After 30 years of screwing around with this stuff I cant still give a
an accurate technical reason .... my 'opinion' is the 'regime' of
particle depositionIn and the formation of 'filter cake' ..... on a
pressure filtration the deposition begins mostly on the upper surface
or at least within 5% depth of the surface, while with vacuum
filtration the deposition is essentially INSIDE the matrix of the
media. Being inside the matrix causes higher internal velocities
which drive the particles deeper and deeper into the matrix ... causing
an exponential decrease in service life. ..... its the same for depth
as well as membrane filtration.
The quandy is that the fluids are incompressible and shouldnt make any
difference due to the direction of motive pressure .... but in practice
it does, it always does.


article , Steven Shelikoff
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:51:46 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

NOPE!
In pressure mode, the filter will also act as a 'coalescer' (bringing
similar surface tension fluids together to make larger and larger sized
particles) and such particles will settle out into a 'drop-out-pot'
..... or usually into the bottom of the filter bowl (bowl pointing
downwards). The smaller the retention size of the filter media the
more efficient the coalescing efficiency.
On the very bottom of the filter bowl, add a pigtail of oil compatible
transluscent plastic tube (Tygon, etc.) with a cock on the end ....
when you see water in the pigtail simply drain the bowl. Thats the
same way a racor with an integral clear plastic knock-out-pot works.

If you are regularly polishing the fuel the coalesced emulsions will be
removed/trapped in the inverted filter bowl .... that why you put the
dip tube for the recirc system at the VERY bottom of the tank and a
drain cock on the inverted filter bowl.

Dont want air leaks or fuel oil leaks ------ dont use compression
fittings, use flared or better fittings.

Pump should have a SCREEN (preferably integral) for protection to
prevent damage by *huge* particles that would tear the rubber impeller
or wobble plate.

I say again, if you want long service life and efficient filtration
employ PRESSURE filtration, especially on a recirculation system.

The ONLY reason I can think of why fuel systems in boats use vacuum
filtration is ........... the engine manufactures supply the lift pump
and 'guard' filter - and puts it on the engine ...... and not on the
tank (where it SHOULD BE). Cheap and dirty solution, easier for the
boat builder - less wiring, less design, less effort, ....

All this begs the question, why does the filter media care whether it's
in "pressure" mode or "vacuum" mode? Sure, the plumbing and filter
cases care. But the media only sees a pressure differential across it.
What's the difference to the media if the there is 14psi (atmospheric
pressure) on one side and, say, 10 psi (a 4 psi vacuum drawing fuel
across the media) on the other side vs. 18 psi (4 psi pressure pushing
fuel across the media) on one side and 14 psi (atmospheric) on the
other?

IOW, even if the pump is past the filter drawing fuel through it, the
filter is still in "pressure" mode because it's really the atmospheric
pressure pushing fuel through the filter.

Steve

I think I'll put the pump between the filters. 10 micron on
the vacuum side, 1 micron on the pressure side.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
After 30 years of screwing around with this stuff I cant still give a
an accurate technical reason .... my 'opinion' is the 'regime' of
particle depositionIn and the formation of 'filter cake' ..... on a
pressure filtration the deposition begins mostly on the upper surface
or at least within 5% depth of the surface, while with vacuum
filtration the deposition is essentially INSIDE the matrix of the
media. Being inside the matrix causes higher internal velocities
which drive the particles deeper and deeper into the matrix ... causing
an exponential decrease in service life. ..... its the same for depth
as well as membrane filtration.
The quandy is that the fluids are incompressible and shouldnt make any
difference due to the direction of motive pressure .... but in practice
it does, it always does.


article , Steven Shelikoff
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:51:46 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

NOPE!
In pressure mode, the filter will also act as a 'coalescer' (bringing
similar surface tension fluids together to make larger and larger sized
particles) and such particles will settle out into a 'drop-out-pot'
..... or usually into the bottom of the filter bowl (bowl pointing
downwards). The smaller the retention size of the filter media the
more efficient the coalescing efficiency.
On the very bottom of the filter bowl, add a pigtail of oil compatible
transluscent plastic tube (Tygon, etc.) with a cock on the end ....
when you see water in the pigtail simply drain the bowl. Thats the
same way a racor with an integral clear plastic knock-out-pot works.

