Fuel filters
 

Some years ago there were a series of posts about filters by an
individual who seemed to be quite knowledgable on the subject.

I just did a search of the subject and found a number of posts on
rec.boats.cruising by Rich Hampel from back in 2002 that were the ones
I remember.

Do a google search for "fuel and filters author:rich hampel" will get
a number of posts on the subject.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

Fuel filters
 

Hey thanks for the kudos Bruce

Ive been deeply involved in filtration engineering for the past 30
years so I just thought Id remove a lot of the common misperceptions
especially about 'boat filters' with these posts.


In article , Bruce in
Bangkok wrote:

Some years ago there were a series of posts about filters by an
individual who seemed to be quite knowledgable on the subject.

I just did a search of the subject and found a number of posts on
rec.boats.cruising by Rich Hampel from back in 2002 that were the ones
I remember.

Do a google search for "fuel and filters author:rich hampel" will get
a number of posts on the subject.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

Fuel filters
 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:50:48 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

Hey thanks for the kudos Bruce

Ive been deeply involved in filtration engineering for the past 30
years so I just thought Id remove a lot of the common misperceptions
especially about 'boat filters' with these posts.


In article , Bruce in
Bangkok wrote:

Some years ago there were a series of posts about filters by an
individual who seemed to be quite knowledgable on the subject.

I just did a search of the subject and found a number of posts on
rec.boats.cruising by Rich Hampel from back in 2002 that were the ones
I remember.

Do a google search for "fuel and filters author:rich hampel" will get
a number of posts on the subject.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)


You are welcome. It is nice to talk to (or read) someone who actually
knows the subject.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

Fuel filters
 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:50:48 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

Ive been deeply involved in filtration engineering for the past 30
years so I just thought Id remove a lot of the common misperceptions
especially about 'boat filters' with these posts.

Rich, while you are here, perhaps you could comment on the question of
what micron rating to use in Racor filters mounted ahead of a 2 micron
engine mounted filter. The trawler groups have thrashed this one to
death, and we've touched on it here a couple of times.

In most cases the Racor is much easier to change than the engine
mounted filter leading some to believe that the Racor should be 2
microns also. I've come full circle after reading some of these
discussions and have started using 10 micron Racors and changing them
when they begin to show a significant vacuum guage reading. I've had
no issues with clogging the 2 micron secondaries on the engine and
just replace them once a year as routine maintenance.

Fuel filters
 

I regard that engine mounted filter as only a 'guard filter' ... just
there to 'choke up and clog quickly' if all hell breaks loose
upstream/prior of this filter. Filters do break and can extrude
'soft'/deformable particles when operaing at high pressure across the
filters. These filters are made from a 'resinated' cellulose and the
water in the oil (free water and water in emulsion form) can 'digest'
or sofften the cellulose if the filter is left in such system for long
periods. For most applications the 'guard' filter should be preceded
with a filter of the exact same 'retention rating' ..... unless the
'guard' filter has much much larger surface area than the preceding
filter in the series.

Most diesel injector rebuild shops seem to be of the opinion that a
20µM particle is the most damaging (small) particle for injectors and
high pressure pumps, etc.

Common boat fuel Filters are only 'rated' at a 'nominal' rating -
jargon of the filter industry that means that a lot of particles
'larger' than the rating can pass through (typically by about 3-7% by
weight basis). Therefore a filter should be sized about 3 times
'finer' than the target retention. Therefore, to protect against 20µM
particles you need somewhere about 7µM. Racor only makes 30, 10 and
2µM (all probably @ 97% 'nominal' retention) .... so choose a 10µM as
the 'final' (sometimes called the 'secondary') .... AND also guard
filter.

Why 10 and not 2? A 10µM will have 5 times the flow capacity (with
'size' or surface area of the filters being the same) of a 2µM and
will capture a goodly % of 2µM particles. What this also means is that
it takes 5 times the WORK to pump through a 2µM filter than a 10µM
filter .... and the potential to break your diaphragm lift pump is much
higher the smaller you go in retention size. So, if you simply change
from the 'OEM design' at 10µM down to 2µM you need to increase the
'surface area' of the filters to keep the same work load on the lift
pump; or, you can expect premature failure of the pump due to the
increased 'work load'.

