On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:40:46 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

Yikes, you flew with someone who didn't sump the tanks? It's so universal
that it would make me wonder what else he wasn't doing. Were you there for
the whole pre-flight or did you just get in after the plane was ready? I'm
sure the tanks were checked. I've heard of a lot of dumb flying tricks but
never not checking the tanks.

I've flown with 4 or 5 different people over the years, probably
missing the sumping somehow, or didn't apprecaiate what was going on.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:40:46 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

Yikes, you flew with someone who didn't sump the tanks? It's so universal
that it would make me wonder what else he wasn't doing. Were you there
for
the whole pre-flight or did you just get in after the plane was ready?
I'm
sure the tanks were checked. I've heard of a lot of dumb flying tricks
but
never not checking the tanks.

I've flown with 4 or 5 different people over the years, probably
missing the sumping somehow, or didn't apprecaiate what was going on.


If you had flown with me, you have seen me visually check the fuel in the
tanks and then make sure the caps were tight. Then
do the sumps and the gascolator, which is usually the lowest point in the
fuel system.. It is a standard pre-flight procedure.

Leanne

On Jul 29, 5:33 pm, "Roger Long" wrote:
"David Scheidt" wrote



Why would there be? The seperation is done by gravity.

Undoubtedly. Someone else raised the minimum flow question which seemed
plausible to me only because of seeing spiral grooves on some of the bowl
housings that looked as if the centrifugal effects of flow might be intended
to assist gravity. Maybe so but it apparently isn't a big enough
contribution for Racor to warn against diminished performance at low flow
rates.

A more likely probabiliy now seems to me to be that the grooves are intended
to slow the flow so that gravity will have more time to do its work. I'm
skeptical now that there is a downside to a large filter.

--
Roger Long

Be as skeptical as you want Roger. I even posted the telephone number
to Parker Racor. They are open on Mondays.

For many years I ran crewboats that had from 8 racor filter housing
to 14 housing on a single boat 3-5 mains and 2 gen-sets burning
between 600-900,000 gallons of fuel a year. And I've lived on a boat
I've owned for 13 years now with racor set-ups and have I've changed
at least a thousand Racor filters and supervised several thousand more
changes, and have meet with Racor reps many times.

A vortex is made in the bowl that helps seperate the water from the
fuel. They work best at full flow as the suspended water has more time
spirling in the vortex and with it's higher specific gravity settles
fast, sort of like panning for gold if you can grab that
concept..geeze at they let you on the mir.

BTW Additives are for kids, a waste of money and more often than not
they just
foul things up more than they help.

WWII Corsairs had water injectors..greatly bumped the HP in
combat...but over time (minutes) it turned the valves white hot and
they start dripping on the pistons. Every engine that used a water
booster had to be re-buildt.

Can you get up on plane with your water boosted diesel fuel?

Joe
USMM Master# 607529

On Jul 29, 10:05 am, Gordon wrote:
Joe wrote:
On Jul 29, 4:55 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
An interesting thing about the Yanmar 2QM series is that there is no return
line back to the tank. Evidently, the injector bypass just circulates back
as far as the injector pump on the engine. It is an unusually cool running
engine for a diesel so maybe that helps avoid the fuel getting too hot.
Flow through the filter is whatever fuel consumption is.
Just out of curiosity, I'm going to look at recommended flow rates on some
separator filters but I'll be surprised if any
go as low as 1 gph. It's appears to be a centrifugal process judging by the
spiral grooves I see on some of the filter housings so it must take a
reasonable flow. Just out of curiosity, I'm going to look at recommended
flow rates on some separator filters but I'll be surprised if any go that
low.

Chris had a good point, now that I'm putting an emulsifier
(StarTron/Soltron) in the fuel, The water isn't going to separate out
anyway.

--
Roger Long

Quick Question: Just where oh where is the water going to go to?
Emulsified out of existance?

I'm getting into your fuel problem a bit late Roger, whats up?
You got alge problems?

How long has the fuel been on your boat?
How many gallons do your tanks hold?
What are your tanks made of ?
Do you have access through an inspection plate?
Tanks baffled?

In the USA the major source of water in your fuel is condensation of
the moisture in the air in the tank, collection on the tank top then
dripping into the fuel. Best way to keep moisture out with the boat
sitting most the time is to keep your tanks pressed full.

