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

No offense -- but have you? They're are not solid top to bottom as you seem
to suggest. The plate bottoms, in particular, usually have tunnels.

--
Eliminate "ns" for email address.

As for stirring up the crud, one guy told me he shoots a jet of air
around
the bottom of his tanks. Has a small L-shaped copper tube on an air hose,
and with it tied to a dowel/rod pushes it to bottom and "aims" it around.
He'll them sometimes just let the thing bubble away while polishing to
help
keep particulate matter in suspension.


But he is only stirring up one baffeled area in the tank unless he has
access
plates to each area.

No offense, but how many of you have actually seen the insides of a elwell
built
marine fuel tank?el

Capt. Bill

No offense -- but have you? They're are not solid top to bottom as you seem
to suggest. The plate bottoms, in particular, usually have tunnels.

--
Eliminate "ns" for email address.

As for stirring up the crud, one guy told me he shoots a jet of air
around
the bottom of his tanks. Has a small L-shaped copper tube on an air hose,
and with it tied to a dowel/rod pushes it to bottom and "aims" it around.
He'll them sometimes just let the thing bubble away while polishing to
help
keep particulate matter in suspension.


But he is only stirring up one baffeled area in the tank unless he has
access
plates to each area.

No offense, but how many of you have actually seen the insides of a elwell
built
marine fuel tank?el

Capt. Bill

Even with all the things Rich mentions here, the bottom line is that
these systems seem to work. From all those I have talked to that
have a Raycor following the TP filter, the 2 uM Raycor element
stays very clean for long periods of time and only accumulates
a small bit of water. Then when the fuel is taken up by the engine
it is going through another Raycor and then the engine filter. I
have pretty high confidence that the engine is getting clean fuel.

One other thing I am planning is to have the polishing system
uptake lower in the tank than the engine fuel uptake.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:14:16 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:


At Trawlersfest I had two lengthy discussions with paper towel filter
advocates. Their
theory is that the random oriented strands of the paper towel can trap
any
size particle,
down to sub-micron, instead of acting like a sieve to pass through
anything
below a given
size (they like to avoid mentioning that the "sieve" stops anything
above
it's rated
size).
Next time you get into this type of discussion, ask them how the fibers
are held together so that they dont release particles under increasing
differential pressure. You need a resin to hold the fibers together.
Then ask them how much particulate bypasses the 'knife edge' seal that
'bites' into the end of the paper roll.
Then get a glass of water, crumple up some of their paper roll, put it
into the glass of water. Wait to see how long the paper takes to
disintegrate into a slurry. Tell me where on this planet that there
is NO water in fuel oil, either as free water or as an emulsion.
;-)

Apparently in my tank since after filtering quite a lot of fuel, the
paper elements come out in one hard solid piece. Even before I
installed the filters, I got tiny amounts of water in the bottom drain
of my Racor.

One other thing you're forgetting is that even if the paper element does
trap water (which of course it will if there is water in the fuel) the
water ends up staying on the bottom of the element because it's heavier
then the fuel, and since oil and water don't mix the water doesn't get
drawn up into the top part of the filter since it's already soaked in
oil. The fuel flows from bottom to top through the canister so any
"disintegrated" paper will be trapped by the water-free paper above it.
You have to significantly fill the canister with water before any water
impregnated paper "slurry" can possibly get out. If you have that much
of a water problem, you should be changing the elements frequently.

Steve

Even with all the things Rich mentions here, the bottom line is that
these systems seem to work. From all those I have talked to that
have a Raycor following the TP filter, the 2 uM Raycor element
stays very clean for long periods of time and only accumulates
a small bit of water. Then when the fuel is taken up by the engine
it is going through another Raycor and then the engine filter. I
have pretty high confidence that the engine is getting clean fuel.

One other thing I am planning is to have the polishing system
uptake lower in the tank than the engine fuel uptake.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:14:16 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:


At Trawlersfest I had two lengthy discussions with paper towel filter
advocates. Their
theory is that the random oriented strands of the paper towel can trap
any
size particle,
down to sub-micron, instead of acting like a sieve to pass through
anything
below a given
size (they like to avoid mentioning that the "sieve" stops anything
above
it's rated
size).
Next time you get into this type of discussion, ask them how the fibers
are held together so that they dont release particles under increasing
differential pressure. You need a resin to hold the fibers together.
Then ask them how much particulate bypasses the 'knife edge' seal that
'bites' into the end of the paper roll.
Then get a glass of water, crumple up some of their paper roll, put it
into the glass of water. Wait to see how long the paper takes to
disintegrate into a slurry. Tell me where on this planet that there
is NO water in fuel oil, either as free water or as an emulsion.
;-)

Apparently in my tank since after filtering quite a lot of fuel, the
paper elements come out in one hard solid piece. Even before I
installed the filters, I got tiny amounts of water in the bottom drain
of my Racor.