Also in nature the smaller the particle size the exponentially MORE of
them will be there .... so I guess the real question becomes if the
most damaging particle is ~20µM and the smaller the 'retention' the
more work you will have do while needing larger surface area filter to
do the same amount of 'work' and the smaller retention will capture
MORE particles thus you need to de even more work, etc. .... why do
this 'finer' retention when it probably isnt necessary, more costly?
..... and will probably cause premature failure of the lift pump
diaphragm?

A serious filtration system on a boat has probably an independent
recirculation polishing system (to constantly remove the particles as
they 'form' by agglomeration IN the tank) somewhere at 3GPM 'turnover
rate' constantly pressure feeding a standard industrial configuration
filter of 10" X 2.5" dia., 5uM 'depth' type filter. Constantly
reciruclating fuel through a 5µM will result that the fuel IN the tank
will have essentially only 'submicronic' particles. You can hard wire
a polisher to be on any time the engine is on. The main filtered
deliver system then simply ---- 10µM ---- 2µM ----- small 'day tank'
---- 2µM guard filter, with the main delivery system hardly ever being
challenged by particles as essentially most/all are constantly removed
by the polishing system. The purpose of the (gravity feed) day tank is
such that if catastrophy happens such as broken lift pump, clogged
filters, etc. etc. you can simply open the vent on the day tank and
have about 2-3 gallons of fuel to keep on going for about 2 - 3 hours
until you can 'sort things out later on' .... beats hell out of
power-puking into a bilge when changing clogged filters when a rough
sea is running.
All these filters are 'pressure feed' (using stainless steel tubing
with double flared connectors, instead of the cheap-and-dirty 'vacuum
feed' system --- and filters monitored with gages so you can monitor
the system and know WHEN to change out, and long before the filters
choke. The recirculation system uses very 'cheap' filters, does 99% of
the work of filtration, keeps the particles from 'growing' IN the tank
because they are constantly removed, keeps the tank cleaner, and if you
get crud - will quickly return the tank down to a 'background' of
essentially submicronic particle very quickly. etc. Of course you
need to start such a system with a CLEAN tank. Most tanks need to be
cleaned out on a regular basis - saves a hell of a lot of filter cost
and hassle at the wrong time.

hope this helps.





In article , Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:50:48 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

Ive been deeply involved in filtration engineering for the past 30
years so I just thought Id remove a lot of the common misperceptions
especially about 'boat filters' with these posts.

Rich, while you are here, perhaps you could comment on the question of
what micron rating to use in Racor filters mounted ahead of a 2 micron
engine mounted filter. The trawler groups have thrashed this one to
death, and we've touched on it here a couple of times.

In most cases the Racor is much easier to change than the engine
mounted filter leading some to believe that the Racor should be 2
microns also. I've come full circle after reading some of these
discussions and have started using 10 micron Racors and changing them
when they begin to show a significant vacuum guage reading. I've had
no issues with clogging the 2 micron secondaries on the engine and
just replace them once a year as routine maintenance.

Fuel filters
 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:21:04 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

Most tanks need to be
cleaned out on a regular basis - saves a hell of a lot of filter cost
and hassle at the wrong time.

hope this helps.

Thanks, interesting analysis. Let me play some of this back in my
words with a couple of extra details thrown in. My 10 micron Racors
are the largest size commonly available, Filter Element: 2020TMOR.

The engine mounted 2 micron filter is maufacturer specified, and
significantly smaller than the Racors, probably about 25% in size.

The engines are DD 4-71 2 strokes rated at 280 hp each, with normal
fuel burn is in the range of 2 to 5 gph each.

I think I heard you say that this was a reasonable configuration,
i.e., tank 10 2 lift pump engine. I do have an independant
polishing loop which I use when the boat is docked for extended times.
It cycles through a large Racor 10 micron and returns to the tank.

Something must be working reasonably well because I've been averaging
over 200 hours on the 2020TMORs before replacement.

Fuel filters
 

You obviouslly have a good well designed system.
For improvement I'd depend more on the polisher. That you're only
getting 200 hours on a large flow system to me indicates that you could
probably benefit from better polishing.

