Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Diesel Fuel Decontamination Units Give Stored Fuel Longer Life. | General | |||
Diesel Fuel Decontamination Units Give Stored Fuel Longer Life. | Boat Building | |||
fuel delivery problem on outboard? help | General | |||
fuel polishing help needed | Cruising | |||
fuel polishing help needed | Boat Building |