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

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

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

On Jul 30, 10:23 am, "Roger Long" wrote:
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

Seems your additive is making the alge smaller, and water particles
smaller, so I'd stick with finer filters. The alge growth is not
effected much by water in the fuel. Your problem is due to fuel
sitting to long in the tank and degrading. Todays diesel is far more
unstable than it was 15-20 years ago due to all the catalytic cracking
to squeeze more out of a barrel of crude.

What we call alge is really tar and wax ect..ect..seperating from the
light oil and forming globs. Best thing you can do is use your fuel up
asap, or install a polishing system.

I'd suggest lots of motor sailing for you.. and a 12 pack of filters.

Joe

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 07:58:05 -0400, "Roger Long"
wrote:

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.

Fuel isues on a commercial boat are very different than pleasure
craft. Commercial boats are in use almost every day, rarely sitting
around idle for any length of time. They are constantly taking on
fresh fuel with very high turnover rates.

Pleasure craft are almost totally the opposite with infrequent usage
for the most part. As a result fuel sits around in the tank for long
periods of time and even trace amounts of moisture become a breeding
ground for diesel bugs. Check the archives of the "Trawlers and
Trawlering" (T & T) mailing list. Fuel conditioning, fuel polishing
and filtration are *very* hot topics.

Google search -- site:samurai.com fuel filters

or fuel polishing, fuel conditioning, etc.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search