You might want to change your recirc. 10µM to a 5µM ... or better yet
use a 5µM 'depth filter' in that location. Youll have to do a cross
reference search (thats what the internet is for) for equivalence for
any depth type filter to be used in a Racor housing. But, be wary of
any filter that doesnt say 'absolute' or some % retention when
describing the retention rating - the single statement such as '5
microns' is a potential warning that such a filter is a 'nominally
rated' filter and may have poor % retention at 5 microns. Whats the
'turnover rate' of your onboard polisher and how often do you need to
change that filter and at what differential pressure? The 'faster'
you turnover a tank with a polishing system the better the particle
removal ... polishers are not dependent primarily on 'retention rating
of the filter' but how MUCH fuel you can turnover. For boat tanks I
usually target to turnover the 'whole' tankage in about ~1.5 - 2 hours
through the polisher.

In article , Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:21:04 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

Most tanks need to be
cleaned out on a regular basis - saves a hell of a lot of filter cost
and hassle at the wrong time.

hope this helps.

Thanks, interesting analysis. Let me play some of this back in my
words with a couple of extra details thrown in. My 10 micron Racors
are the largest size commonly available, Filter Element: 2020TMOR.

The engine mounted 2 micron filter is maufacturer specified, and
significantly smaller than the Racors, probably about 25% in size.

The engines are DD 4-71 2 strokes rated at 280 hp each, with normal
fuel burn is in the range of 2 to 5 gph each.

I think I heard you say that this was a reasonable configuration,
i.e., tank 10 2 lift pump engine. I do have an independant
polishing loop which I use when the boat is docked for extended times.
It cycles through a large Racor 10 micron and returns to the tank.

Something must be working reasonably well because I've been averaging
over 200 hours on the 2020TMORs before replacement.

Fuel filters
 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:21:04 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

.....
A serious filtration system on a boat has probably an independent
recirculation polishing system (to constantly remove the particles as
they 'form' by agglomeration IN the tank) somewhere at 3GPM 'turnover
rate' constantly pressure feeding a standard industrial configuration
filter of 10" X 2.5" dia., 5uM 'depth' type filter. ....



Welll, well: not only is Rich still making all kinds of sense, but
(now?) he is endorsing 'depth' filtr ation polishing!

Yeppers!

Brian W

Fuel filters
 

OK Brian, ........... lets not get carried away.....

by depth filtration I dont mean toilet paper and kitchen towel
rolls.
Such cellulose in 'those' items are designed to fall apart after long
soak in water ....
The cellulose fibers are not 'resinated' and thus bound together; if
the fibers can 'move' under increasing pressure such 'filters' will
unload the debris back into the system.
Assuming that the pressures are kept low enough to keep these 'items'
from unloading they are not a 'graded poer density' ... meaning that
the average pore size is uniform throughout the matrix .... by depth
filtration I mean a statistical graded pore density filter media in
which the statistical 'pore' size gets smaller and smaller as you get
deeper into the filter matrix.
Further the toilet paper and kitchen towel filters are sealed with a
'knife edge' which is simply not a very good means to 'seal' a filter
under about 40µM .... the knife edge sealing methods simply 'bypass'
liquid, especially as the supposed filter material under increasing
pressure 'moves'.
Although the cost of toilet paper and kitchen towel filters is small,
the housing $$$$ are immense in comparison to 'efficient' filtration
thus the initial first cost is much much higher - false economy.
Toilet Paper and Kitchen Towels do not have the 'fibers' fixed in
place by resin binders .... and the fibers that can be 'released' can
be as much in weight as what you intend to capture ..... ever hear of
papier mache?
Kotex pads stuffed into an empty filter housing would be vastly better
than toilet paper and kitchen towels.

