Fuel Polishing again.
 

I'm building my system with one filter (10uM) in front of the pump and
one (1uM) after the pump. That way the pump is protected. Incidently,
are the regular Apollo ball valves available at West Marine suitable
for diesel? I have noticed Apollo valves in a number of the pics of
systems folks have sent me but not sure if they are the typical ones.
I had planned on using the small Tempo valves that are specifically
made for fuel and are alot smaller.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:29:32 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

Sounds like we have to limit this further. Ok, I'll limit it to the
typical filter, like a Racor fuel filter, with a typical pump, like the
Walbro, with the pump either before or after the Racor attached to it
by
at least a few feet of hose and in both cases, a 3 psi difference
between the outlet and inlet. How would you explain a difference in
the
performance of the filter media between the pump pushing or pulling the
fuel?

I did not claim there *is* a difference. As long as the DP is the
same, and fluid velocity is the same, there should be no
appreciable difference. I mean, if you continue to "limit this
further" such that all pneumatic parameters are identical,
operating in a steady state condition, then of course there's no
difference between suction and pressure filtration. There can't
be, QED.

Exactly my point. I don't see how there could be a difference between
pushing and pulling "all else being equal". But Rich keeps saying there
is a difference and that the difference is unexplainable and is just
waiting for a doctoral thesis in filterology to explain it.

The point I was making is that in real world applications,
parameters will not be identical, and the system is not steady
state. So you have to factor in the overall system design (pump
curves, filter cartridge design, flow rates, velocities, etc.) to
determine if there may be an impact, since the filter does *not*
operate independently of the overall system. For your basic
'rock-n-alligator' filters, I would not expect any differences.

And if I want maximum life out of the pump

You put a strainer in front of it.

The pump already comes with a strainer. But it's a royal PITA to
replace and really only gets out the largest of crud. For a "strainer"
to be effective, it's just another filtration stage and we're back to
sucking fuel through a filter rather than pushing it through.

You pick the parameters you want to maximize and go with it.

So true...

Steve

Fuel Polishing again.
 

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:52:16 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
wrote:

I'm building my system with one filter (10uM) in front of the pump and
one (1uM) after the pump. That way the pump is protected. Incidently,
are the regular Apollo ball valves available at West Marine suitable
for diesel? I have noticed Apollo valves in a number of the pics of
systems folks have sent me but not sure if they are the typical ones.
I had planned on using the small Tempo valves that are specifically
made for fuel and are alot smaller.

The valves would have letters stamped on it for what they're rated for.
I forget the order of the initials but they're ones for gas, water, oil,
air, etc. If it's rated for oil (has an O in the rating) it should work
fine for diesel fuel.

Steve

Fuel Polishing again.
 

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:52:16 -0500, "Doug Dotson"
wrote:

I'm building my system with one filter (10uM) in front of the pump and
one (1uM) after the pump. That way the pump is protected. Incidently,
are the regular Apollo ball valves available at West Marine suitable
for diesel? I have noticed Apollo valves in a number of the pics of
systems folks have sent me but not sure if they are the typical ones.
I had planned on using the small Tempo valves that are specifically
made for fuel and are alot smaller.

The valves would have letters stamped on it for what they're rated for.
I forget the order of the initials but they're ones for gas, water, oil,
air, etc. If it's rated for oil (has an O in the rating) it should work
fine for diesel fuel.

Steve

Fuel Polishing again.
 

Make sure the Apollo valves are specifically rated for fuel. Something
about the seats is different.
I noticed this when I was building my polishing system.

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I'm building my system with one filter (10uM) in front of the pump and
one (1uM) after the pump. That way the pump is protected. Incidently,
are the regular Apollo ball valves available at West Marine suitable
for diesel? I have noticed Apollo valves in a number of the pics of
systems folks have sent me but not sure if they are the typical ones.
I had planned on using the small Tempo valves that are specifically
made for fuel and are alot smaller.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:29:32 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

Sounds like we have to limit this further. Ok, I'll limit it to the
typical filter, like a Racor fuel filter, with a typical pump, like
the
Walbro, with the pump either before or after the Racor attached to it
by
at least a few feet of hose and in both cases, a 3 psi difference
between the outlet and inlet. How would you explain a difference in
the
performance of the filter media between the pump pushing or pulling
the
fuel?

I did not claim there *is* a difference. As long as the DP is the
same, and fluid velocity is the same, there should be no
appreciable difference. I mean, if you continue to "limit this
further" such that all pneumatic parameters are identical,
operating in a steady state condition, then of course there's no
difference between suction and pressure filtration. There can't
be, QED.

Exactly my point. I don't see how there could be a difference between
pushing and pulling "all else being equal". But Rich keeps saying there
is a difference and that the difference is unexplainable and is just
waiting for a doctoral thesis in filterology to explain it.