If you are regularly polishing the fuel the coalesced emulsions will be
removed/trapped in the inverted filter bowl .... that why you put the
dip tube for the recirc system at the VERY bottom of the tank and a
drain cock on the inverted filter bowl.

Dont want air leaks or fuel oil leaks ------ dont use compression
fittings, use flared or better fittings.

Pump should have a SCREEN (preferably integral) for protection to
prevent damage by *huge* particles that would tear the rubber impeller
or wobble plate.

I say again, if you want long service life and efficient filtration
employ PRESSURE filtration, especially on a recirculation system.

The ONLY reason I can think of why fuel systems in boats use vacuum
filtration is ........... the engine manufactures supply the lift pump
and 'guard' filter - and puts it on the engine ...... and not on the
tank (where it SHOULD BE). Cheap and dirty solution, easier for the
boat builder - less wiring, less design, less effort, ....

All this begs the question, why does the filter media care whether it's
in "pressure" mode or "vacuum" mode? Sure, the plumbing and filter
cases care. But the media only sees a pressure differential across it.
What's the difference to the media if the there is 14psi (atmospheric
pressure) on one side and, say, 10 psi (a 4 psi vacuum drawing fuel
across the media) on the other side vs. 18 psi (4 psi pressure pushing
fuel across the media) on one side and 14 psi (atmospheric) on the
other?

IOW, even if the pump is past the filter drawing fuel through it, the
filter is still in "pressure" mode because it's really the atmospheric
pressure pushing fuel through the filter.

Steve

I think I'll put the pump between the filters. 10 micron on
the vacuum side, 1 micron on the pressure side.

Doug
s/v Callista

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
After 30 years of screwing around with this stuff I cant still give a
an accurate technical reason .... my 'opinion' is the 'regime' of
particle depositionIn and the formation of 'filter cake' ..... on a
pressure filtration the deposition begins mostly on the upper surface
or at least within 5% depth of the surface, while with vacuum
filtration the deposition is essentially INSIDE the matrix of the
media. Being inside the matrix causes higher internal velocities
which drive the particles deeper and deeper into the matrix ... causing
an exponential decrease in service life. ..... its the same for depth
as well as membrane filtration.
The quandy is that the fluids are incompressible and shouldnt make any
difference due to the direction of motive pressure .... but in practice
it does, it always does.


article , Steven Shelikoff
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:51:46 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

NOPE!
In pressure mode, the filter will also act as a 'coalescer' (bringing
similar surface tension fluids together to make larger and larger sized
particles) and such particles will settle out into a 'drop-out-pot'
..... or usually into the bottom of the filter bowl (bowl pointing
downwards). The smaller the retention size of the filter media the
more efficient the coalescing efficiency.
On the very bottom of the filter bowl, add a pigtail of oil compatible
transluscent plastic tube (Tygon, etc.) with a cock on the end ....
when you see water in the pigtail simply drain the bowl. Thats the
same way a racor with an integral clear plastic knock-out-pot works.

If you are regularly polishing the fuel the coalesced emulsions will be
removed/trapped in the inverted filter bowl .... that why you put the
dip tube for the recirc system at the VERY bottom of the tank and a
drain cock on the inverted filter bowl.

Dont want air leaks or fuel oil leaks ------ dont use compression
fittings, use flared or better fittings.

Pump should have a SCREEN (preferably integral) for protection to
prevent damage by *huge* particles that would tear the rubber impeller
or wobble plate.

I say again, if you want long service life and efficient filtration
employ PRESSURE filtration, especially on a recirculation system.

The ONLY reason I can think of why fuel systems in boats use vacuum
filtration is ........... the engine manufactures supply the lift pump
and 'guard' filter - and puts it on the engine ...... and not on the
tank (where it SHOULD BE). Cheap and dirty solution, easier for the
boat builder - less wiring, less design, less effort, ....

