"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

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:33:40 -0400, "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.

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.

"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.

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 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 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)

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)

In article .com,
Joe wrote:

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

All this talk of "Water Injection" during WWII, was for Fighter Aircraft
and Combat Flying, where the only way to win was to Out HosrePower the
opposition, and that required Water Injection into High Preformance
AvGas Fueled Aircraft Engines, like the Rolls/Merlins and Allisons
used in Spitfires, and P51D's. Water Injection gained about 10% increase
in HorsePower with a noticable reduction in Service Life. Engines
Service Lives for these type Engines were in the SUB 1K Hours, and for
every 1 minute of "Water Injection" you would lose around 5 Hours of
Service Life. Water Injection was called "Full Military Boost Power"
and that really meant "Balls to the Wall, No ****, if I don't do it, that
guy is going to Shot my Ass out of the Sky". If you need that kind of
power, for a 1/2 hour Dogfight, your engine was basically JUNK when you
limped Home, BUT you were still ALIVE. Ever wonder why the shipped
replacement engines overseas at a rate of 5:1 to new aircraft. That's
Why.

Now with all that said, this discussion has absolutly NOTHING to do with
Water in Diesel Fuel, in Marine Diesel Engines. Apple's and Banana's...
High Preformance AvGas Fueled Aircraft engines / Diesel Fueled Marine
Diesel engines with mostly Indirect Fuel Injection. Again, Apple's and
Banana's...

Bruce in alaska
--
add a 2 before @

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:05:22 GMT, Bruce in Alaska
wrote:

....
All this talk of "Water Injection" during WWII, was for Fighter Aircraft
and Combat Flying, where the only way to win was to Out HosrePower the
opposition, and that required Water Injection into High Preformance
AvGas Fueled Aircraft Engines, like the Rolls/Merlins and Allisons
used in Spitfires, and P51D's. Water Injection gained about 10% increase
in HorsePower with a noticable reduction in Service Life. Engines
Service Lives for these type Engines were in the SUB 1K Hours, and for
every 1 minute of "Water Injection" you would lose around 5 Hours of
Service Life. Water Injection was called "Full Military Boost Power"
and that really meant "Balls to the Wall, No ****, if I don't do it, that
guy is going to Shot my Ass out of the Sky". If you need that kind of
power, for a 1/2 hour Dogfight, your engine was basically JUNK when you
limped Home, BUT you were still ALIVE. Ever wonder why the shipped
replacement engines overseas at a rate of 5:1 to new aircraft. That's
Why.
.....
Bruce in alaska


I got an authentic feeling from Bruce's input, but I seem to recall a
WW11 dogfight might last 3 minutes - and a fighter engine might go 5
to 10 hours before a pull for service.

Brian W