New style (spin on) Raycor (diesel) fuel filters
Marc Auslander
in the catalogs are units with spin on filters.
With the old style, when you removed the old filter, the fuel stayed
in the bowl. Put in a new filter, top up, and close it. The old
filter had almost no fuel in it, and it took almost nothing to top up.
How do the new units work? I'm imagining a procedure similar to an oil
filter replacement, except that after I remove the old, I have to fill the new
one with fuel.
--
Roy G. Biv
http://www.defender.com/cgi-bin/Web_store/web_store.cgi?store=yes&cart_id=5950451.40497&catalog=301012
Marc Auslander wrote in message news:...
Marc Auslander
>
I've had several recommendations for the Raycor 500 series. Thanks.
As a primary filter (my engine has a built in fuel filter) to you use
the 2 micron or the 10 micron element? I would think that given the
size of my engine (Yanmar 2GM) I should just use 2 micron even though
its the primary filter.
--
Doug Dotson
weeks later I received a notice from Mack Boring that use of a filter
smaller than 30 micron places stress on the lift pump and that use
of such a filter would void the warranty. I started using a 30 micro (red)
element and changed the on-engine filter more often. This spring
while returning from the Bahamas, we lost our engine (Perkins) and
had to be towed the last few miles to Palm Beach. Turns out that
the lift pump failed. Mechanic at Ribovitch-Spencer said that it is
true that too small of a filter can cause lift pump failure. He recommended
at 30 micron as well along with changing the on-engine filter
regularly.
Doug
s/v Callista
"Marc Auslander" <marcs...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:87ad96s...@aptiva.optonline.net...
Dennis Gibbons
filter from the tank (I always forget if that is primary or secondary). The
next one is finer (a Bosch as per specs). The coarse filter does the job in
getting out the big chunks and the finer filter is working of the finer
grit. That way the filters should fill up about evenly
--
Dennis Gibbons
S/V Dark Lady
CN35-207
email: dennis dash gibbons at worldnet dot att dot net
"Doug Dotson" <sp...@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:vma9j6p...@corp.supernews.com...
Keith
system) I want the primary to catch pretty much everything, since it's
easier to change. This is for a Lehman 135.
--
Keith
__
Before Xerox, five carbons were the maximum extension of anybody's ego
"Marc Auslander" <marcs...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:87ad96s...@aptiva.optonline.net...
Keith
wrench to remove the bowl from the old cartridge. You can do it with a
couple of oil filter wrenches, but you'll bust a lot of knuckles and cuss a
lot.
The thing you have to think about is the cost. The spin-on elements are a
lot more expensive than the cartridges. I have a Racor 900 as my first
filter, but replaced that dual cartridge filter setup on the Lehman with a
spin-on Racor. Since I use 2 micron in both, the final filter shouldn't have
to be changed nearly as much, and I just HATED changing out those dual
cartridges. I could NEVER get them on without leaking for at least two
tries.
--
Keith
__
You start with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The trick
is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.
"Roy G. Biv" <captk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a6c3deff.03091...@posting.google.com...
John
in my opinion) or not, a filter causes restriction. You need fuel flow
in a diesel, if you restrict the flow by going to a tighter filter,
your asking for trouble unless you go to a larger filter that will
flow the correct amount of fuel. If your not getting the proper amount
of fuel flow not only will you cause wear on the pump, you will also
get reduced power output. This is simply one of those cases where more
is not better.
RichH
priming pump (plunger); or, see below.
> How do the new units work? I'm imagining a procedure similar to an oil
> filter replacement, except that after I remove the old, I have to fill the new
> one with fuel.
Install a 12v fuel pump between the tank and the first filter. Energize
the pump with a switch.
When installing new filters, etc. turn on the pump and then sequentially
bleed all the filters, lift pump, final filter. Also serves as a
'back-up' lift pump. When not energized the integral valves in the pump
will allow the fuel delivery system to operate just as before.