One other thing you're forgetting is that even if the paper element does
trap water (which of course it will if there is water in the fuel) the
water ends up staying on the bottom of the element because it's heavier
then the fuel, and since oil and water don't mix the water doesn't get
drawn up into the top part of the filter since it's already soaked in
oil. The fuel flows from bottom to top through the canister so any
"disintegrated" paper will be trapped by the water-free paper above it.
You have to significantly fill the canister with water before any water
impregnated paper "slurry" can possibly get out. If you have that much
of a water problem, you should be changing the elements frequently.

Steve

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

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

They have to, and there is usually a hole through the baffles at the
lowest point of each baffle.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Len Krauss" wrote in message
...
No offense -- but have you? They're are not solid top to bottom as you
seem
to suggest. The plate bottoms, in particular, usually have tunnels.

--
Eliminate "ns" for email address.

As for stirring up the crud, one guy told me he shoots a jet of air
around
the bottom of his tanks. Has a small L-shaped copper tube on an air
hose,
and with it tied to a dowel/rod pushes it to bottom and "aims" it
around.
He'll them sometimes just let the thing bubble away while polishing to
help
keep particulate matter in suspension.


But he is only stirring up one baffeled area in the tank unless he has
access
plates to each area.

No offense, but how many of you have actually seen the insides of a
elwell
built
marine fuel tank?el

Capt. Bill

They have to, and there is usually a hole through the baffles at the
lowest point of each baffle.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Len Krauss" wrote in message
...
No offense -- but have you? They're are not solid top to bottom as you
seem
to suggest. The plate bottoms, in particular, usually have tunnels.

--
Eliminate "ns" for email address.

As for stirring up the crud, one guy told me he shoots a jet of air
around
the bottom of his tanks. Has a small L-shaped copper tube on an air
hose,
and with it tied to a dowel/rod pushes it to bottom and "aims" it
around.
He'll them sometimes just let the thing bubble away while polishing to
help
keep particulate matter in suspension.


But he is only stirring up one baffeled area in the tank unless he has
access
plates to each area.

No offense, but how many of you have actually seen the insides of a
elwell
built
marine fuel tank?el

Capt. Bill

In article , Keith
wrote:

What's untrue? That a racor element will clog up very fast if you have dirty
fuel?
***** Not in comparison to a cylindrical paper roll. Or do you mean
that the efficiency of a toilt paper roll is soooooo low that it
captures virtually nothing except very large visible particles that is
continues to unload at the same rate that it captures.... and all the
while buirning up amperage to run the pump to overcome the high CLEAN
differential pressure required. If a filter plugs, then it did its job
!!!!!!!!!! Its not the job of a filter to pass particulate at its
designated retention rating. Whats the retention rating of toilet
paper ??????? .... why doesnt it plug up when hit with a slug of
particles???? Have any data on the residual particle level in a tank
after X passes through the 'filter'.
Actually the "surface area" would be much greater in a paper towel,
***** How is the surface of a pleated filter less than the surface of a
cylinder?. Doesnt make sense. A typical pleated 2.5" dia. X 10"
filter has a surface area of 5 to 6 sq. ft. A toilet paper roll of
4.5" dia X 4" long has a surface of 0.4 square ft. Thats 12 to 15
times MORE surface area for the pleated for a normal recirc.
installation.
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"?
***** Electropolization of the long chain agglomerated macro-molecules
..... same thing that probably allows a woman to get pregnenat once a
month. ...
Are you saying that slime is
magnetic?
*****NO
Or that they are polar molecules, like water?
***** Yes they can be
Maybe that's how
those algae-x things work!
Yes....But, I have NO idea (nor interest) about algae-x ... if it
works or not :-)
Can you quote the specs for all those test methods you mentioned for a
Racor... any racor/filter combination? Pick one.
Any 'reliable' filter manufactuerer uses (and can document compliance
to) the following data to compare filters. Those that cant or wont are
usually 'shysters' or are totally ignorant of filtration and offer
ratings that are ENTIRELY ARBITRARY (a kind word for: liars).
The test is a universal standardized test adopted ASTM. The test
curently used was developed about 1960 for comparisons of filtration
efficiency by the Oklahoma State University - called the OSU F2
test-stand (and defines a standardized test contaminent to establish
equal comparisons between filtration media) - its THE industry standard
for coarse filtration. A Racor type or other resinated pleated paper
will usually test out to a 'beta value' (log of upstream challenge to
downstream challenge between a beta value of 1000 - meaning about
95-98% weight efficiency. An unresinated paper upon increasing
differential pressure will ***unload*** at approximately a beta value
of 50 (less than ~25% efficiency). I am deeply involved in filtration
engineering and do consulting work that includes depth filters made of
cellulose (with binding resins). A cellulosic filter media needs a
binder for strength and sometimes the addition of Perlite to enhance
wet-strength .... or it simply compresses to stop flow OR falls apart
in the presence of water and other liquids. Commercial/Industrial
depth filters for fuel oil also sometimes include diatomaceous earth to
enhance the retention and service life .... plus the addition of
elemental starches for the absorbtion of free water (for 'trimming'
/absorbtion of water emulsion). Without a graded pore density a
cellulosic filter captures virutally ALL the particles on the surface
(cylinder). A paper made into toilet paper or paper towels is made
from very coarse fiber stock - poor permeability vs. flow AND contains
lots of small chopped fibers that they themselves are free to migrate
out of the paper matrix (particles themselves).

