Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-06-2018, 08:15 AM   #101
Guru
 
City: Northport
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by FF View Post
"YEs maybe. But lets see if we can figure out a system with no moving parts first."

A built in sump that can be hand bailed (USN style) does require some effort , but there are no replacement parts required , except perhaps the person doing the bailing.

For a distance cruiser that refueled from drums , or from a questionable source , a sump would be the viable solution , even if the "fuel" were 25% water.
I agree that an improved fuel system would be a great goal - but in most every case there would be large amounts of time and money to implement the changes.
In this post most all of these fuel filtering choices are very simple and quite cheap to employ.
smitty477 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 08:20 AM   #102
Guru
 
City: Northport
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Some of us have the equivalent of Briggs and Sttatton lawnmower engines, and some have the little brothers of Airline GE turbines....

Yet one size filtration method fits all....
I have enjoyed the stock staged filtration in many diesels that I have owned or have been responsible for including but not limited to:
- Perkins
- Lister Petter
- Cummins
- Hino
- CAT
- Yanmar
- Navistar
- GM

many of them were built quite a long time ago aa they were in boats/trucks older than 1990 or in facilities that were built earlier on. (some earlier than 80's)
smitty477 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 08:56 AM   #103
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Ft Pierce
Vessel Name: Sold
Vessel Model: Was an Albin/PSN 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 28,166
Not really my point... it is simple but you are locked on a concept that has its merits..... even if overkill for some.

A lot of us have run many different and types of diesels.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 09:03 AM   #104
Guru
 
City: Northport
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Not really my point... it is simple but you are locked on a concept that has its merits..... even if overkill for some.

A lot of us have run many different and types of diesels.
I do not think I locked in on anything - in each case it was the manufacturer or the filter provider that did the work and provided the solution.
I have never gotten the impression that any of these manufacturers or parts providers were aiming for overkill. Overall ease of use, safety, and length of service while considering costs is the aim - IMO - my summation of reading the articles.
smitty477 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 09:40 AM   #105
Guru
 
diver dave's Avatar
 
City: Palm Coast, FL
Vessel Name: Coquina
Vessel Model: Lagoon 380
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,570
I'll elaborate on my theory that progressive filtering is counterproductive.

First; It does a sub-optimum job due to media. To set a baseline, let's suppose you need to design a system that needs to trap to the 2 micron level. You have a HPCR diesel. Per test results, a 2 micron filter is on the order of 98% efficient, first pass. So, you need a second 2 micron filter to follow. Page 96 of: https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12611586/index.pdf. So, now you have a two filter efficiency of .98 + .98*2 = 99.96%. A 30, then a 10 micron filter in front doesn't help the 2 micron trapping at a significant level.

Second; The idea of a "final filter" on-engine to work with a single off-engine filter is flawed. On engine filters are subject to vibration, especially on diesels. Page 116 of the above doc. This hurts efficiency especially on these single micron sizes. So, you don't get full benefit of a multiple filter pass at small micron sizes. Some of that last 2% is being shook out of that last filter, going into the engine.

Third; You don't know with certainty, what size particulates are in the fuel. The forwarded benefit of progressive filtering is primarily related to spreading the particles out among several filters, thereby prolonging the service life. This may work great with a continuous spread of particle sizes, each being trapped in the various media. It will not usually work that way. One filter will clog before the others, and the question is then: which one?? This then, talks of complexity. Many canisters to vacuum monitor. If you have a 30 and 10 off-engine, plus the back up filters, you are at 4 monitors, and still have not accommodated the on-engine filter. If you go 30,10,2 off engine, paired, then you have significant monitor, plumbing, and operational complexity.

Fourth; Each progressive filter needs to satisfy the flow rates. And, larger is better, not just for service life, but for media efficiency. Filters work better with less pressure and less flow. Water separation too, but lets not expand this argument. But, with progressives, you have a multitude of filters to arrange, and is becomes less likely each will be "very large".

So: the alternative.

First filter: a "very large" 2 micron filter. 98% efficient at 2 micron, actually more, since the specific flow rate per unit media is low. The ability to accommodate more 100 micron particles is greater than the progressive, since I now have room for a larger filter.
Second filter; Another, of the exact same filter.

Engine filter: should need changing now once per millennium. Exaggerated, but you get the idea. It doesn't really have much to do. Plus, it shakes too much to trust for the small stuff anyway.

benefits; Stocking only one type of filter at sea. No guesswork required to figure out which filter is clogged. Plus, no excuse not to monitor that lead filter, its' the one. Better filtering; not relying on the on-engine filter. Water sep will be better with the large filter, that's an argument again related to speed of the fluid at the media, and the size of the system, below the media, to hold the water.
diver dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 09:47 AM   #106
Guru
 
City: Northport
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by diver dave View Post
I'll elaborate on my theory that progressive filtering is counterproductive.