The point I was making is that in real world applications,
parameters will not be identical, and the system is not steady
state. So you have to factor in the overall system design (pump
curves, filter cartridge design, flow rates, velocities, etc.) to
determine if there may be an impact, since the filter does *not*
operate independently of the overall system. For your basic
'rock-n-alligator' filters, I would not expect any differences.

And if I want maximum life out of the pump

You put a strainer in front of it.

The pump already comes with a strainer. But it's a royal PITA to
replace and really only gets out the largest of crud. For a "strainer"
to be effective, it's just another filtration stage and we're back to
sucking fuel through a filter rather than pushing it through.

You pick the parameters you want to maximize and go with it.

So true...

Steve

Fuel Polishing again.
 

Make sure the Apollo valves are specifically rated for fuel. Something
about the seats is different.
I noticed this when I was building my polishing system.

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I'm building my system with one filter (10uM) in front of the pump and
one (1uM) after the pump. That way the pump is protected. Incidently,
are the regular Apollo ball valves available at West Marine suitable
for diesel? I have noticed Apollo valves in a number of the pics of
systems folks have sent me but not sure if they are the typical ones.
I had planned on using the small Tempo valves that are specifically
made for fuel and are alot smaller.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:29:32 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

Sounds like we have to limit this further. Ok, I'll limit it to the
typical filter, like a Racor fuel filter, with a typical pump, like
the
Walbro, with the pump either before or after the Racor attached to it
by
at least a few feet of hose and in both cases, a 3 psi difference
between the outlet and inlet. How would you explain a difference in
the
performance of the filter media between the pump pushing or pulling
the
fuel?

I did not claim there *is* a difference. As long as the DP is the
same, and fluid velocity is the same, there should be no
appreciable difference. I mean, if you continue to "limit this
further" such that all pneumatic parameters are identical,
operating in a steady state condition, then of course there's no
difference between suction and pressure filtration. There can't
be, QED.

Exactly my point. I don't see how there could be a difference between
pushing and pulling "all else being equal". But Rich keeps saying there
is a difference and that the difference is unexplainable and is just
waiting for a doctoral thesis in filterology to explain it.

The point I was making is that in real world applications,
parameters will not be identical, and the system is not steady
state. So you have to factor in the overall system design (pump
curves, filter cartridge design, flow rates, velocities, etc.) to
determine if there may be an impact, since the filter does *not*
operate independently of the overall system. For your basic
'rock-n-alligator' filters, I would not expect any differences.

And if I want maximum life out of the pump

You put a strainer in front of it.

The pump already comes with a strainer. But it's a royal PITA to
replace and really only gets out the largest of crud. For a "strainer"
to be effective, it's just another filtration stage and we're back to
sucking fuel through a filter rather than pushing it through.

You pick the parameters you want to maximize and go with it.

So true...

Steve

Fuel Polishing again.
 

I decide to go with the Tempo type. Already had one and picked
up a 3-way last spring at the used boat parts place in St. Augustine.
Assembled the filters and most of the plumbing today, pump should
arrive on Tuesday ($81 brand new on eBay). I;ll take a digipic when
done for anyone that is interested in seeing it.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Make sure the Apollo valves are specifically rated for fuel. Something
about the seats is different.
I noticed this when I was building my polishing system.

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I'm building my system with one filter (10uM) in front of the pump and
one (1uM) after the pump. That way the pump is protected. Incidently,
are the regular Apollo ball valves available at West Marine suitable
for diesel? I have noticed Apollo valves in a number of the pics of
systems folks have sent me but not sure if they are the typical ones.
I had planned on using the small Tempo valves that are specifically
made for fuel and are alot smaller.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:29:32 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

Sounds like we have to limit this further. Ok, I'll limit it to
the
typical filter, like a Racor fuel filter, with a typical pump, like
the
Walbro, with the pump either before or after the Racor attached to
it
by
at least a few feet of hose and in both cases, a 3 psi difference
between the outlet and inlet. How would you explain a difference
in
the
performance of the filter media between the pump pushing or pulling
the
fuel?

I did not claim there *is* a difference. As long as the DP is the
same, and fluid velocity is the same, there should be no
appreciable difference. I mean, if you continue to "limit this
further" such that all pneumatic parameters are identical,
operating in a steady state condition, then of course there's no
difference between suction and pressure filtration. There can't
be, QED.

Exactly my point. I don't see how there could be a difference between
pushing and pulling "all else being equal". But Rich keeps saying
there
is a difference and that the difference is unexplainable and is just
waiting for a doctoral thesis in filterology to explain it.

The point I was making is that in real world applications,
parameters will not be identical, and the system is not steady
state. So you have to factor in the overall system design (pump
curves, filter cartridge design, flow rates, velocities, etc.) to
determine if there may be an impact, since the filter does *not*
operate independently of the overall system. For your basic
'rock-n-alligator' filters, I would not expect any differences.