Actually lift pumps on engines shouldn't be located where they are, they
should be at the tank. Then you have a positive pressure system that
cant suck air from leaky joints, etc. Additionally a positive pressure
system will vastly increase the service life of the filters!
RichH
Too small a filter means NOT too small a retention rating but too small
a SURFACE AREA of the filter. What kills the lift (or any other) pump is
particulate and continually working against a high differential pressure
caused by either too small or too plugged a filter.
If you have a dirty tank or a tank without a recirculation filter use:
30uM followed by 10uM followed by 2uM ... the 2uM can be the 'guard'
filter between lift and high pressure pumps.
If you double the surface area, the differential pressure needed to
operate the filter at the design flow will be HALF .... and the service
life (to plugging) will be approximately *FOUR* times longer; plus, the
particles will be stopped on the filter media! The higher the
differential pressure the greater the possibility to extrude soft and
deformable particulate through the filter media.... only to plug a finer
rated filter / orfice, etc. downstream.
Of course you MUST in all cases monitor the performance of such filters
with pressure/vacuum gauges ... and check them periodically to develop a
plot of lifetime vs. time/gallons in service and WHEN to change them.
Bigger filters will SAVE you $$$$ and 'sudden' headaches, are more cost
effective and "removal efficient" than changing out teeny (and just as
expensive) filters on a 'seasonal' basis. Change when the pressure
gauges tell you to change them, install at least the next LARGER
*surface area* filter recommended, ............ instead of waiting for
the filters to plug ... when the weather is very rough/severe, you NEED
the engine to keep moving for safety, you and your crew are
seasick/tired/terrorized/etc.... and on top of this you have to go below
and change the filters then bleed the system - all the while you're
projectile-puking great lumps into the smelly bilge. That's not my idea
of fun!
Better yet is to install a recirculation filter with an integral gravity
water knock-out pot ... then you only need a regularly sized final
filter, will have no bacteria/water/particulate/sudden power
loss/etc./etc./etc.
You can wire such a system so that the recirc. pump operates any time
the engine is operating.
Hope this helps.
Doug Dotson
stress on the lift pump. This is what the mechanic said and also
what the memo from Yanmar stated. A clogged filter will always
place stress on the pump. The case was told of was using a 2u
filter in a Raycor 500. I'm installing a permanent
polishing system as well.
Doug
"RichH" <Rhm...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:3F674357...@NOSPAM.net...
RichH
will operate with LESS differential pressure than a small surface area
filter with 3 METERS pore size.
This is a vacuum pump ... meaning that it only has to deliver 15 psi
motive pressure plus about 2-3 feet of static head. A small dog can piss
harder than that.
The service advisory simply admits that Yanmar has a WEAK pump!!!!!!! A
pump that cant run against a 'dead-head'is cheap, ill designed, etc.
A clogged filter will always place stress on the pump. A filter begins
to become 'clogged' when approx 85% of its 'dirt capacity' is used, less
than that the pressure drop is linear, after that it rapidly accelerates
the rate of 'clogging' (becomes exponential) ..... thats why you NEED a
gauge to monitor it.
Doug Dotson
I owned the Yanmar, I chose to abide by what the manufacturer said
rather than risk my warranty. I'm funny like that. New system is going to
take into account all the good advise you and other have offered. I'm
not going to get caught with a dead engine again.
DOug
ps. Get a bigger dog :)
"RichH" <Rhm...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:3F67635C...@NOSPAM.net...
LaBomba182
>From: "Doug Dotson"
>I'm installing a gauge as well, readable from the steering station. When
>I owned the Yanmar, I chose to abide by what the manufacturer said
>rather than risk my warranty. I'm funny like that. New system is going to
>take into account all the good advise you and other have offered. I'm
>not going to get caught with a dead engine again.
If you're going to all that trouble you might as well install the water probes
and alarms while you're at it.