First; It does a sub-optimum job due to media. To set a baseline, let's suppose you need to design a system that needs to trap to the 2 micron level. You have a HPCR diesel. Per test results, a 2 micron filter is on the order of 98% efficient, first pass. So, you need a second 2 micron filter to follow. Page 96 of: https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12611586/index.pdf. So, now you have a two filter efficiency of .98 + .98*2 = 99.96%. A 30, then a 10 micron filter in front doesn't help the 2 micron trapping at a significant level.

Second; The idea of a "final filter" on-engine to work with a single off-engine filter is flawed. On engine filters are subject to vibration, especially on diesels. Page 116 of the above doc. This hurts efficiency especially on these single micron sizes. So, you don't get full benefit of a multiple filter pass at small micron sizes. Some of that last 2% is being shook out of that last filter, going into the engine.

Third; You don't know with certainty, what size particulates are in the fuel. The forwarded benefit of progressive filtering is primarily related to spreading the particles out among several filters, thereby prolonging the service life. This may work great with a continuous spread of particle sizes, each being trapped in the various media. It will not usually work that way. One filter will clog before the others, and the question is then: which one?? This then, talks of complexity. Many canisters to vacuum monitor. If you have a 30 and 10 off-engine, plus the back up filters, you are at 4 monitors, and still have not accommodated the on-engine filter. If you go 30,10,2 off engine, paired, then you have significant monitor, plumbing, and operational complexity.

Fourth; Each progressive filter needs to satisfy the flow rates. And, larger is better, not just for service life, but for media efficiency. Filters work better with less pressure and less flow. Water separation too, but lets not expand this argument. But, with progressives, you have a multitude of filters to arrange, and is becomes less likely each will be "very large".

So: the alternative.

First filter: a "very large" 2 micron filter. 98% efficient at 2 micron, actually more, since the specific flow rate per unit media is low. The ability to accommodate more 100 micron particles is greater than the progressive, since I now have room for a larger filter.
Second filter; Another, of the exact same filter.

Engine filter: should need changing now once per millennium. Exaggerated, but you get the idea. It doesn't really have much to do. Plus, it shakes too much to trust for the small stuff anyway.

benefits; Stocking only one type of filter at sea. No guesswork required to figure out which filter is clogged. Plus, no excuse not to monitor that lead filter, its' the one. Better filtering; not relying on the on-engine filter. Water sep will be better with the large filter, that's an argument again related to speed of the fluid at the media, and the size of the system, below the media, to hold the water.
By all means do whatever you like - I suggest that if your engine(s) are still under warrantee that you follow your manufacturers specs until they expire.
Which engine(s) do you have?
smitty477 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2018, 10:44 AM   #107
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Ft Pierce
Vessel Name: Sold
Vessel Model: Was an Albin/PSN 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 28,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty477 View Post
I do not think I locked in on anything - in each case it was the manufacturer or the filter provider that did the work and provided the solution.
I have never gotten the impression that any of these manufacturers or parts providers were aiming for overkill. Overall ease of use, safety, and length of service while considering costs is the aim - IMO - my summation of reading the articles.
Yes you are, I never said those engines under manufacturer recomnendations...and the way they are installed in some boats.

I kept it simple, gave a direct case and why.

I didnt go back, but I think I did say I would have progressive filtration if I routinely refueled from questionable sources or couldnt keep my fuel clean.

Whatever......my comments are not directed at those already doing it but those that might get worried when they are not. Knowing they dont need to be if certain conditions even the provided articles refer to is my point. If they stay wioried, your suggestions are great.
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 06:48 AM   #108
FF
Guru
 
FF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 22,553
"I agree that an improved fuel system would be a great goal - but in most every case there would be large amounts of time and money to implement the changes.
In this post most all of these fuel filtering choices are very simple and quite cheap to employ."

The question then becomes are you one of the 1 in a few hundred that are going to head out offshore , where Sea Tow can't come with a rope?

In my dreams even inshore boat first purchasers would refuse a boat with out a real fuel tank.

Even the inshore folks would enjoy the time and cash ,NOT spent in attempting to have clean fuel 100% of the time.
FF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 06:57 AM   #109
Guru
 
City: Northport
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,046
"Even the inshore folks would enjoy the time and cash ,NOT spent in attempting to have clean fuel 100% of the time."

- twin engines with twin tanks
- do not travel off shore
- time and costs for staged filtration is minimal
- have completed about 30,000 nmiles so far without an issue

"The question then becomes are you one of the 1 in a few hundred that are going to head out offshore , where Sea Tow can't come with a rope?"

Around here the stats on who really heads 'off shore' is maybe 1 in 10,000 I am not sure about other locations.
smitty477 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 07:05 AM   #110
Guru
 
ranger58sb's Avatar
 
City: Annapolis
Vessel Name: Ranger
Vessel Model: 58' Sedan Bridge
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 7,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by diver dave View Post
I'll elaborate on my theory that progressive filtering is counterproductive.

So: the alternative.