Alge killers present thier own problems and none do a proper job IMO.
Your options are to slosh out the alge and buy filters by the case
until it's all gone, or clean the tank. Once I picked up a 120'
crewboat that had been in Mexico for 3 years and had the worst alge
problem in a fuel tank that ever existed, so bad the water traps would
not drain due to getting clogged with alge, had to poke the drain
spigots with a hanger wire to break the crap up to drain the water. We
used up a couple grand in filters before we got it cleaned up, we
burned 180 GPH, with a 4000 gallon tankage. The boat had aluminum
tanks that were the deck in the passenger area that was always kept
cold, the boat rocking and sloshing allowed the tanks to breath in and
out moist air all the time, creating massive amounts of water due to
condensing on the tank tops.

So what's it like to go that deep under the ocean?

Joe

Here's what David Pascoe has to say about condensate in fuel tanks!
http://www.yachtsurvey.com/myth_of_c...fuel_tanks.htm

Interesting
Gordon- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bwahahahahaha.. Another paper sailor with a calculator.

He missed about a dozen real world factors that throw just about
every number he crunched off the charts on condensation.

Joe

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:47:52 -0700, Joe
wrote:

On Jul 29, 5:33 pm, "Roger Long" wrote:
"David Scheidt" wrote



Why would there be? The seperation is done by gravity.

Undoubtedly. Someone else raised the minimum flow question which seemed
plausible to me only because of seeing spiral grooves on some of the bowl
housings that looked as if the centrifugal effects of flow might be intended
to assist gravity. Maybe so but it apparently isn't a big enough
contribution for Racor to warn against diminished performance at low flow
rates.

A more likely probabiliy now seems to me to be that the grooves are intended
to slow the flow so that gravity will have more time to do its work. I'm
skeptical now that there is a downside to a large filter.

--
Roger Long

Be as skeptical as you want Roger. I even posted the telephone number
to Parker Racor. They are open on Mondays.

For many years I ran crewboats that had from 8 racor filter housing
to 14 housing on a single boat 3-5 mains and 2 gen-sets burning
between 600-900,000 gallons of fuel a year. And I've lived on a boat
I've owned for 13 years now with racor set-ups and have I've changed
at least a thousand Racor filters and supervised several thousand more
changes, and have meet with Racor reps many times.

A vortex is made in the bowl that helps seperate the water from the
fuel. They work best at full flow as the suspended water has more time
spirling in the vortex and with it's higher specific gravity settles
fast, sort of like panning for gold if you can grab that
concept..geeze at they let you on the mir.

BTW Additives are for kids, a waste of money and more often than not
they just
foul things up more than they help.

WWII Corsairs had water injectors..greatly bumped the HP in
combat...but over time (minutes) it turned the valves white hot and
they start dripping on the pistons. Every engine that used a water
booster had to be re-buildt.

Can you get up on plane with your water boosted diesel fuel?

Joe
USMM Master# 607529

Sure hate to disagree with you but I used to work on B-50's and
KC-97's. 28 cylinder, turbo charged, water injected, air cooled,
radial engines. 3500 HP dry and 3750 HP wet. The normal procedure was
to use water injection on every takeoff.

I don't ever remember changing a cylinder for low compression, i.e.,
valve, in fact most cylinder changes were for detonation damage caused
by excessively lean mixtures.

At this distance I don't remember the time change on the engines but
it wasn't that much different from the 3350's I worked on which were
not water injected.


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

Well, Joe, that certainly establishes you as our resident filter expert. I
believe you 100%. Now that it's clear that we are having an informed and
intelligent discussion, let me get more precise and specific to my
situation.

"Joe" wrote A vortex is made in the bowl that
helps seperate the water from the
fuel.

This is clear from the design of the filter housing. The key word in your
statement is "helps". The issue is how much the help is. If it is 80% -
90%, you could say that the separator is essentially worthless at low flow
rates. If it is something like 10% it is not going to be critical in most
applications were simple gravity driven separation will do a lot of the
work.

Running crew boats with their notoriously wet fuel (that I've heard about
from others), wringing maximum performance out of the filters could be a
significant operational consideration. At best, you might still be wishing
the filters were doing a better job. That last 10% of performance might be
quite noticable.

I saw no hint of water or other contamination for two seasons. Considering
how little attention most boaters up here pay to the subject (just saying,
"do whatever it need" to the yard once a year), and how few I see being
towed in, it's probably typical for this climate and fuel infrastructure.

When I look at the smallest filter housing, I see that it is rated for 15
GPH. Scaling it down to preserve the same flow dynamics at the less than 1
GPH I'm usually drawing would make it so small that the filter wouldn't last
long. It would have to be a completely different design, a swirl separator,
a separate chamber for water to collect, and a larger filter housing.