Capt. bill
Doug Dotson
"LaBomba182" <labom...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030916183939...@mb-m07.aol.com...
Keith Hughes
RichH wrote:
>
> If a 0.000000000002 micrometer rated filter has enough surface area it
> will operate with LESS differential pressure than a small surface area
> filter with 3 METERS pore size.
Hardly! You need to study the issue of "bubble point" before making this
type of assertion. Basically, surface tension becomes the dominant
factor in backpressure when porosity is decreased to sub-micron levels.
In GENERAL, one can overcome delta-p issues due to lower average
porosity by increasing surface area, but certainly not allways.
Oh, and "small surface area" and "3 METERS" together do not make a
filter. It's a "HOLE". A BIG hole :-)
Keith Hughes
Keith
filter is a Racor 900 with 2 micron filters. The final is now a Racor
Spin-on with a 2 micron cartridge. I always check the vacuum gage on the
Racor underway, and it NEVER shows any vacuum. I even let that filter go too
long and pulled it out looking like it was coated with black jelly... still
no vacuum or effect on the engine. The filter is just HUGE compared to what
the Lehman sips... about 4 gallons/hr. consumed, 1.5 GPH or so returned. I
even took the vacuum gage off awhile back to make sure it was working; it
was fine.
If you have a filter that's really big compared to what your engine uses,
you'll almost never show any vacuum.
--
Keith
__
It's only unethical if you get caught.
"Doug Dotson" <sp...@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:vmeung9...@corp.supernews.com...
RichH
Bubble point is related to retention efficiency ---- ONLY.
If your were filtering a 60/40 mixture of isopropyl alcohol and water
your statement would have (some) validity .... but ONLY if your were
using uniform porosity polymeric *membranes* at retention levels below
0,45uM. It is a mathematical/physical impossibility to consider 'bubble
point' for such fixed media (fiberous) and comparatively HUGE retention
sizes. If you know what a bubble pointg is, then you also know that such
fixed fibrous media has inconsistant porosity and permeability - ie. a
2uM media will have 'pores' approaching 50 or 100uM!!! Bubble point is
simply not applicable.
For yourself I respectfully suggest that you look up the filtration
regimes as defined by the ASTM "OSU F-1 protocols"
Operating differential pressure is SOLEY due to the absolute viscosity
of the fluid!!!!
Bubble point is a nondestructive CORELATION or a bacterial (specified
test organism) challenge (or latex spheres) ... to a plugging situation
using specific test organisms on MEMBRAWES. Oil filters use a fiberous
media ... where bubble point is totally nonapplicable: 1. non uniform
media, 2. retention matrix larger than 1uM. Tell me where on this
planet that one can do a 'bubble point' (or forward flow diffusion) on
the media type used in fuel oil filters? - is fiberous and non-uniform
in permeability; and thus, are unable to be tested via bubble point as
the contact wetting angle of surface tension vs. the media is
nonuniform. Bubble point is ONLY perfomed on MEMBRANES of ?0.45uM used
in filtration .... not on fiberous nonuniform porosity media.
Differential pressue of a CLEAN filter is SOLELY due to the absolute
viscosity (viscous shear) of the fluid being filtered. Surface tension
is irrelevent with respect to viscous shear/?P. Changing the surface
tension (wetting angles) will ONLY affect the *retention* ability under
varying intrusion pressures ... ie:. modifying the van der walls
absorbtive attraction at the BET surface of the media or membrane.
Differential pressure affects the internal velocity of the fluid THROUGH
filter media/membrane AND those media with high ?P will have/approach
insufficient contact or residence time for absorbtion mechanism of
capture; thus, leaving only mechanical means of 'capture:'seiving',
direct interception and inertial impaction. You can matematically
predict by the (area1/area2)E1.66 = (velocity2/velocity1)E1.66 =
((Q/deltaP1)/(Q/deltaP2))E1.66 ...as a LIFE performance predictor (the
exponential varies between 1 for high viscosity non-newtonian fludis to
approx 1.666 for newtonian fluids.... no surface tension/wetting angles
involved.
