to the bottom of whatever you contain the toilet paper, let sit a week or more, remove and examine that the TP has fallen apart where the water has come in contact with the TP. Now consider that the TP in poorly designed boat system is held in place by a knife edge seal biteing into the end of the TP roll........ What happens later on when there is differential pressure across 'mush' (papier mache) being held by a knife edge seal and has a differential pressure across it. Water in fuel oil is common, as an emulsion from the refinery (errors in handling, etc.) and as the product of condensation on the tank farm walls with water entering the tankage through the tank vent, etc. I've herein posted what is the normal industry methods, 'state-of-the-art' ..... and what is 'snake oil'. .....and thats the final comment from me. You again mention non resin cellulose filters falling apart when wet. The home test I mentioned recently (I thought) would convince you that these filter materials *don't get wet* in the intended application? Ever hear of gravity settling and equlibrium displacement ? Dont consder to ever get a job as a lab tech.... you wont make it. Brian W |
#394
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
This is starting to look more like the pleasure boat with diesel power
application. But cars don't typically have to deal with the shaken-up sediment load - and it is this that has been a continual preoccupation in this newsgroup thread. It is this that this trhead is addressing. We have a diesel bus for our business and have had no problems with the fuel problems we have had on our boat. Preoccupation seems to have a negative connotation in that it generally infers that the issure is not necessarily real or is blown out of proportion. For people who are willing to consider reasonable approaches to diesel fuel handling (and gasoline for that matter) there can nobody who can pick fault with using a sampling valve at the low point of a fuel tank. This can save so much grief from water and visible contamination that it represents ultra-cheap insurance. Unfortunately, a sample valve at the low point in a fuel system is very much in violation of CG rules. That said, my tanks have them and I wouldn't be without them. The next reasonable step is to provide a sight glass for early detection of water and contamination (the 'tractor' approach) The transparent bowl in a Raycor fills that bill. For people who just cannot fit a drain/sampling valve in a sump (though they cost under $20 typically) and have some reason to avoid a sediment/water sight cup then using a pair of surface filters offering large area and rotating them will save most engine outs - but not all. For people who must do all they can to eliminate engine stoppage from fuel contamination, then fronting a fuel system with a depth filter that won't itself break down is cheapish insurance. I haven't surveyed depth filters in this application recently - but the ones that no expert could not reasonably object to would be built something like this: layered stockinette knit, string bobbins. In reviewing what I have written here today, I see I have omitted any mention of fuel polishing - which is where the thread started. Here's my personal opinion on this: boaters and sailors will know if they are likely to get fuel contamination - it only takes one nasty experience. The realistic view is that it is not 'if' but 'when'. Bad fuel can be obtained anywhere. But what is the reality it that fuel can go bad just sitting in the tanl. So the best supply of fuel in the world will become bad. Sailboats are especially prone to this since we tend to use little fuel. They will think that if they replaced all fuel tanks and took on only clean dry fuel, they could avoid another scare - but that's not practical for most (and even those who did could still find water in the fuel - temperature cycling in a ventilated tank can *deposit* water in the fuel, for sure.) Water is easily removed by a normal Raycor. It's the water that provides the interface for critters to grow that becomes the problem. These are the people who could consider fuel polishing. So the question is: does fuel-polishing work? Yes. I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that a reasonable fuel-polishing design makes things better - if not perfect. Nothing is perfect, that is fur shur! So I would not want people to confuse the idea of polishing fuel with the idea of paper depth filters - the two ideas don't have to go together. It seems to me you can polish perfectly well with surface filters. It appears you can. But the filters do not last nearly as long. Arguably, the surface filter, which might block with sediment is *still* OK in a (by-pass) fuel polishing layout. If it blocks - so long as you know it, it does not stop you dead (yet) so long as you get some warning that the bypass is blocked and the same is likely to hit the main fuel filtration soon. My vision of a polishing systemn is that it is iundependent of the engine system. But I suspect that the engine system will block prior to a polishing system if the polishing system is not adequate. What you positively don't want is a main fuel feed blocking. So strangely enough, I think a depth pre-filter is *most* helpful here. And it is reasonable to take account of objections to unbonded paper filter media if they can decompose in water. Ithink a separate polishing system is better. Prefiltering may lead to lift-pump failure as things clog up. As a labor of love, I'll take a look around to see what industrial depth filters may prove helpful in this application. Thanks! Much appreciated! Brian W |
#395
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
This is starting to look more like the pleasure boat with diesel power