So, when I speak of 'depth filtration' I mean a fairly accurate graded
pore density filter media ... an example of such would be as used for
the filter-press filtration of BEER and other beverages used to
remove a high % of solids; filtration that is specifically engineered
to remove 'snots and gels' and 'deformables' etc. as well as 'hard'
particles, fibers bound together by a resin, graded pore density,
filter-aids (perlite and diatomaceous earth) incorporated into the
'matrix' ... sometimes even 'specific' starches
(hydroxymethylcellulose, etc. added) to remove emulsified water,
etc. DEPTH FILTRATION, not 'ass-wipers' contained in ****-poor
made 'cheap and dirty' housings. g

Fuel filters
 

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 06:33:45 -0800 (PST), RichH
wrote:

OK Brian, ........... lets not get carried away.....

by depth filtration I dont mean toilet paper and kitchen towel
rolls.
Such cellulose in 'those' items are designed to fall apart after long
soak in water ....
The cellulose fibers are not 'resinated' and thus bound together; if
the fibers can 'move' under increasing pressure such 'filters' will
unload the debris back into the system.
Assuming that the pressures are kept low enough to keep these 'items'
from unloading they are not a 'graded poer density' ... meaning that
the average pore size is uniform throughout the matrix .... by depth
filtration I mean a statistical graded pore density filter media in
which the statistical 'pore' size gets smaller and smaller as you get
deeper into the filter matrix.
Further the toilet paper and kitchen towel filters are sealed with a
'knife edge' which is simply not a very good means to 'seal' a filter
under about 40µM .... the knife edge sealing methods simply 'bypass'
liquid, especially as the supposed filter material under increasing
pressure 'moves'.
Although the cost of toilet paper and kitchen towel filters is small,
the housing $$$$ are immense in comparison to 'efficient' filtration
thus the initial first cost is much much higher - false economy.
Toilet Paper and Kitchen Towels do not have the 'fibers' fixed in
place by resin binders .... and the fibers that can be 'released' can
be as much in weight as what you intend to capture ..... ever hear of
papier mache?
Kotex pads stuffed into an empty filter housing would be vastly better
than toilet paper and kitchen towels.

So, when I speak of 'depth filtration' I mean a fairly accurate graded
pore density filter media ... an example of such would be as used for
the filter-press filtration of BEER and other beverages used to
remove a high % of solids; filtration that is specifically engineered
to remove 'snots and gels' and 'deformables' etc. as well as 'hard'
particles, fibers bound together by a resin, graded pore density,
filter-aids (perlite and diatomaceous earth) incorporated into the
'matrix' ... sometimes even 'specific' starches
(hydroxymethylcellulose, etc. added) to remove emulsified water,
etc. DEPTH FILTRATION, not 'ass-wipers' contained in ****-poor
made 'cheap and dirty' housings. g


I am familiar with depth filtering as used in filter presses for
filtering water out of electric transformer oil years ago. Is this
similar to what you are describing and is so can you offer some
information regarding make and model (understanding that you are not
indorsing any maker) as I haven't knowingly ever seen a filter of this
type on a small diesel, say anything under about 500 HP.

I think the majority (not all) of the posters here are sailboat guys
where 50 H.P would be a big engine.

Disclaimer: I'm seeking information not controversy =:-)


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(Note:remove underscores
from address for reply)

Fuel filters
 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 23:21:40 GMT, Rich Hampel
wrote:

That you're only
getting 200 hours on a large flow system to me indicates that you could
probably benefit from better polishing.

Yes, probably true but the 200+ hours/filter that I'm now getting is a
vast improvement from where I was 3 years ago.

Thanks for your analysis.

Fuel filters
 

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 06:33:45 -0800 (PST), RichH
wrote:

OK Brian, ........... lets not get carried away.....

by depth filtration I dont mean toilet paper and kitchen towel
rolls.
....
Assuming that the pressures are kept low enough to keep these 'items'
from unloading they are not a 'graded pore density' ... meaning that
the average pore size is uniform throughout the matrix .... by depth
filtration I mean a statistical graded pore density filter media in
which the statistical 'pore' size gets smaller and smaller as you get
deeper into the filter matrix.

Hehe..... you're softening, but it takes a while.

You make one point that seems contentious:

You think that a depth filter that captures
particles of decreasing size as a function of depth, is a
filter whose pore sizes are actually decreasing
with depth.
It ain't necessarily so. I assert that a depth filter of
constant pore size has just this characteristic also.

Of course, I am open to contrary evidence.
Do you have a pointer?