I'm not likely to get "swirl boost" out of stock Racors anyway at flow rates
less than 1/15 th of maximum. The simple gravity separation will be more
effective in a larger volume and slower flow, that's why some vessels use
day and even separator tanks. A larger filter will last longer. That's why
I don't see a downside to larger filters in my fairly common situation.

For a crewboat, or a yacht picking up lots of third world fuel in a similar
climate, no doubt in my mind that you are spot on about the proper sizing.

The jury is out for me on additives. A yard manager with a lot of
credibility told me not to put anything in my fuel so I didn't for two
years. Then, I had just a few hiccups in an otherwise smooth running engine
with a nearly empty tank and began to find alge in the filter bowl. I put
in the StarTon and the bowl filled up with green stuff and the filter turned
green black although the engine ran fine. One tank of fuel after the filter
change, the bowl is clear. It certainly looks as if stuff was flushed out
of the tank that would otherwise be building up. Keeping it moving through
to the filter in smaller amounts instead of building up so that a big glob
gets sucked up in rough seas, which is when it invariably happens, seems
like a good idea.

--
Roger Long

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:26:10 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Goofball_star_dot_etal" wrote in message
.. .
The flow rate is fixed by the flow rate...as is the "time of flight"
from inlet to outlet. Perhaps they are making a vortex. Just a guess.


A vortex is claimed, but whether or not it is actually there, and whether or
not it actually separates water, is another matter entirely.


Ask Mr. Dyson..

On Jul 30, 2:26 am, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:47:52 -0700, Joe
wrote:





On Jul 29, 5:33 pm, "Roger Long" wrote:
"David Scheidt" wrote

Why would there be? The seperation is done by gravity.

Undoubtedly. Someone else raised the minimum flow question which seemed
plausible to me only because of seeing spiral grooves on some of the bowl
housings that looked as if the centrifugal effects of flow might be intended
to assist gravity. Maybe so but it apparently isn't a big enough
contribution for Racor to warn against diminished performance at low flow
rates.

A more likely probabiliy now seems to me to be that the grooves are intended
to slow the flow so that gravity will have more time to do its work. I'm
skeptical now that there is a downside to a large filter.

--
Roger Long

Be as skeptical as you want Roger. I even posted the telephone number
to Parker Racor. They are open on Mondays.

For many years I ran crewboats that had from 8 racor filter housing
to 14 housing on a single boat 3-5 mains and 2 gen-sets burning
between 600-900,000 gallons of fuel a year. And I've lived on a boat
I've owned for 13 years now with racor set-ups and have I've changed
at least a thousand Racor filters and supervised several thousand more
changes, and have meet with Racor reps many times.

A vortex is made in the bowl that helps seperate the water from the
fuel. They work best at full flow as the suspended water has more time
spirling in the vortex and with it's higher specific gravity settles
fast, sort of like panning for gold if you can grab that
concept..geeze at they let you on the mir.

BTW Additives are for kids, a waste of money and more often than not
they just
foul things up more than they help.

WWII Corsairs had water injectors..greatly bumped the HP in
combat...but over time (minutes) it turned the valves white hot and
they start dripping on the pistons. Every engine that used a water
booster had to be re-buildt.

Can you get up on plane with your water boosted diesel fuel?

Joe
USMM Master# 607529

Sure hate to disagree with you but I used to work on B-50's and
KC-97's. 28 cylinder, turbo charged, water injected, air cooled,
radial engines. 3500 HP dry and 3750 HP wet. The normal procedure was
to use water injection on every takeoff.

If it was not a problem to the engine, then why did they not use
water injection full time? Seems the B-50 used more morden engines as
well, and the B-50 has more than one engine to save yer butt if others
fail.

You may be correct, I heard that second hand from a WWII pilot a very
long time ago and was very intrigued by the process. I'm not an
aviator or mechanic. Regardless.. I want no water passing through my
injectors. Imagine shutting down with a drop of water inside the
injector... shutter...

Joe

I don't ever remember changing a cylinder for low compression, i.e.,
valve, in fact most cylinder changes were for detonation damage caused
by excessively lean mixtures.


At this distance I don't remember the time change on the engines but
it wasn't that much different from the 3350's I worked on which were
not water injected.

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:29:55 -0700, Joe
wrote:

On Jul 30, 2:26 am, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:47:52 -0700, Joe
wrote:





On Jul 29, 5:33 pm, "Roger Long" wrote:
"David Scheidt" wrote

Why would there be? The seperation is done by gravity.