application. But cars don't typically have to deal with the shaken-up sediment load - and it is this that has been a continual preoccupation in this newsgroup thread. It is this that this trhead is addressing. We have a diesel bus for our business and have had no problems with the fuel problems we have had on our boat. Preoccupation seems to have a negative connotation in that it generally infers that the issure is not necessarily real or is blown out of proportion. For people who are willing to consider reasonable approaches to diesel fuel handling (and gasoline for that matter) there can nobody who can pick fault with using a sampling valve at the low point of a fuel tank. This can save so much grief from water and visible contamination that it represents ultra-cheap insurance. Unfortunately, a sample valve at the low point in a fuel system is very much in violation of CG rules. That said, my tanks have them and I wouldn't be without them. The next reasonable step is to provide a sight glass for early detection of water and contamination (the 'tractor' approach) The transparent bowl in a Raycor fills that bill. For people who just cannot fit a drain/sampling valve in a sump (though they cost under $20 typically) and have some reason to avoid a sediment/water sight cup then using a pair of surface filters offering large area and rotating them will save most engine outs - but not all. For people who must do all they can to eliminate engine stoppage from fuel contamination, then fronting a fuel system with a depth filter that won't itself break down is cheapish insurance. I haven't surveyed depth filters in this application recently - but the ones that no expert could not reasonably object to would be built something like this: layered stockinette knit, string bobbins. In reviewing what I have written here today, I see I have omitted any mention of fuel polishing - which is where the thread started. Here's my personal opinion on this: boaters and sailors will know if they are likely to get fuel contamination - it only takes one nasty experience. The realistic view is that it is not 'if' but 'when'. Bad fuel can be obtained anywhere. But what is the reality it that fuel can go bad just sitting in the tanl. So the best supply of fuel in the world will become bad. Sailboats are especially prone to this since we tend to use little fuel. They will think that if they replaced all fuel tanks and took on only clean dry fuel, they could avoid another scare - but that's not practical for most (and even those who did could still find water in the fuel - temperature cycling in a ventilated tank can *deposit* water in the fuel, for sure.) Water is easily removed by a normal Raycor. It's the water that provides the interface for critters to grow that becomes the problem. These are the people who could consider fuel polishing. So the question is: does fuel-polishing work? Yes. I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that a reasonable fuel-polishing design makes things better - if not perfect. Nothing is perfect, that is fur shur! So I would not want people to confuse the idea of polishing fuel with the idea of paper depth filters - the two ideas don't have to go together. It seems to me you can polish perfectly well with surface filters. It appears you can. But the filters do not last nearly as long. Arguably, the surface filter, which might block with sediment is *still* OK in a (by-pass) fuel polishing layout. If it blocks - so long as you know it, it does not stop you dead (yet) so long as you get some warning that the bypass is blocked and the same is likely to hit the main fuel filtration soon. My vision of a polishing systemn is that it is iundependent of the engine system. But I suspect that the engine system will block prior to a polishing system if the polishing system is not adequate. What you positively don't want is a main fuel feed blocking. So strangely enough, I think a depth pre-filter is *most* helpful here. And it is reasonable to take account of objections to unbonded paper filter media if they can decompose in water. Ithink a separate polishing system is better. Prefiltering may lead to lift-pump failure as things clog up. As a labor of love, I'll take a look around to see what industrial depth filters may prove helpful in this application. Thanks! Much appreciated! Brian W |
#396
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
This is starting to look more like the pleasure boat with diesel power
application. But cars don't typically have to deal with the shaken-up sediment load - and it is this that has been a continual preoccupation in this newsgroup thread. It is this that this trhead is addressing. We have a diesel bus for our business and have had no problems with the fuel problems we have had on our boat. Preoccupation seems to have a negative connotation in that it generally infers that the issure is not necessarily real or is blown out of proportion. For people who are willing to consider reasonable approaches to diesel fuel handling (and gasoline for that matter) there can nobody who can pick fault with using a sampling valve at the low point of a fuel tank. This can save so much grief from water and visible contamination that it represents ultra-cheap insurance. Unfortunately, a sample valve at the low point in a fuel system is very much in violation of CG rules. That said, my tanks have them and I wouldn't be without them. The next reasonable step is to provide a sight glass for early detection of water and contamination (the 'tractor' approach) The transparent bowl in a Raycor fills that bill. For people who just cannot fit a drain/sampling valve in a sump (though they cost under $20 typically) and have some reason to avoid a sediment/water sight cup then using a pair of surface filters offering large area and rotating them will save most engine outs - but not all. For people who must do all they can to eliminate engine stoppage from fuel contamination, then fronting a fuel system with a depth filter that won't itself break down is cheapish