:-)

Regards


Brian W
p.s. I found your Tampax depth filter comment both pertinent and
amusing - can't recall the edge seals, but the excellent depth filter
I used to fly with had just this kind of fabric structure. Total
hours on that engine were around 8000 when I sold it running strong
with about 1000 hours on it since last major.

Fuel filters
 

Hehe..... you're softening, but it takes a while.

You make one point that seems contentious:

You think that a depth filter that captures
particles of decreasing size as a function of depth, is a
filter whose pore sizes are actually decreasing
with depth.
It ain't necessarily so. I assert that a depth filter of
constant pore size has just this characteristic also.

At 15µM and larger presses use a resinated technical paper, woven
'technical' fabrics, etc. .... now a world monopoly supply by
Ahlstrom of Finland.
Under 15µM the paper used is a thick 'chinese vacuum process paper'
thats laid down on a fine screen and with vacuum pulling from the
bottom, if this is done correctly the 'pore size' distribution will be
more open on the top, opening a bit through the middle and very tight
near the screen (bottom section) . this is the 'classic' filter paper
and the way its made by the principals of this industry: (EU - Seitz/
Schenk (the 'inventor' of modern depth-filtration - during WWI),
Begerow, Carlson, etc.; USA - ErtelAlsop, 3M-Cuno, Pall (SeitzSchenk),
Cellulo, etc.)

The 15µM paper is typically used with filter aids (perlite/DE/Carbon,
etc.) used as 'pre-coats and body feed' ... the paper used principally
as a 'septum' to hold the filter aid, the filter aid being the 'agent'
of filtration. The 15µM papers are isotropic in (statistical) 'pore'
structure and are all 'nominally' rated to a 'loose' degree. MOST ALL
traditional 'chinese process vacuum screen paper' used in depth
filtration are ALL anisotropic (graded pore) in pore structu 0,2
µM 15 (97-98% eff.).

The same anisotropic media (40-1µM absolute) can be found in 2.5"Ø X
10" long common industrial configurations ... usually of meltblown
polypropylene microfibers .... GE-Osmonics, Pall, 3M-Cuno, Parker (but
not Racor Div.), Filterite (now Pall), and a host of cheap 'imitators'
from Eastern EU and the 'orient'. Polypropylene swells in contact
with fuel oil due to the oleophillic characteristic of polypropylene
(thats what they use in the 'oil-booms'; but, no matter just use the
'next larger' pore size ..... usually available in 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 15,
20, 30, 40, 60µM. But DONT use any 'knife edge seals', use either
flat gasket end caps down to ~10µM and double O-ring adapters 5µM or
less. ************This is probably the cheapest way to go for boat
'recirculation polishing'********** as the (carbon steel) housing
costs are the best value. Typical gravimetric removal will be the
range of 30-50 grams per 10" length. Maximum pressure differential is
~30-40 psid.
There is a lot of CRAP on the filter market of melt-blown technology
but is usually isotropic in pore distribution .... and these are
simply used as 'classifiers' .... with a very sharp particle size 'cut-
off' (but low beta-vale reduction --- log reduction value vs. pore
size) but they dont last long as most of the debris is captured in
first 5% of the 'depth' ... quickly blind off --- this is the crap
usually found in Home Depot's etc. used for 'swimming pool filters',
etc. Typical 'dirt capacity' will be ~ 5 grams per 10" length.
The SAME melt-blown (also 'felting') technology is also found in 'bag
filters' (socks at ~ 8" dia X 12 or 24" long ... looks like a condom)
some very ' highly technical and accurate', some cheap and dirty
(assembled with sewing machines). The 8" dia X 20" length (#2) will
have about 8 pounds of dirt capacity.

Comments?

Fuel filters
 

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 16:11:51 -0800 (PST), RichH
wrote:

... The 8" dia X 20" length (#2) will
have about 8 pounds of dirt capacity.

Comments?


8 lbs of grunge in an 8 X 20 filter.
There's a performance to marvel at!

