But the reality is that these things do work. There is tons of
annecdotal evedence. Please explain to me how it is that after
hours of polishing, the TP element is black with gunk and the
2uM Raycor following it still relatively clean. I really don't need
all these specs to allow me to believe what I can see with my own
eyes. Plus having the 2 uM Raycor at the end gives me a safety net
in case any of the little bugger sneak around the TP. Then another
couple filters (Raycor + engine filter) further protect the engine.

Is the filter on the engine the Primary or Secondary. DIfferent folks
seem to use different terminology.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
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.

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.
You can of course document to an industry wide standard OSU F-2 test
stand test regime ???? I think not.
Do you have any retention efficiencies versus face velocity or
gpm/psid??
Whats the wet-strength of a roll of Charmin? Bounty? What is thier
average retention rating?


If you cant, its just SNAKE-OIL.







In article , Keith
wrote:

You need to look at depth filtration for polishing vs. surface
filtration
like the Racors. They will clog up very fast if you have dirty fuel. See
the
link I posted earlier, and take a look at depth filters like the GCF F-1
or
Jr.

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I don't have a filter problem, I have a pump question.

Doug

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Dotson" writes:
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)?

Have built the system above which BTW, uses a lot of 1/2" bronze
ball
valves.

You solve the filter problem in a straight forward fashion.

Multiple filters (Larger than 500) in parallel to reach at least 60
GPH.

I'd built in a safety margin and shoot for at least 75 GPH.

HTH


--
Lew

S/A: Challenge, The Bullet Proof Boat, (Under Construction in the
Southland)
Visit: http://home.earthlink.net/~lewhodgett for Pictures

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

What's untrue? That a racor element will clog up very fast if you have dirty
fuel?
Actually the "surface area" would be much greater in a paper towel, since
you are filtering through from one end to the other, while the racor only
filters through the pleated surface.

By the way, what do you mean by "de-polarize"? Are you saying that slime is
magnetic? Or that they are polar molecules, like water? Maybe that's how
those algae-x things work!

Can you quote the specs for all those test methods you mentioned for a
Racor... any racor/filter combination? Pick one.

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
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.

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.
You can of course document to an industry wide standard OSU F-2 test
stand test regime ???? I think not.
Do you have any retention efficiencies versus face velocity or
gpm/psid??
Whats the wet-strength of a roll of Charmin? Bounty? What is thier
average retention rating?


If you cant, its just SNAKE-OIL.







In article , Keith
wrote:

You need to look at depth filtration for polishing vs. surface
filtration
like the Racors. They will clog up very fast if you have dirty fuel. See
the
link I posted earlier, and take a look at depth filters like the GCF F-1
or
Jr.

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I don't have a filter problem, I have a pump question.

Doug

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Dotson" writes:
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)?

Have built the system above which BTW, uses a lot of 1/2" bronze
ball
valves.

You solve the filter problem in a straight forward fashion.

Multiple filters (Larger than 500) in parallel to reach at least 60
GPH.

I'd built in a safety margin and shoot for at least 75 GPH.

HTH


--
Lew

S/A: Challenge, The Bullet Proof Boat, (Under Construction in the
Southland)
Visit: http://home.earthlink.net/~lewhodgett for Pictures

But the reality is that these things do work. There is tons of
annecdotal evedence. Please explain to me how it is that after
hours of polishing, the TP element is black with gunk and the
2uM Raycor following it still relatively clean. I really don't need
all these specs to allow me to believe what I can see with my own
eyes. Plus having the 2 uM Raycor at the end gives me a safety net
in case any of the little bugger sneak around the TP. Then another
couple filters (Raycor + engine filter) further protect the engine.

Is the filter on the engine the Primary or Secondary. DIfferent folks
seem to use different terminology.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
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.

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.
You can of course document to an industry wide standard OSU F-2 test
stand test regime ???? I think not.
Do you have any retention efficiencies versus face velocity or
gpm/psid??
Whats the wet-strength of a roll of Charmin? Bounty? What is thier
average retention rating?


If you cant, its just SNAKE-OIL.







In article , Keith
wrote:

You need to look at depth filtration for polishing vs. surface
filtration
like the Racors. They will clog up very fast if you have dirty fuel. See
the
link I posted earlier, and take a look at depth filters like the GCF F-1
or
Jr.

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I don't have a filter problem, I have a pump question.

Doug

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Dotson" writes:
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)?

Have built the system above which BTW, uses a lot of 1/2" bronze
ball
valves.

You solve the filter problem in a straight forward fashion.

Multiple filters (Larger than 500) in parallel to reach at least 60
GPH.

I'd built in a safety margin and shoot for at least 75 GPH.

HTH


--
Lew

S/A: Challenge, The Bullet Proof Boat, (Under Construction in the
Southland)
Visit: http://home.earthlink.net/~lewhodgett for Pictures

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

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.

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.
You can of course document to an industry wide standard OSU F-2 test
stand test regime ???? I think not.
Do you have any retention efficiencies versus face velocity or
gpm/psid??
Whats the wet-strength of a roll of Charmin? Bounty? What is thier
average retention rating?


If you cant, its just SNAKE-OIL.







In article , Keith
wrote:

You need to look at depth filtration for polishing vs. surface filtration
like the Racors. They will clog up very fast if you have dirty fuel. See the
link I posted earlier, and take a look at depth filters like the GCF F-1 or
Jr.

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I don't have a filter problem, I have a pump question.

Doug

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Dotson" writes:
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)?

Have built the system above which BTW, uses a lot of 1/2" bronze ball
valves.

You solve the filter problem in a straight forward fashion.

Multiple filters (Larger than 500) in parallel to reach at least 60 GPH.

I'd built in a safety margin and shoot for at least 75 GPH.

HTH


--
Lew

S/A: Challenge, The Bullet Proof Boat, (Under Construction in the
Southland)
Visit: http://home.earthlink.net/~lewhodgett for Pictures

You need to look at depth filtration for polishing vs. surface filtration
like the Racors. They will clog up very fast if you have dirty fuel. See the
link I posted earlier, and take a look at depth filters like the GCF F-1 or
Jr.

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I don't have a filter problem, I have a pump question.

Doug

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Dotson" writes:
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)?

Have built the system above which BTW, uses a lot of 1/2" bronze ball
valves.

You solve the filter problem in a straight forward fashion.

Multiple filters (Larger than 500) in parallel to reach at least 60 GPH.

I'd built in a safety margin and shoot for at least 75 GPH.

HTH


--
Lew

S/A: Challenge, The Bullet Proof Boat, (Under Construction in the
Southland)
Visit: http://home.earthlink.net/~lewhodgett for Pictures

I don't have a filter problem, I have a pump question.

Doug

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Dotson" writes:
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)?

Have built the system above which BTW, uses a lot of 1/2" bronze ball
valves.

You solve the filter problem in a straight forward fashion.

Multiple filters (Larger than 500) in parallel to reach at least 60 GPH.

I'd built in a safety margin and shoot for at least 75 GPH.

HTH


--
Lew

S/A: Challenge, The Bullet Proof Boat, (Under Construction in the
Southland)
Visit: http://home.earthlink.net/~lewhodgett for Pictures

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

And I believe Racors are designed to be drawn through not pushed into.
Again, ask Racor.

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

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