First filter: a "very large" 2 micron filter. 98% efficient at 2 micron, actually more, since the specific flow rate per unit media is low. The ability to accommodate more 100 micron particles is greater than the progressive, since I now have room for a larger filter.
Second filter; Another, of the exact same filter.

Engine filter: should need changing now once per millennium. Exaggerated, but you get the idea. It doesn't really have much to do. Plus, it shakes too much to trust for the small stuff anyway.

benefits; Stocking only one type of filter at sea. No guesswork required to figure out which filter is clogged. Plus, no excuse not to monitor that lead filter, its' the one. Better filtering; not relying on the on-engine filter. Water sep will be better with the large filter, that's an argument again related to speed of the fluid at the media, and the size of the system, below the media, to hold the water.

Sounds like just another form of progressive filtering...

-Chris
__________________
Chesapeake Bay, USA
ranger58sb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 07:12 AM   #111
Guru
 
City: Northport
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger42c View Post
Sounds like just another form of progressive filtering...

-Chris
The conclusions here are a result of reading one grad students 2010 research paper from India. The summary conclusions that are listed suggest mounting the filter off of the engine to avoid vibration. These were a result of particular counts and had no relationship to actual engine performance or filter life.

The suggestion above is for serial filtration and to avoid staged filtration.
Suggest the thoughts presented and their sources be compared to the sources and thoughts of the rest of the diesel user community.
smitty477 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 07:29 AM   #112
Guru
 
diver dave's Avatar
 
City: Palm Coast, FL
Vessel Name: Coquina
Vessel Model: Lagoon 380
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger42c View Post
Sounds like just another form of progressive filtering...

-Chris
Well, still clearly "multiple" filters. My notion of "progressive" is the design where you are targeting filter media to trap, in sequence, large, medium, then small particles. To make my position clear, I see benefit in multiple filters of the correct sizing, but see no benefit in a cascade of ever decreasing sieve sizes in our use cases.

Now, this is not the case for every motor, fuel pump, etc. In the case of a car, with an in-tank pump, you may need to protect it with a coarse filter, and then a finer filter after the pump to protect the injectors. You don't want a fine filter in-tank, due to access issues. But, in the case of a series string of filters mounted in a ER bulkhead, I see no need for this madness.

Obviously, you don't NEED to, and it can work either way. After all, even a plow anchor works sometimes.
diver dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 07:39 AM   #113
Guru
 
diver dave's Avatar
 
City: Palm Coast, FL
Vessel Name: Coquina
Vessel Model: Lagoon 380
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,570
Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty477 View Post
The conclusions here are a result of reading one grad students 2010 research paper from India. The summary conclusions that are listed suggest mounting the filter off of the engine to avoid vibration. These were a result of particular counts and had no relationship to actual engine performance or filter life.

The suggestion above is for serial filtration and to avoid staged filtration.
Suggest the thoughts presented and their sources be compared to the sources and thoughts of the rest of the diesel user community.
I will say it is curious that you need to go to a student to get real data. But, then, Racor is not anxious to publish data that indicates filter weakness. And, I suspect the big players are perfectly happy with their customer base buying lots of different size filters, and changing them frequently due to poor engineering filtering design. That's "filtering" design, not "filter" design. I am not targeting issues with the actual filters.
diver dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2018, 08:54 AM   #114
Guru
 
City: Northport
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by diver dave View Post
I will say it is curious that you need to go to a student to get real data. But, then, Racor is not anxious to publish data that indicates filter weakness. And, I suspect the big players are perfectly happy with their customer base buying lots of different size filters, and changing them frequently due to poor engineering filtering design. That's "filtering" design, not "filter" design. I am not targeting issues with the actual filters.
Please tell us which engine(s) you are contemplating this application for? There are likely specific sites of folks that deal withy these exact applications. Are they 'secret' engines?

Perhaps do what most of the big player articles say which is not this - "And, I suspect the big players are perfectly happy with their customer base buying lots of different size filters, and changing them frequently due to poor engineering filtering design"

- Use your existing on engine filter at the specified mic rating, usually common and mostly economical (no $$ added)
- Use your existing secondary filter ate the specified rating usually common and mostly economical (no $$ added)
- If you want to increase capacity and safety add a third bulk filter inline , usually cheaper than the existing filters and will increases life and holding capacity by 10X or more easily.
- If you want to know how each filter is really doing add a vacuum gage at each filter for about $20-25 each. This will add life, safety and a diagnosis element for likely less than $100.

"But, then, Racor is not anxious to publish data that indicates filter
weakness"
I am not a personal fan of Racors but if you run any filters the way you are planning you will be using many more filters than is needed - just what you say you want to avoid.
Buying filters of varying mic ratings do not add expense- changing filters less often saves time money and is mush safer.
smitty477 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Trawler Port Captains
Port Captains are TF volunteers who can serve as local guides or assist with local arrangements and information. Search below to locate Port Captains near your destination. To learn more about this program read here: TF Port Captain Program





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012