Regards

Brian W

Fuel filters
 

I realize reading it, that my secondary or guard filter is probably 10uM
since it is a Yamaha
(Yamaha and Yanmar ... and Universal and Volvo, etc. dont make
filters .... they buy filters and have someone pait their name on the
filter .... then sell it at 5 times the market price)
part intended for the filter that came with the engine.
I assumed that these were all 2uM from reading previous semi informed
threads.
In real life and without doing an intensive particle distribution
analysis typically any 'terminal/final' filter should be protected by
a pre-filter that is approx. 5 times the retention size of the filter
doing the most-important-work. For best economy, what you want is
that all the sequential filters ----- FAIL all at the same time; and,
for most normal particle distributions in nature the 5:1 sizing will
usually hit the mark the first time out. The next way in 'real life'
is to simply record the differential pressure (gage) across each
filter VERSUS actual gallons/liters filtered, then you can adjust
filter AREA to balance the flows and service life. A fuel oil system
isnt a 'constant state system' so the best is probably just go with
equal surface areas in each and 5X larger retention in the prefilter.
Usually the way filtration of pleated filters works is that (for
constant conditions) if you double the surface area you get about 3
(2.7) times the service life.

PROBABLY A PUMP PROBLEM
probably the beginnings of a pin hole in the diaphragm or a check
valve isnt closing all the way.
I would appreciate your specific answer to the question I've posed which
will apply to many small sailboats. Since the smallest Racor I can buy is
rated at over 15 times the fuel flow of my 20 hp diesel with return line to
the top of the guard filter instead of the tank, does it not make sense to
run a 2uM element in my primary?
NO, not ever. Use a 10µM in FRONT of the 2µM. If the final is 10µM
then use a 30µM RAcor in front of it (Racor doesnt make 50µM) The
10µM will capture a LOT of 2µM particles - the 10µM Racor is probably
60% efficient in capture at 2µM (guesstimate) ... and this will
prolong the life of the final 2µM.

. I don't think my engine fuel pump is
running very hard. I had a lift pump because the filter and fuel pump were
mounted high above the engine.
PUMP should be as LOW as possible; BUT, once the delivery system is
filled it really doesnt matter as the 'siphon effect' will take over -
vertical measured difference between the **maximum/current** fuel
level in the tank versus the vertical height that the pump is
located. Whats really important with (any) pumps is to have some
(siphon) pressure filling the system AND ****the height of fuel****
versus the height of the pump. In your below mentioned 'problem' I'll
bet the farm that this was during the tank being fairly empty... if
the tank was totally filled it would pump MORE (due to this 'siphon
effect' from the tank - also called 'net positive suction head').

PLUS boat engines fuel systems are hooked up ALL WRONG versus the
'hydraulics'. If that lift pump was located back at the tank (like
modern trucks and automobiles are) the pump could possibly develop
upwards of 15 psi pressure, enough to push oil through a partly
clogged filter (they usually stop flowing at 15-20 psi **pressure**
differential. In vacuum mode the best a single stage pump can attain
is about 6" vacuum (about 1/6th of atmospheric pressure - 14.7 psi or
30 inches of vacuum.), so the max. a pump located DOWNSTREAM of a
filter can do is about 2.5 psid (6"vac) if that diaphragm pump is
'pulling' a vacuum, it may be 'stalling' because of the 'vacuum'.
PLUS a diaphragm pump isnt perfect as it pumps a small amount
backwards each time the diaphragm moves down .... until the poppet
check valve fully closes. That 'jiggles' the crud in the filter and
'compresses' the deposited dirt making it additionally harder to pump
through the filter. A small constant displacement gear or vane pump
(with 'blow off valve' to the return line) would be much better.
Pumps dont like to 'pull' they are better at 'pushing' .... filters
will last longer in a pressure feed system than in a vacuum feed
system (has to do with the way the debris is depositied IN the filter
media). If you need to 'protect' the pump use a fine mesh strainer,
NOT a filter.

When I moved the filter and pump to below
the engine, I got 1000 RPM more WOT with the pump turned off and fuel
flowing by gravity than I used to with the lift pump running all the time.
You're adding 'static head' (weight of the column of fluid) to the
inlet side of the pump .... But probably this means that the pump is
faulty ..... Id remove it, put it on a bench and check it to see if
it HOLDS pressure .. just blind off the pump into a small gage
(either end, sequentially) and see when you give it a few strokes (vac
or pressure) that the gage STAYS at the pressure and NOT leaks back to
zero quickly ..... bad pump valves, pin hole in the diaphragm, hole or
tear developing in the diaphragm etc. If fits a valve its probably
the 'inlet' valve.

