Where are all the aft fuel ????

[mackin]

Samples ???


Hoot ??

Anyone else ??? Want to get this done in the next couple weeks I hope .... Lookin Racor ,Cat as secondary,Lone Eagle mount ....

Mac :confused: :confused: :confused:

[Kennedy]

It's really not that difficult. Myself and Mdrag used my "backwoods engineered" method and came out good. ;)


Once I get rolling on the test gauges/couplers, I'll look at sending out "demo" hose setups for sampling...

[chuntag95]

John,

Roll already! :D I want to do a post all 3 filter test :rolleyes: and monitor my restriction change. I also want to know what my pressure is at the Schrader as I am at .5 PSI at the Mega bleed port. You should have heard me trying to explain my sight glass, pressure gauge, catch bottle setup to the stealer yesterday. :eek:

[hoot]

Originally posted by kennedy:
It's really not that difficult. Myself and Mdrag used my "backwoods engineered" method and came out good. ;)


Once I get rolling on the test gauges/couplers, I'll look at sending out "demo" hose setups for sampling... I seem to remember reading comments that getting clean samples is next to impossible when looking at 2 mic size

[george morrison]

As has been accomplished, it is possible to get representative fuel samples from our fuel systems. Doing a "lab" sample tell us only what the filter is doing in a laboratory environment. This is one of the problems CAT experienced in that they initially used a "lab standard" fuel filter which performed wonderfully in "lab tests". However, in the real world of vibration, fuel pump backfeed harmonics, the fuel filter which provided a 5 micron beta 200 performance (very close to a 5 micron "absolute" (the term absolute does not exist in filter terminology, however) type filter) resulted in practically no filtration below 20 microns due to the cleansing affect of the vibration. CAT resorted to a sampling technique very simlilar to what folks have accomplished here in real live sampling.. I have no doubt that our fuel filters were prescribed based on the same "lab", perfect environment testing.. Which has resulted in our 'real world' injector and pump problems.. As indeed it did for Caterpillar and other large engine manufacturers..
George

[SoMnDMAX]

No wonder the air goes thru.... Everything else does....

tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif

[Kennedy]

The way we do it is to sample the fuel from the pump, and then sample after filtration. Be as clean as possible, and that's the best you can do.

Mdrag went from 5.8 million particles to 3.3 million, and then to 300,000 in the 5-15 micron range. That is SERIOUS reduction...

[hoot]

George,

I had a conversation with a Racor rep on the phone who stated something similar when the OEM filter was spec'd and tested. He said Isuzu used clean fuel to test it. Sounds pretty crazy if true.

My test came out "PASS"

If I spent another $60 bucks to do it again I'm sure I'd probably get better results. You guys (Kennedy and Mdrag) are the filter experts. I'm sure if I do it your method, my analysis results will improve drastically tongue.gif


Here are my results. Interesting that my actual is double Mdrag's non filtered fuel if I read this correctly. I think I contaminated my fuel.

Particles Per US Gallon of Fuel
Actual Target
>2um 10,351,975 1,211,200
>5um 1,150,640 302,800
>15um 71,915 37,850

[ 07-09-2003, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: hoot ]

[Kennedy]

Mdrag

Particles Per US Gallon of Fuel
Actual
>2um 2,149,880
>5um 306,585
>15um 15,140


Hoot

>2um 10,351,975
>5um 1,150,640
>15um 71,915


Kennedy

>2um 639,665
>5um 211,960
>15um 37,850



For whatever reason, Mdrag scored better on the larger particles...

[hoot]

J/K and Mdrag,

Are they the results of the only samples you took? e.g first time?

J/K, you sure you didn't typo something there in your results? Fat chance your actual is identical to the target.

George,

What does this mean?

>2 limit 10000
>5 limit 5000
>15 limit 320
>2 actual 2735
>5 actual 304
>15 actual 19

[mdrag]

Here are the results of my fuel testing:
>2 micron/>5 micron/>15 micron

UNFILTERED 4907/1551/101

OEM Racor 4110/874/6

OEM Racor+Mega 568/81/4


I compared my results with KENNEDY'S FUEL FILTER TEST RESULTS (http://www.kennedydiesel.com/detail.cfm?ID=241) posted on his website. All fuel testing was performed by AV LUBE (http://www.avlube.com)

I assumed that the >2 micron particle count includes the >5 and >15 counts, then the overall filter efficiency (%OAFE) expressed as a percent for all particles >2 microns:

%OAFE = (>2 UNFILTERED - >2 FILTERED)/>2 UNFILTERED X 100%

KD OEM Racor %OAFE = (1078 - 602)/1078 X 100 = 44.16%
KD OEM+MEGA %OAFE = (1078 - 169)/1078 X 100 = 84.32%

mdrag OEM RACOR %OAFE = (4907 - 4110)/4907 X 100 = 16.24%
mdrag OEM+MEGA %OAFE = (4907 - 568)/4907 X 100 = 88.42%

================================================== ===========

The %FE for particle sizes between >2 to 5 microns, I subtracted the >5 value from the >2 value and repeated the calculations:


KD OEM Racor %FE = (1078 - 318) - (602 - 121)/(1078 - 318) X 100 = 36.71% for particles >2 to 5 microns
KD OEM+MEGA %FE = (1078 - 318) - (169 - 56)/(1078 - 318) X 100 = 85.13% for particles >2 to 5 microns

mdrag OEM RACOR %FE = (4907 - 1551) - (4110 - 874)/(4907 - 1551) X 100 = 3.58% for particles >2 to 5 microns
mdrag OEM+MEGA %FE = (4907 - 1551) - ( 568 - 81)/(4907 - 1551) X 100 = 85.49% for particles >2 to 5 microns

Notice how close the OA and >2-5 micron efficiencies are for our samples with the OEM+MEGA filter. The slightly better OA result for my OEM+MEGA (+4.1%) could be due to the fact that I had a production filter mount and Kennedy's still had 'fuzzies'.... Too close to be a random result :confused: ....

I don

[mdrag]

Originally posted by hoot:
J/K and Mdrag,

Are they the results of the only samples you took? e.g first time?hoot,

These were my first and only fuel samples that I've taken and submitted. For the filtered samples, I sampled from the OEM schrader vavle using the fitting from the filter restriction gauge - after running about 1/2 gal through the setup using the primer (and triple rinsing the sample bottle). The unfiltered fuel sample was taken by disconnecting the fuel line into the OEM filter housing and using the same procedure to flush the line before obtaining the sample.

mdrag

[george morrison]

Regarding:
George,

What does this mean?

>2 limit 10000
>5 limit 5000
>15 limit 320
>2 actual 2735
>5 actual 304
>15 actual 19

The >2 actual means: 2,735 particles were found in each militer.
The >2 Limit means, the fuel should have no more than 10,000 particles per militer..
The >2 target means that if we have less than 320 particles per militer we will have optimally clean fuel going through our fuel system of particles greater than 2 microns.
etc. etc.
The 15/13/10 target cleanliness level is our goal, or as close to as possible, to ensure minimal fuel system wear rates. The target cleanliness level/ISO is per the published cleanliness level recommendations by Vickers for high pressure systems.
George

[hoot]

Thanks George.

Now what is 15/13/10?
I don't see where that comes in.

[george morrison]

The 15/13/10 is our ideal; where we are shooting for with our filtration work. If we are at or below this level of contamination, we will be maximizing our fuel system life. i.e. my current fuel quality is at 14/12/9.. which means I have half the number of particles of each size range going through my fuel system than with even 15/13/10 which directly translates into halving the wear components, potentially doubling system life. i.e. for every iso cod number, especially in the >5 micron level, that we decrease, we cut the number of wear particles in half... The cleaner the fuel we have going through our fuel system, maximization of component life..
George

[a bear]

Not to throw gas on a fire here but we have pretty much done away with the Racors due to performance that was less than advertised verified by several samples sent to various labs. Before seeing results on the filtered side of the OEM I had doubts. On another simular case to what George is saying I would not mount my filter on the engine and expect it to be very efficient @ 2 micron filtration. As mentioned before turn a salt shaker over and see what comes out. Now expose it to vibration or shake it and see what comes out. The right frequency of vibration will cleanse the filter. Quess where the solids go. :eek: Fire in the hole! :D :D

[Lone Eagle]

a bear, Are you trying to tell us that the filters mounted under the air box aren't shaking. Our oil filters aren't working because they are bolted to the engine? I thing you are steering the pot. Later! Lone Eagle :D

[hoot]

George maybe I'm dumb but your explanation needs some clarification. You don't have to if you're sick of me ;)

What filter are you using George?

[hoot]

Originally posted by a bear:
Not to throw gas on a fire here but we have pretty much done away with the Racors due to performance that was less than advertised verified by several samples sent to various labs. Before seeing results on the filtered side of the OEM I had doubts. On another simular case to what George is saying I would not mount my filter on the engine and expect it to be very efficient @ 2 micron filtration. As mentioned before turn a salt shaker over and see what comes out. Now expose it to vibration or shake it and see what comes out. The right frequency of vibration will cleanse the filter. Quess where the solids go. :eek: Fire in the hole! :D :D a bear,

Aren't just about all diesel fuel filters on almost all diesel engines mounted on the engine? Cat, Mack, Cummins, Volvo, Mercedes, and so on?

[a bear]

Lone Eagle,
I'm not saying the engine mounted filter doesn't work to some benefit but it would loose some efficiency from the vibration. Oil filters aren't filtering and are not required to filter in the 2 micron range. When they are they are usually mounted at a remote location.
Hoot,
I have never seen a 2 micron filter on an engine mount. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but aren't nearly all small micron bypass filters mounted remotely. Engines in the past ran at much lower injection pressures somewhere to the tune of 8 times less. At 23K PSI I would desire the best efficiency I could get.