RichH
sorry, the greek delta was ASCII transmitted as a: ?
therefore the "?P" characters in the previous posting should be read as
"delta P"
Roy G. Biv
> > >
> > > --
> Always use the filter type the manufactorer reccomends. Polishing (BS
> in my opinion)
no bs at all...
my permanently installed independent polishing system draws about 5
gallons (100 gallon tank) every 6.5 minutes through a racor 1000 with
2 micron (can switch to racor 900 when 1000's vacuum increases)
the engine has a racor 500 with 10 micron , then racor 500 with 2
micron, then the perkins 4-108 engine mounted filter.
as rich points out the 1000 elements aren't much more expensive than
the 500 elements, don't let the 500/1000 designations throw you, the
surface area of the 1000 is MUCH greater than twice the surface area
of the 500......
RichH
distribution and return loop the following will exponentially improve
the retention ability and 'speed of recovery' if you happen to get a
load a cruddy fuel or the sea state breaks a slug of particale loose
from the tank walls, etc.:
Dont use 2uM filters in the loop! .... increase the nominal retention
rating to 10 or 15uM and the resultant final particle distribution *in
the tank* will be essentially zero and accomplish this level FASTER. ...
here's why:
Fibrous media filters have retention capability at essentially ALL
particle size levels. A 15uM fuel filter will remove approx 85 to 95% of
of 15uM particles in a one single pass of the fluid through it, at 10uM
50%, at 5uM perhaps 30%, at 2uM maybe 15%. A 15uM filter will have
approx 4 to 5 times the flow rate capacity (gallons per minute per psid)
of a 2uM filter ... meaning that the 15uM filter will cause less work
for the pump and overall flow will be FASTER. A 2uM filter will deposit
2uM particles primarily on the surface of the media, a larger retention
media will capture 2uM particles down deep in the media (for *more*
capacity of small particles) Since a polishing system is a closed
recirculation system you are constantly filtering the same fluid over
and over and over, each time the fluid passes through the filter it
leaves a few percent of smaller particles behind in the filter, since a
larger retention filter has better flow characteristics the pump will
push through MORE fluid per minute and have less amperage draw. When
using a 2uM filter, the fluid returned during recirculation to the tank
is again mixed with particle/debris laden fluid. A larger retention
filter will do the same job, to the same level of particles in the tank
.... and do it faster because the larger retention filter has less
resistance to flow. With less resistance to flow a larger retention
filter will have less probability of extruding and releasing
SOFT/DEFORMABLE particles at it approaches differential pressures that
would 'clog' a filter.
Another benefit - If for example you have a crud contamination hanging
on the walls of the tank and the sea state causes the attached
particles/crud to break free and enter the fluid, the larger retention
filter (because of its less resistance to flow) will recover the tank
back to an acceptable particle distribution (particle recovery) FASTER
than a smaller retention filter. Same story when taking onboard a load
of fuel that is contaminated.
Recirculation filtration is exponentially faster, more efficient, and
vastly more cost effective than single pass filtration. Use the largest
filter retention possible (~10-20uM) to effect the fastest tank
turn-over... the tank will after a few turn-overs be to the same level
of residence particles. For the mathematicians, what is happening is an
exponential decay of resident particles *in the tank*; since the larger
retention filter (even with less efficiency with respect to the 'target
retention') is Faster because the exponential decay 'in the tank' is
faster. If you have time to burn, take ANY filter (includes compressed
pubic hair), recirculate for looooong times and you will have
essentially ZERO particles in the tank. Typically in industry a recirc.
filter is sized about 5 to 10 times the size of the target residual
retention.
hope this helps.