I like the idea of the constant fuel polishing but I don't think there is
space or weight capacity for it in my boat. The fuel quality is pretty good
up here and the cool climate of Maine seems to help.
I use a 3 GPM 'turnover' rate for a 100 gallon fuel tank. .... start
with a CLEAN tank, do all the filter work in cheapy filters
***offline*** from the main distribution system. Dont even THINK
about using the engine return line for recirculation-polishing
purposes.

I've currently got a debate on similar issues with differing "informed"
viewpoints being presented in my professional life. If you would like to
get paid for an hour of work to offer another viewpoint, please email me
privately.
If its filtration Im partly 'contracted' to more than a few
manufacturers listed above; but, I can help with the 'proof of
concept' and prelim estimates, etc.; then, I can get you in touch with
the correct application engineers, etc. of the most suitable companies
or their technical distributors. For any filtration application I
will need all the 'technicals' on the 'nature of the fluid', whats the
industry, the purpose of filtration, the approximate % of solids(or
deformables) to be removed, the particle 'distribution' of the fluid,
MOST IMPORTANT the absolute viscosity in centipoise, the absolute or
nominal retention desired (and why), the Temps, Pressures, the
'accuracy' of filtration, specific gravity, explosion hazzard,
materials for the housings, batch or continuous, bio-hazard, haz-mat,
etc., sterilization or Titre reduction if biopharm, .... total
chemicals and physicals plus the flow rates on the fluid, etc.
RhmpL33ATattDOTnet.

Thanks again,

--
Roger Long

Fuel filters
 

Bruce -
YUP, same exact depth-filter media used by the electric power
industry, only nowadays they dont much use the presses for high KV
oils and instead use 'cartridges' 12" or 16" diameter with the same
depth filter material made up in 'cells' (looks like dinner plates
face to face) with upwards of 12 or 20 sq. ft. of surface area per
cartridge. Only problem is such specialized filters are not made in
small nor convenient sizes that could be used on small boats.... a
"cartridge housing" in ss would be in the neighborhood of $8k and a
'press' would be $25-30K (yikes) and thats for a 'small' set. When
such specialized filters are used on transformer, etc. oil, a single
pass through will get the water down to 40 part per million ... in a
single pass. The 'good' electric utilities still use tons of
these. ......... small world. What utility?

For small boats, noone makes better delivery line filters than Racor
Div of Parker-Hannefin - fixed resinated cellulose media; for recirc./
polishing the standard industrial PP 2.5"Ø anisotropic pore depth
filters are probably the best value you can find. As with most
maturing industries, there's a lot of crap and 'snake-oil' starting to
show up on the tech marketplace. :-)

Fuel filters
 

On Dec 9, 9:59 pm, RichH wrote:


Hello Richard:

Here is a thougth I hope you would address...

Ive read about the advantages of an onboard "fuel polishing" system.

Ive also read about the advantages of having a dual (redundant) filter
system with the belief if a filter gets clogged and stalls the engine,
the operator can simply flip a few ball valves and place the spare
filter system in service. I guess that a good thing to have cause, "ya
dont want that crud in the tank breaking loose in rough water and kill
the engine just when you need power most."

Question: If there is periodic fuel polishing is there a need for a
redundent filter system?? My thinking is, hey I got a clean tank and
polish often (please define "often" for me) so why have the extra
plumbing? Am i tempting Fate, over optimistic?

Bob

Fuel filters
 

If the tank is periodically cleaned, and the recirculation polishing
system KEEPS the tankage clean, then NO I dont personally recommend
nor use filters in parallel.