That a toilet paper filter works (at all) depends on LOW differential
pressure (or the cellulose compresses into a 'sludge') but does take
into account statistical particle reduction of multiple pass filtration
of recirculation mode. Its pretty false economy to have overpriced,
poorly performing/designed housings and then put in a poorly performing
'toilet paper' 'filter' that has NO certifiable retention rating, is
made from paper that is variable in density, is made from paper that is
specifically MADE TO DIGEST and FALL APART in the presence of
water/liquids. Fibers for toilet paper and paper towel rolls are NOT
arranged into a graded pore density (the retention of the upsteam
surface is larger than the downstream or exit portion of the depth of
media) such as a typical
TRUE depth filter': which means grade pore density....pores/cpature
sites get smaller as one goes deeper into the matrix. For a fixed pre
density (such a roll of toilet paper) what is not captured on the
surface can migrate all-the-way-through the 'filter. Your implication
of successive potential sucessive capture sites is only for VERY LARGE
particles as with smaller and smaller size particles the removal
mechanism of inertial impaction capture decrease logrithmically. A
roll of toilet paper will wrinkle-up into a 'little knot' when high
differential pressures are applied while UNLOADING most of the debris
that it originally captured. This 'technology' came out the
"oil-patch" in the 1920s, has been replaced by fixed pore, graded pore
density depth pads or cartridges (in the 1970s). A pleated resin bound
filter cartridge uses a vastly smaller filter housing. A pleated
paper. Typical true depth filtration in cartridge form requires
housings that are 5-10 times the size (cost) of a pleated configuration
-------- to do the same exact job.

The pleated resinated paper filter has VASTLY less resistance to flow,
has a defined retention rating, will allow the pump to deliver more
volumetric flow rate and at less amperage draw, requires smaller
housing (on an equal flow basis) @ first /installation cost, has
documented retention, flux. .... because of these advantages will
reduce the resident particles in a tank to nearly undetectable limits
****exponentially faster**** than a filter that inherently DOES NOT
FLOW and has poor retention ability, .... I guess an advantage is that
the amperage draw of such a toilet paper system can help heat the
interior of a boat in winter!

Please answer the following:
What is the collapse pressure of a toilet paper roll?
What is the particle retention rating on either an absolute basis or
'nominal' rating? How about a beta value? or do you just depends on
'dumb luck'.
What is the loss of efficiency due to the 'knife edge seals? What is
the percent of bypass at 30uM at the knife edge? 20uM, 10uM, 2uM
What is the wet strength rating?
What is the recommended flow rate of a toilet paper roll? How do you
'size' a toilet paper filter to operate at the low motive pressure of a
fuel system? Is it ....."Just BUY one and see if it works" ....
hardly!
Tell me which toilet paper mill makes a 'technical grade' of paper?
Tell again that a rolled paper filter is more efficient than a
'cartridge'. ... include the PRICE of the housing in your
evaluation/reply.
Whats the 'dirt capacity' of a to9ilet paper roll? A 2.5" dia X 10"
pleated typically has about 150 grams capacity..... an equivalent
cartridge true depth filter (in cartridge format) will have about 20-25
grams capacity.

;-)