And if I want maximum life out of the pump

You put a strainer in front of it.

The pump already comes with a strainer. But it's a royal PITA to
replace and really only gets out the largest of crud. For a
"strainer"
to be effective, it's just another filtration stage and we're back to
sucking fuel through a filter rather than pushing it through.

You pick the parameters you want to maximize and go with it.

So true...

Steve

Fuel Polishing again.
 

I decide to go with the Tempo type. Already had one and picked
up a 3-way last spring at the used boat parts place in St. Augustine.
Assembled the filters and most of the plumbing today, pump should
arrive on Tuesday ($81 brand new on eBay). I;ll take a digipic when
done for anyone that is interested in seeing it.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Make sure the Apollo valves are specifically rated for fuel. Something
about the seats is different.
I noticed this when I was building my polishing system.

"Doug Dotson" wrote in message
...
I'm building my system with one filter (10uM) in front of the pump and
one (1uM) after the pump. That way the pump is protected. Incidently,
are the regular Apollo ball valves available at West Marine suitable
for diesel? I have noticed Apollo valves in a number of the pics of
systems folks have sent me but not sure if they are the typical ones.
I had planned on using the small Tempo valves that are specifically
made for fuel and are alot smaller.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Steven Shelikoff" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:29:32 -0700, Keith Hughes
wrote:

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

Sounds like we have to limit this further. Ok, I'll limit it to
the
typical filter, like a Racor fuel filter, with a typical pump, like
the
Walbro, with the pump either before or after the Racor attached to
it
by
at least a few feet of hose and in both cases, a 3 psi difference
between the outlet and inlet. How would you explain a difference
in
the
performance of the filter media between the pump pushing or pulling
the
fuel?

I did not claim there *is* a difference. As long as the DP is the
same, and fluid velocity is the same, there should be no
appreciable difference. I mean, if you continue to "limit this
further" such that all pneumatic parameters are identical,
operating in a steady state condition, then of course there's no
difference between suction and pressure filtration. There can't
be, QED.

Exactly my point. I don't see how there could be a difference between
pushing and pulling "all else being equal". But Rich keeps saying
there
is a difference and that the difference is unexplainable and is just
waiting for a doctoral thesis in filterology to explain it.

The point I was making is that in real world applications,
parameters will not be identical, and the system is not steady
state. So you have to factor in the overall system design (pump
curves, filter cartridge design, flow rates, velocities, etc.) to
determine if there may be an impact, since the filter does *not*
operate independently of the overall system. For your basic
'rock-n-alligator' filters, I would not expect any differences.

And if I want maximum life out of the pump

You put a strainer in front of it.

The pump already comes with a strainer. But it's a royal PITA to
replace and really only gets out the largest of crud. For a
"strainer"
to be effective, it's just another filtration stage and we're back to
sucking fuel through a filter rather than pushing it through.

You pick the parameters you want to maximize and go with it.

So true...

Steve

Fuel Polishing again.
 

Jere Lull wrote:

In addition, the 500's plastic bowl seems quite adequate for up to 15#
suction, but I'm not sure I'd trust it to 15# (or more) pressure.

Racor rates the plastic bowls for vacuum and up to 15 psig.

Rick

Fuel Polishing again.
 

Jere Lull wrote:

In addition, the 500's plastic bowl seems quite adequate for up to 15#
suction, but I'm not sure I'd trust it to 15# (or more) pressure.

Racor rates the plastic bowls for vacuum and up to 15 psig.

Rick

Fuel Polishing again.
 

Steven Shelikoff wrote:

The pump already comes with a strainer. But it's a royal PITA to
replace and really only gets out the largest of crud. For a "strainer"
to be effective, it's just another filtration stage and we're back to
sucking fuel through a filter rather than pushing it through.

Install a "basket strainer" before the pump suction. It is a
coarse screen that will not normally decrease the suction
head but will keep small animals, rags, and rust flakes out
of the suction filter and/or pump. They are very easy and
quick to clean.

A normal system on boats other than tiny sailboats uses, in
order of flow; a coarse strainer, a set of Racors or
equivalent, the service pump, then whatever filtration is
mounted on and/or supplied or recommended by the engine
manufacturer. Those upstream filters are normally canned
type and operate under service pump pressure.

If the system is supposed to serve as a polishing system as
well I would provide for a bypass system to direct fuel from
the service pump to a set of larger and finer filters which
are plumbed back to the source tank.

I am getting a bit curious at why there is so much
controversy in such a common and ordinary installation? The
purpose of any of these systems, I repeat, is not to
conserve or extend filter life. It is to clean the fuel as
effectively as possible.

Rick