insurance. I haven't surveyed depth filters in this application recently - but the ones that no expert could not reasonably object to would be built something like this: layered stockinette knit, string bobbins. In reviewing what I have written here today, I see I have omitted any mention of fuel polishing - which is where the thread started. Here's my personal opinion on this: boaters and sailors will know if they are likely to get fuel contamination - it only takes one nasty experience. The realistic view is that it is not 'if' but 'when'. Bad fuel can be obtained anywhere. But what is the reality it that fuel can go bad just sitting in the tanl. So the best supply of fuel in the world will become bad. Sailboats are especially prone to this since we tend to use little fuel. They will think that if they replaced all fuel tanks and took on only clean dry fuel, they could avoid another scare - but that's not practical for most (and even those who did could still find water in the fuel - temperature cycling in a ventilated tank can *deposit* water in the fuel, for sure.) Water is easily removed by a normal Raycor. It's the water that provides the interface for critters to grow that becomes the problem. These are the people who could consider fuel polishing. So the question is: does fuel-polishing work? Yes. I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that a reasonable fuel-polishing design makes things better - if not perfect. Nothing is perfect, that is fur shur! So I would not want people to confuse the idea of polishing fuel with the idea of paper depth filters - the two ideas don't have to go together. It seems to me you can polish perfectly well with surface filters. It appears you can. But the filters do not last nearly as long. Arguably, the surface filter, which might block with sediment is *still* OK in a (by-pass) fuel polishing layout. If it blocks - so long as you know it, it does not stop you dead (yet) so long as you get some warning that the bypass is blocked and the same is likely to hit the main fuel filtration soon. My vision of a polishing systemn is that it is iundependent of the engine system. But I suspect that the engine system will block prior to a polishing system if the polishing system is not adequate. What you positively don't want is a main fuel feed blocking. So strangely enough, I think a depth pre-filter is *most* helpful here. And it is reasonable to take account of objections to unbonded paper filter media if they can decompose in water. Ithink a separate polishing system is better. Prefiltering may lead to lift-pump failure as things clog up. As a labor of love, I'll take a look around to see what industrial depth filters may prove helpful in this application. Thanks! Much appreciated! Brian W |
#397
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
This is starting to look more like the pleasure boat with diesel power
application. But cars don't typically have to deal with the shaken-up sediment load - and it is this that has been a continual preoccupation in this newsgroup thread. It is this that this trhead is addressing. We have a diesel bus for our business and have had no problems with the fuel problems we have had on our boat. Preoccupation seems to have a negative connotation in that it generally infers that the issure is not necessarily real or is blown out of proportion. For people who are willing to consider reasonable approaches to diesel fuel handling (and gasoline for that matter) there can nobody who can pick fault with using a sampling valve at the low point of a fuel tank. This can save so much grief from water and visible contamination that it represents ultra-cheap insurance. Unfortunately, a sample valve at the low point in a fuel system is very much in violation of CG rules. That said, my tanks have them and I wouldn't be without them. The next reasonable step is to provide a sight glass for early detection of water and contamination (the 'tractor' approach) The transparent bowl in a Raycor fills that bill. For people who just cannot fit a drain/sampling valve in a sump (though they cost under $20 typically) and have some reason to avoid a sediment/water sight cup then using a pair of surface filters offering large area and rotating them will save most engine outs - but not all. For people who must do all they can to eliminate engine stoppage from fuel contamination, then fronting a fuel system with a depth filter that won't itself break down is cheapish insurance. I haven't surveyed depth filters in this application recently - but the ones that no expert could not reasonably object to would be built something like this: layered stockinette knit, string bobbins. In reviewing what I have written here today, I see I have omitted any mention of fuel polishing - which is where the thread started. Here's my personal opinion on this: boaters and sailors will know if they are likely to get fuel contamination - it only takes one nasty experience. The realistic view is that it is not 'if' but 'when'. Bad fuel can be obtained anywhere. But what is the reality it that fuel can go bad just sitting in the tanl. So the best supply of fuel in the world will become bad. Sailboats are especially prone to this since we tend to use little fuel. They will think that if they replaced all fuel tanks and took on only clean dry fuel, they could avoid another scare - but that's not practical for most (and even those who did could still find water in the fuel - temperature cycling in a ventilated tank can *deposit* water in the fuel, for sure.) Water is easily removed by a normal Raycor. It's the water that provides the interface for critters to grow that becomes the problem. These are the people who could consider fuel polishing. So the question is: does fuel-polishing work? Yes. I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that a reasonable fuel-polishing design makes things better - if not perfect. Nothing is perfect, that is fur shur! So I would not want people to confuse the idea of polishing fuel with the idea of paper depth filters - the two ideas don't have to go together. It seems to me you can polish perfectly well with surface filters. It appears you can. But the filters do not last nearly as long. Arguably, the surface filter, which might block with sediment is *still* OK in a (by-pass) fuel polishing layout. If it blocks - so long as you know it, it does not stop you dead (yet) so long as you get some warning that the bypass is blocked and the same is likely to hit the main fuel filtration soon. My vision of a polishing systemn is that it is iundependent of the engine system. But I suspect that the engine system will block prior to a polishing system if the polishing system is not adequate. What you positively don't want is a main fuel feed blocking. So strangely enough, I think a depth pre-filter is *most* helpful here. And it is reasonable to take account of objections to unbonded paper filter media if they can decompose in water. Ithink a separate polishing system is better. Prefiltering may lead to lift-pump failure as things clog up. As a labor of love, I'll take a look around to see what industrial depth filters may prove helpful in this application. Thanks! Much appreciated! Brian W |
#398
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:12:22 -0500, "doug dotson" wrote:
Steve, Buit how often do you have to change elements? At $3 a pop I can go through a fair number before the cost becomes a concern. Once I get a really cruddy tank cleaned then the cost should level out. Of course that all depends on how dirty your tank and fuel is, how much fuel you go through, how clean the fuel is that you're putting in the system, if you allow growth in the tank, if you use a biocide, etc. etc. etc. IOW, it depends. FWIW, I've never had a single TP roll come out of the system with any sort of "mush" from water on the bottom. Every one has come out as a single hard and consistent mass. Steve "Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message ... On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:09:44 -0500, "Doug Dotson" wrote: After doing a bit more research, I'm starting to wonder what the big attraction to the TP filters is. A standard filter cartridge housing in stainless steel can be had for $40 to $80 cheaper than the TP housing. Filter cartridges start at $3. Also, by using a standard filter cartridge holder you have the flexibility of changing filter cartridge types if necessary. I got a good deal on my TP cartridges. 2 for the price of 1 and that 1 was also discounted. If I had to pay full price for them I might have looked elsewhere also. But I still think they're a good deal if you have a really messy tank to clean up because the elements are so cheap. Steve |
#399
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:12:22 -0500, "doug dotson" wrote:
Steve, Buit how often do you have to change elements? At $3 a pop I can go through a fair number before the cost becomes a concern. Once I get a really cruddy tank cleaned then the cost should level out. Of course that all depends on how dirty your tank and fuel is, how much fuel you go through, how clean the fuel is that you're putting in the system, if you allow growth in the tank, if you use a biocide, etc. etc. etc. IOW, it depends. FWIW, I've never had a single TP roll come out of the system with any sort of "mush" from water on the bottom. Every one has come out as a single hard and consistent mass. Steve "Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message ... On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:09:44 -0500, "Doug Dotson" wrote: After doing a bit more research, I'm starting to wonder what the big attraction to the TP filters is. A standard filter cartridge housing in stainless steel can be had for $40 to $80 cheaper than the TP housing. Filter cartridges start at $3. Also, by using a standard filter cartridge holder you have the flexibility of changing filter cartridge types if necessary. I got a good deal on my TP cartridges. 2 for the price of 1 and that 1 was also discounted. If I had to pay full price for them I might have looked elsewhere also. But I still think they're a good deal if you have a really messy tank to clean up because the elements are so cheap. Steve |
#400
|
|||
|
|||
Fuel transfer/polishing pump
Be sure to use the kind that stays flexible, not the kind that sets up hard.
"doug dotson" wrote in message ... Good idea, I'll check it out. Doug s/v Callista "Garland Gray II" wrote in message news:LhGAb.38196$_h.37108@lakeread02... Doug, I have used Permatex as a gasket replacement on a gasoline tank. Should work w/ diesel as well. Garland "Doug Dotson" wrote in message ... I won't be able to tell for sure until I open one up. Just looking at them from the outside it appears they are bedded in something black. The outside surface of the tanks are not smooth. If the inside is not smooth as well that would explain why they were bedded rather than gasketted. I think what I may do is have some inspection ports fabricated that can be opened more easily. Doug s/v Callista "LaBomba182" wrote in message ... Subject: Fuel transfer/polishing pump From: "Doug Dotson" Have any idea what might have been used to bed the inspection ports? The ones I have dealt with have had gaskets on them. If yours don't I would look into making some and/or using a fuel resistant sealant. http://www.watkins-associates.com/index.html Capt. Bill |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Problem changing out my fuel pump | General | |||
Engine dies- Putters when trying to plane- engine under under heavy load | General | |||
Can a single 72 gal per hour fuel pump run two 392 cu inch motors? | General | |||
Inboard won't run above 2800 RPM | General | |||
Fuel pump to carbs fuel line replacement | General |