However and to thwart "Mr. Murphy", to be ready to take care of
extreme emergencies (wearing belt, suspenders, AND velcro) I recommend
use of a small 1-3 gallon 'day tank' downstream of the filter set,
mounted physically 'above' the engine. The tank would be so designed
that it always is full and cannot drain all by itself unless you
'throw a valve' at the bottom; plus a vent valve that opens to
atmosphere. Then, when all hell breaks loose, such as broken lift
pump, clogged filters, etc. and since the oil would already be
filtered, all you have to do is open the bottom drain and atmospheric
vent ..... and would have 1 to 4 hours of fuel available.
Alternatively, and again for a 'clean' system, you can simply install
a 3 valve bypass (no filter in the bypass) around all the filters so
that you can momentarily open the bypass and change the filters. But
for all filters you must have a means to quickly purge any air that
enters during changeout, so install a small (fuel oil compatible)
12vdc fuel pump between the tank and the first filter to 'push' the
oil through the filters to aid in 'air-bleeding'. When not needed
that fuel pump will just 'sit there' and not add any restriction to
flow due to the orientation and design of the poppet check valves. On
large diesel (prime movers) fuel systems they dont bother to 'bleed'
as they have 'air trap knockout pots installed - just an empty filter
housing installed upside down with a vent valve on top ... but this
can only be used in a pressurized system.

SUMMARY
If you dont have a clean tank, dont have an onboard polishing system,
dont have a day tank; then yes, consider to install a parallel
arrangement thats easily 'bleed-able'. Such a system should ALWAYS be
monitored with gages to know WHEN to change AND for best effect should
be run with ALL filters 'on-line' and filtering. I dont think this is
necessary as if you are using gages to monitor the status of the
filters, you can usually see a problem developing long before you need
to change-out --- again, thats in a system with a 'clean' tank. How
to use such gages: run the engine at FULL/max. rpm, then read the
gages. On the Parker.com/Racor website there are (somewhere)
published charts indicating ----- 'gage vacuum' versus how much fuel
is flowing through the filters----- (if using sequential filters -
then the results of both filters are additive with respect to flow
rate), you want to change out the filters when they reach 75-80% of
maximum differential pressure (∆P), 100% ∆P would be the value of
output of your lift pump .... when its 'deadheaded' (the valve at the
tank is OFF, etc.) .... again all values taken with the engine at max.
rpm or wide-open-throttle WOT ... while the engine is 'in gear' and
'under load'.

OTHER
Again, the best bet is only to buy your fuel from a 'high turnover'
source such as a depot that caters to 'watermen', or carry it in from
a high volume truckstop, keep only the amount of fuel in the tank you
NEED plus some 'reserve'. If you MUST buy your fuel from a 'marina',
FIRST pour some of the fuel into a clear glass container, hold it up
between your eyeball and the sun .... and if there is any 'cloudiness'
to fuel .... go somewhere else. If you dont put crap into your tank,
keep your tank clean .... you wont be challenging the filters. Filters
only do the job they were designed to do .... take out crap; if you
dont put crap into the tank and dont let the crap 'grow' (agglomerate)
in your tank, you really dont need filters. Just remember - the
smaller the tank the greater the vulnerability to fouling and fuel
degradation. For longterm boat 'lay-up', I remove ALL the fuel in the
tank - why feed all those fungals and bacteria?

hope this helps.

Fuel filters
 

My thinking is, hey I got a clean tank and
polish often (please define "often" for me) so why have the extra
plumbing? Am i tempting Fate, over optimistic?

I recirculate any time the engine is on and I have the excess 12v to
run the recirc. pump. I even sometimes run the recirc pump for
several hours while at the dock and charging my batteries from shore
power.

Anytime the fuel begins to have a 'hint' of cloudiness, I polish it
long and hard until its back to 'crystal clear' .... using that clear
glass and the sun. A fuel 'haze' will be particles down in the range
of 1-5µM, crystal clear will be the fuel is virtually free of
particles above 'submicronic' level.

Fuel filters
 

On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 06:33:45 -0800 (PST), RichH
wrote:

OK Brian, ........... lets not get carried away.....

by depth filtration I dont mean toilet paper and kitchen towel
rolls.

What the cheap paper filters might do is trap lots of water. Granted
they will perhaps begin to shed eventually, but you change them before
they get to that point. Strictly a water remover, I agree they are not
much good for particles.

Casady