Undoubtedly. Someone else raised the minimum flow question which seemed
plausible to me only because of seeing spiral grooves on some of the bowl
housings that looked as if the centrifugal effects of flow might be intended
to assist gravity. Maybe so but it apparently isn't a big enough
contribution for Racor to warn against diminished performance at low flow
rates.

A more likely probabiliy now seems to me to be that the grooves are intended
to slow the flow so that gravity will have more time to do its work. I'm
skeptical now that there is a downside to a large filter.

--
Roger Long

Be as skeptical as you want Roger. I even posted the telephone number
to Parker Racor. They are open on Mondays.

For many years I ran crewboats that had from 8 racor filter housing
to 14 housing on a single boat 3-5 mains and 2 gen-sets burning
between 600-900,000 gallons of fuel a year. And I've lived on a boat
I've owned for 13 years now with racor set-ups and have I've changed
at least a thousand Racor filters and supervised several thousand more
changes, and have meet with Racor reps many times.

A vortex is made in the bowl that helps seperate the water from the
fuel. They work best at full flow as the suspended water has more time
spirling in the vortex and with it's higher specific gravity settles
fast, sort of like panning for gold if you can grab that
concept..geeze at they let you on the mir.

BTW Additives are for kids, a waste of money and more often than not
they just
foul things up more than they help.

WWII Corsairs had water injectors..greatly bumped the HP in
combat...but over time (minutes) it turned the valves white hot and
they start dripping on the pistons. Every engine that used a water
booster had to be re-buildt.

Can you get up on plane with your water boosted diesel fuel?

Joe
USMM Master# 607529

Sure hate to disagree with you but I used to work on B-50's and
KC-97's. 28 cylinder, turbo charged, water injected, air cooled,
radial engines. 3500 HP dry and 3750 HP wet. The normal procedure was
to use water injection on every takeoff.

If it was not a problem to the engine, then why did they not use
water injection full time? Seems the B-50 used more morden engines as
well, and the B-50 has more than one engine to save yer butt if others
fail.

You may be correct, I heard that second hand from a WWII pilot a very
long time ago and was very intrigued by the process. I'm not an
aviator or mechanic. Regardless.. I want no water passing through my
injectors. Imagine shutting down with a drop of water inside the
injector... shutter...


Basically aircraft engines are rated at takeoff horsepower which was
the maximum horsepower that they could produce for a limited period of
time. After that came METO - Maximum Except for Take Off, which again
was limited in time that the engine could be run at that output,
although by the time the KC-97's were refueling B-47's & B-52's METO
was extended to quite a long period and the result was increased
engine changes.

You have to understand that all radial engines have a mechanical
driven built into the rear of the engine which, while it will allow
the engine to pull full atmospheric pressure is mainly to evenly
distribute the fuel air mixture to the radially located intake
manifold.

The water injection was actually an additional cooling system. You
poured in all the fuel you could, pumped up the manifold pressure with
the turbo and then pumped water directly into the mechanical driven
supercharger and into the intake manifolds. When the water hit the
combustion chambers it flashed to steam and actually absorbed heat
from the combustion chamber which allowed the engine to burn all that
fuel for just a little bit longer. So you had a bit more power to drag
your butt off the ground with that big bomb load.

I don;t know what model Corsairs the guy was flying but a few of the
last made had R-4360's. I heard that one wanted to push the throttle
up very slowly because the engines had enough torque to ground loop
the aircraft if it wasn't up to flying speed.

your comments about additives. I knew a fellow who was marketing
it in Asia and actually did some of his promotional stuff for him.
Pure snake oil, but I knew people that swore by it.

Joe

I don't ever remember changing a cylinder for low compression, i.e.,
valve, in fact most cylinder changes were for detonation damage caused
by excessively lean mixtures.


At this distance I don't remember the time change on the engines but
it wasn't that much different from the 3350's I worked on which were
not water injected.

Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)

I wonder also if this flow issue factors into the filter size debate that
has gone on here an other places. 2 micron filters would reduce the flow
rate and thus the effectiveness of the water separation. In a situation
where you were just barely getting enough water out of the fuel, passing
some particles on the the secondary filter(s) might be important. Also, if
filters are operating close to maximum flow, they won't be able to hold as
much before needing replacement. Secondary filters, which are not also
called on to separate water, would then be the best place to deal with the
finer particles.

In a situation like mine, where water is an insignificant problem, the
smallest filter I can buy is way oversize for the optimum flow rate, and the
secondary is a real bitch to change out, continuing to run 2 micron elements
in the primary makes sense to me.

What do you think, Joe?

--
Roger Long