All this begs the question, why does the filter media care whether it's
in "pressure" mode or "vacuum" mode? Sure, the plumbing and filter
cases care. But the media only sees a pressure differential across it.
What's the difference to the media if the there is 14psi (atmospheric
pressure) on one side and, say, 10 psi (a 4 psi vacuum drawing fuel
across the media) on the other side vs. 18 psi (4 psi pressure pushing
fuel across the media) on one side and 14 psi (atmospheric) on the
other?

IOW, even if the pump is past the filter drawing fuel through it, the
filter is still in "pressure" mode because it's really the atmospheric
pressure pushing fuel through the filter.

Steve

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 14:24:02 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

After 30 years of screwing around with this stuff I cant still give a
an accurate technical reason .... my 'opinion' is the 'regime' of
particle depositionIn and the formation of 'filter cake' ..... on a
pressure filtration the deposition begins mostly on the upper surface
or at least within 5% depth of the surface, while with vacuum
filtration the deposition is essentially INSIDE the matrix of the
media. Being inside the matrix causes higher internal velocities
which drive the particles deeper and deeper into the matrix ... causing
an exponential decrease in service life. ..... its the same for depth
as well as membrane filtration.
The quandy is that the fluids are incompressible and shouldnt make any
difference due to the direction of motive pressure .... but in practice
it does, it always does.

Not only shouldn't it make a difference due to the direction of motive
pressure, but the direction of motive pressure is the same in both
cases. Higher pressure on the inlet, lower on the outlet with the same
differential as well. If there really is a difference, then there must
be some other mechanism at work other than just whether the pump is
pushing or pulling.

Steve
article , Steven Shelikoff
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:51:46 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

NOPE!
In pressure mode, the filter will also act as a 'coalescer' (bringing
similar surface tension fluids together to make larger and larger sized
particles) and such particles will settle out into a 'drop-out-pot'
..... or usually into the bottom of the filter bowl (bowl pointing
downwards). The smaller the retention size of the filter media the
more efficient the coalescing efficiency.
On the very bottom of the filter bowl, add a pigtail of oil compatible
transluscent plastic tube (Tygon, etc.) with a cock on the end ....
when you see water in the pigtail simply drain the bowl. Thats the
same way a racor with an integral clear plastic knock-out-pot works.

If you are regularly polishing the fuel the coalesced emulsions will be
removed/trapped in the inverted filter bowl .... that why you put the
dip tube for the recirc system at the VERY bottom of the tank and a
drain cock on the inverted filter bowl.

Dont want air leaks or fuel oil leaks ------ dont use compression
fittings, use flared or better fittings.

Pump should have a SCREEN (preferably integral) for protection to
prevent damage by *huge* particles that would tear the rubber impeller
or wobble plate.

I say again, if you want long service life and efficient filtration
employ PRESSURE filtration, especially on a recirculation system.

The ONLY reason I can think of why fuel systems in boats use vacuum
filtration is ........... the engine manufactures supply the lift pump
and 'guard' filter - and puts it on the engine ...... and not on the
tank (where it SHOULD BE). Cheap and dirty solution, easier for the
boat builder - less wiring, less design, less effort, ....

All this begs the question, why does the filter media care whether it's
in "pressure" mode or "vacuum" mode? Sure, the plumbing and filter
cases care. But the media only sees a pressure differential across it.
What's the difference to the media if the there is 14psi (atmospheric
pressure) on one side and, say, 10 psi (a 4 psi vacuum drawing fuel
across the media) on the other side vs. 18 psi (4 psi pressure pushing
fuel across the media) on one side and 14 psi (atmospheric) on the
other?

IOW, even if the pump is past the filter drawing fuel through it, the
filter is still in "pressure" mode because it's really the atmospheric
pressure pushing fuel through the filter.

Steve

Another good reason NOT to pull vacuum on fuels and other volitile
liquids is that if the vacuum exceeds the vapor pressure of the fluid
the liquid with boil (flash) or you will separate out the lighter
fractions (lighter weight hydrocarbons). If youve ever had a gasoline
that had 'vapor-lock' problems you'll understand this phenomenom. I
dont have by me at this time a listing of the vapor pressure range of
#2 diesel fuel but you must understand that #2 is a mix of various
fractions. From that standpoint alone and the potential of 'flashing
by vacuum application make vacuum a less conservative approach to fuel
delivery systems.