Roy G. Biv wrote:
> jscanlon wrote in message
John
The only bad side to the positive pressure is if you have a leak. I
was on a large boat once that had a leak by the injection pump. The
boat was running fine, but I make it a habit to take a look at the
engines every so many hours. So I go down for a peek, find about 3 to
4 inches of diesel in the bilge. The dangerous part, some of the fuel
was in the form of a fine mist, not a good thing, thank God for water
cooled turbo's. My point is, I think I'd rather live with the problem
of finding an air leak.
Keith Hughes
I've been doing filter validation for 20 years, so yes, I know of what
you speak. Now, show me either of:
A spun depth filter with "a 0.000000000002 micrometer" absolute
porosity,
OR
ANY spun filter with any absolute porosity rating.
The point is, you were wildly exaggerating, and I was pointing that out.
If you *could* create a filter of the listed porosity, the surface
tension alone would create such a high pressure you'd never get any flow
at all. As you obviously know.
Oh, and you might want to reconsider statements about "differential
pressure is SOLEY due to the absolute viscosity" of the liquid. Never
had the fun of filtering thixotropic products eh?
Keith Hughes
Roy G. Biv
different uM ratings load the pump and change its volume/time. I have
used different micron rated filters and never noticed a perceptible
change in the flow rate (5 gallons in 6.5 minute is pretty slow)...
RichH wrote in message news:...
RichH
You're welcome, but this is not a place to show off that one can
properly open the correct box of filters.
Lets get back to helping simple boating folks to keep the crud and
critters out of their fuel and diesel engines in the simplest and most
efficient, less costly way possible, please.
As applied to simple plain vanilla fuel oil systems .... Ill stand pat
and depend on 35+ years of experience in engineering, design, tech
support, marketing, consulting, in high tech filtration and separation
technology, ... with the 'major' players and with the up-and-comers (&
some down and goners).
For the last time ..................
Now, show me either of:
>
> A spun depth filter with "a 0.000000000002 micrometer" absolute
> porosity,
> OR
cant fathom hyperbole, and simplified exaggeration to attempt to explain
to the non-technical.
>
> ANY spun filter with any absolute porosity rating.
Pall Profile, Osmonics Selex, are a few of the more common examples ....
last time I looked these were absolute to a beta 5000 efficiency which
would equate to a approx 1X10E7 / sq. cm. titre reduction (LRV) for "up
to" but not quite sterilizing requirements. Ya gotta remember before
macro-foam polymer membranes the industry used such things as potassium
titanate fibers, asbestos, etc. to effect single pass 'absolute' level
filtration.
>
> The point is, you were wildly exaggerating,
No, I was being "mister wizard" to the Saturday morning science class.
> If you *could* create a filter of the listed porosity, the surface
> tension alone would create such a high pressure you'd never get any flow
> at all. As you obviously know.
News to me, you must have had a 'public school education' ;-) ...
1. absolute visosity is the prime factor of viscous shear hence
differential pressure ... Ill stand on that statement, unless they've
recently changed physical chemistry, chemical engineering, and the laws
of fluid dynamics.
Never
> had the fun of filtering thixotropic products eh?
Biological gels or protenaceous concentrations? .... about once every
3-4 months but with tangential filtration levels in the nanometer or
10000 Dalton range. I actually prefer viscoelastics.
If you want to take this offline, my professional fees are $175/hr.
RichH
Roy G. Biv wrote:
> Thanks for those insights Rich, I guess the key is how much the
> different uM ratings load the pump and change its volume/time. I have
> used different micron rated filters and never noticed a perceptible
> change in the flow rate (5 gallons in 6.5 minute is pretty slow)...
>
There is a 'ratings game' with such filters. Firstly, 'paper' filter
media cant be made that accurately, plus the cellulose fibers used are
relatively thick in comparison to the 'pores'. So, in especially the
larger retention ratings you probably wont see much difference in flow
performance. With respect to cheap filters, you usually get what you pay
for.
:-)