Shale shakers and certain filters in the drilling industry are purposely vibrated to allow the smaller stuff to pass which can still be pumped and shed the larger stuff for prevention of premature plugging. Why is that?
Now how about the efficiency of out engine mounted OEM.
Not stiring the pot just food for thought.

[ 07-09-2003, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: a bear ]

[mackin]

Not stiring the pot just food for thought.
Is it soup yet ??

I'm going to look at my buddies fleet in the next couple days,mostly Macks .....

Mac ;)

[earniem]

Kennedy I heard you say something about filtering the fuel before it went in the tank at the Rondezvous. I am trying to filter with a transfer pump and a 10 micron filter and pump that into my main tank. By the way did you get the picture of your truck pulling the hill with the trailer. The video sounds great with the tire chirping.

[Gbenzx01]

FWIW,
Very remarkable results in what can be accomplished.
But now we have; At what speeds must we run when taking these samples? If they must be taken on a smooth road & a rough one who at DP will be 1st to hang on to the side of my fender at 70+?
Will the real fuel filter please sit up straight. And stop that shaking!
All this at a time when we were almost ready to replace the oem with the cat that is still UUnder the airbox. Yes GM did a pretty good job of starting the construction of the truck at 11/01 but I need to get it finished in the next few months.
What now boss?

Thanx, Gben

[Kennedy]

Originally posted by earniem:
Kennedy I heard you say something about filtering the fuel before it went in the tank at the Rondezvous. I am trying to filter with a transfer pump and a 10 micron filter and pump that into my main tank. By the way did you get the picture of your truck pulling the hill with the trailer. The video sounds great with the tire chirping. Yes Earnie, thanks for the pic. I put it in my gallery for the time being.


http://www.kennedydiesel.com/photogal/images/John%20Kennady%20copy2.jpg


If you can put cleaner fuel into the tank, the results will definitely be better! I am hoping to add a storage tank and pre-filter with the same Mega element.

P.S. I'd love to see/hear the video!

[hoot]

15/13/10

What does it stand for? Anybody know? OK it's an iso standard but what exactly does each number represent?

I'm considering a repeat analysis on my filter. I want it to turn out better ;)

All joking aside... in order to better compare my results with J/K's and Mdrags, could you guys explain exactly how you did yours. I want to duplicate it. Mdrag... I realize you already answered some of these questions earlier.

Where exactly did you draw the fuel from? Directly off the outlet of the Mega?

Did you use an extension hose (I did)

How much flushing, bottle and filter exit?

What state were your filters?

OEM New? Used? Hot?

Mega New? Used? Hot?

[ 07-10-2003, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: hoot ]

[Kennedy]

The ISO numbers indicate at a glance what RANGE the particle count is in. Every single number change is 2x the adjacent number.

Using the particles per milliliter as shown in the bar graphs, we wantto be less than: 320, 80, and 10 ppml. 160-319 will score you a 15 and 320-639 will score a 16.

As I understand, this system is simply designed to give a simple "at a glance" point of reference as to how a sample compares to another.


http://www.kennedydiesel.com/detail.cfm?ID=241


In the above graph, we see the targets, the pump sample, the OE, and the dual filtration results. You will note that while my results were 15-13-11, I was very close to breaking into the next lowest level in most cases.

[hoot]

Thanks John. Good explanation.

I just got off the phone with George Morrison. It was a pleasure speaking with him. He's loaded with good info.

I ordered a second kit. I'll do the Mdrag method.

[mdrag]

hoot:

Kennedy learned me how to do this reel good :D so give him the credit.

Where exactly did you draw the fuel from? Directly off the outlet of the Mega?
I sampled from the OEM schrader valve, using the hose and coupling from the fuel restriction tool after removing the gauge.

Did you use an extension hose (I did)?
The 6 ft hose from the fuel restriction tool was long enough.

How much flushing, bottle and filter exit?
I estimate that I ran about 1/2 gal of diesel through the hose and triple rinsed the sample bottle. I ended up using the OEM primer to do this - after trying with limited success to pressurize the tank with compressed air.

What state were your filters?
Both the OEM and Mega were new/nearly new with no more than 100 miles on them.

OEM New? Used? Hot?
Mega New? Used? Hot?
Cold.

Good luck.

mdrag

[hoot]

I working on 6000 miles on my filters. I'll wait a few more thousand and put a new set in.

George Morrison,

You mentioned microbes sometimes raising the 2m level. Does anyone know if microbes are an issue? Regular dirt we know is but do these microbes increase wear?

[george morrison]

Microbes themselves do not present an actual wear issue as their size is below the 5 to 10 micron target size determined to cause accelerated wear. However, large quantiy of microbes can clog fuel filters in short order. Additionally, the by products of microbes are acidic, which can cause chemical erosion of gaskets, seals and any yellow metals that may be used in a fuel system. Plus, getting rid of microbes/algae can be very difficult as they are very resistant, live in areas that have little throughput flow, etc.. And as we discussed microbial infection has become an increasing problem due to diesel fuel sellers not drawing bottom water off as they should/used to and the affect of the reduced sulfur content..
George Morrison