I don't think the typical Walbro fuel pump can pull such a vacuum.

Doug

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
Another good reason NOT to pull vacuum on fuels and other volitile
liquids is that if the vacuum exceeds the vapor pressure of the fluid
the liquid with boil (flash) or you will separate out the lighter
fractions (lighter weight hydrocarbons). If youve ever had a gasoline
that had 'vapor-lock' problems you'll understand this phenomenom. I
dont have by me at this time a listing of the vapor pressure range of
#2 diesel fuel but you must understand that #2 is a mix of various
fractions. From that standpoint alone and the potential of 'flashing
by vacuum application make vacuum a less conservative approach to fuel
delivery systems.

most single stage pumps will deliver approx 6" vacuum when
'deadheaded', at least thats what you design for as a maximum. .....
unless you have the manufacturers documents that include 'slip', etc.


In article , Doug Dotson
wrote:

I don't think the typical Walbro fuel pump can pull such a vacuum.

Doug

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
Another good reason NOT to pull vacuum on fuels and other volitile
liquids is that if the vacuum exceeds the vapor pressure of the fluid
the liquid with boil (flash) or you will separate out the lighter
fractions (lighter weight hydrocarbons). If youve ever had a gasoline
that had 'vapor-lock' problems you'll understand this phenomenom. I
dont have by me at this time a listing of the vapor pressure range of
#2 diesel fuel but you must understand that #2 is a mix of various
fractions. From that standpoint alone and the potential of 'flashing
by vacuum application make vacuum a less conservative approach to fuel
delivery systems.

most single stage pumps will deliver approx 6" vacuum when
'deadheaded', at least thats what you design for as a maximum. .....
unless you have the manufacturers documents that include 'slip', etc.


In article , Doug Dotson
wrote:

I don't think the typical Walbro fuel pump can pull such a vacuum.

Doug

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
Another good reason NOT to pull vacuum on fuels and other volitile
liquids is that if the vacuum exceeds the vapor pressure of the fluid
the liquid with boil (flash) or you will separate out the lighter
fractions (lighter weight hydrocarbons). If youve ever had a gasoline
that had 'vapor-lock' problems you'll understand this phenomenom. I
dont have by me at this time a listing of the vapor pressure range of
#2 diesel fuel but you must understand that #2 is a mix of various
fractions. From that standpoint alone and the potential of 'flashing
by vacuum application make vacuum a less conservative approach to fuel
delivery systems.

I don't think the typical Walbro fuel pump can pull such a vacuum.

Doug

"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...
Another good reason NOT to pull vacuum on fuels and other volitile
liquids is that if the vacuum exceeds the vapor pressure of the fluid
the liquid with boil (flash) or you will separate out the lighter
fractions (lighter weight hydrocarbons). If youve ever had a gasoline
that had 'vapor-lock' problems you'll understand this phenomenom. I
dont have by me at this time a listing of the vapor pressure range of
#2 diesel fuel but you must understand that #2 is a mix of various
fractions. From that standpoint alone and the potential of 'flashing
by vacuum application make vacuum a less conservative approach to fuel
delivery systems.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:47:50 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

Another good reason NOT to pull vacuum on fuels and other volitile
liquids is that if the vacuum exceeds the vapor pressure of the fluid
the liquid with boil (flash) or you will separate out the lighter
fractions (lighter weight hydrocarbons). If youve ever had a gasoline
that had 'vapor-lock' problems you'll understand this phenomenom. I
dont have by me at this time a listing of the vapor pressure range of

That's pretty much self regulating in this case. I.e., if you had a
pump that was strong enough to create a vapor lock due to a very high
vacuum, it would stop pumping and the vacuum would decrease and the
vapor lock would be cured.

But then again, if you had so much of a pressure difference on most of
the filters we're talking about here that the fuel boils due to the
vacuum of being drawn through the filter, it's time to change the
element anyway. Either that or the pump is too strong and will destroy
the filter.

Steve