fuel filter/fuel additive .......observation?????

[CanadaKev]

For George, and others in the know,

Some of you know, I fuel up the Dmax out of my bulk 'gravity flow' fuel tank on the farm. I have a fuel filter on the bulk tank (always have had) and change it once a year or so. When I bought the Dmax I decided to use a fuel additive.
Thinking that it wouldn't hurt to run the fuel additive through the farm equipment as well, I put the additive in the 500 gal. bulk tank.

To my surprise, it plugged up the tank filter almost immediatly. It slowed the fuel coming out of the hose to a trickle!
Now the question is Why??
Does the additive bond itself to smaller particles that would not normally get trapped in the filter?
If we use an additive in our Dmax's is it going to plug up our fuel filter faster?
The product I use is Howes.
TIA for any insights.


:confused:
Kev

[george morrison]

I have to ask some nitty gritty questions pertaining to the fuel filter. What kind is it: i.e. is it particulate only or is it a combined particulate/water absorption type filter?
As for possibilities. You may have had a significant amount of water in the tank and as a result may have also had a wonderful colony of microbes/algae in the tank.
How often have you drained bottom water from the tank? Never? Well, the Howes may have then killed the colony of microbes that were living there and the dead bodies have clogged the filter.
Another possibility is that the Howe's emulsifed the free water and overwhelmed your filter.
A quality fuel additive will not cause filter clogging. The Howe's may have indirectly caused the clogging but due to a long neglected fuel tank containing lots of water, microbes, algae, etc.
Regular use of high quality fuel additization will not cause this but prevent this.
This is most likely a temporary condition that after you get the dead bodies out of the system, all will be fine and much better than before the treatment with Howe's.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[CanadaKev]

George ,
I don't know the particulars on the filter but I could get them for you tommorow. It is not a water absoption filter, but the filter has a clear cannister with drain cock in the bottom of it. It is very easy to see if there is any water in the filter and I have never yet had any water.
Maybe that's what you call a water absorption filter but I would refer to it as a water separation filter.
Perhaps there is water in the very bottom of the tank that never gets to the filter because the outlet fitting is about a 1/2" off the bottom.
Kev

[CTmax]

George,
I am new to the forum and new to Diesel. I want to thank all the members for all the information in this forum. I would have never made the jump from my D***e to a Duramax with out the support this page provides.
I am confused by your reply. Are there additives that should not be used in the Durmax? I have been using Stanadyne performance formula in my 02 2500 (It was suggested by a fellow diesel owner) and have had no problems. Is there something better or properties that I should be looking for in the additive?

[Kennedy]

Someone will have to verify HOW Stanadyne treats water, but I've heard that they drop it out of suspension and "pool" it figuring the filter will do the rest...

[george morrison]

Regarding the farm tank. If the drain is an inch above the bottom, you most likely have an inch of water in the bottom of the tank. You can check it easily by getting some water check paste from your fuel supplier which you can put on an end of a stick and if there is bottom water, turns bright red. Another recommendation is to add a breather/desciccant (check avlube.com web site) which prevents dust and water from getting into the tank in the first place. That is once you make sure the tank IS clean and bio-mass free.
The clear bowl is just a settling point for free water. NAPA/Wix has a combined fuel and neo water filter (which does very little) which many farms use. Not recommended..
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[george morrison]

Stanadyne technical literature stresses that its products contain DE-emulsifier; that their products drop water out as free water. Free water is fine if one has a drain on the bottom of the tank to eliminate it. My Duramax does not have a drain, nor does anyone's to the best of my knowledge. If we can't drain free water we must then use a good EMULSIFIER to keep water IN emulsion and prevent free water formation altogether. Free water in a fuel tank will (not can) lead to tank corrosion, microbes and algae formation, and problems.
I agree with Mr. Kennedy to use a high quality fuel additive that contains emulsifiers to keep the water in the fuel, lubricity enhancers, pour point depressants, cetane index improvers and detergency for constant injector/system cleansing. Water in reasonable amounts in emulsion poses no operational problems for our Duramax or any diesel engine. CAT has a research project ongoing using *high* amounts of emulsified water for emission control.
FPPF and Primrose are two examples of fuel additives which contain emulsifiers, all of the above additives and do an excellent job. I am sure there are others.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[ 11-04-2002: Message edited by: george morrison ]</p>

[hoot]

It's a good idea to keep that farm fuel tank on a slight angle and draw fuel from the high side to avoid pulling water. The best scenario is to have a petcock at the lowest end to drain the water off.

[Spoolin'It]

CanadaKev,

The additive sounds like it did its job of removing sludge that builds up over time on any surface that diesel comes into contact with. The only problem was it cleaned the bulk tank when it was intended to clean the fuel system of your equipment. At least you had a filter inline so the majority of it was caught instead of entering your equipment and truck tank. Hard to say for sure without seeing the filter, but if it was water you would have seen a ton of it in the clear bowl.
Since it sounds like this was the first time you used additive in your farm equipment I would also suggest stepping up your next filter change a little since the additive is now cleaning the fuel system in them also.

Now having worked as an engineer for a major diesel fuel system OEM in their filtration division, I left recently for a better opportunity in a different industry, I want comment again about the whole water separation issue and set a few things straight.
One of the functions of diesel fuel final filters, ours is a final since there is only one in this system, is to remove water both whole and emulsified. There are specific SAE and ISO tests that rate their performance at this. SAE J1839 covers whole water, SAE J1488 covers the performance of filters at removing emulsified water. Emulsified is far more difficult to remove as it requires the media to coalesce the water into larger droplets. ISO 4020 covers european specs for filter performance but I can't remember if water is in there since it covers many aspects of filter performance.
The filter manufacturers and engine OEMs are spending millions in R&D each year to improve filter efficiency at removing water. They wouldn't be doing this if running any water through the system was acceptable. The problem with emulsification is there is the chance of the water coming back into solution at any time like when your vehicle sits for an extended period of time(I know thats rare for most DMAX owners :D ). That could be very bad if it happened in the fuel rail and consequently blew the tip off an injector.

George, your citing of the CAT work on emulsified water is interesting and someday could be reality but you said yourself its a RESEARCH project at this point. Using that as justification for water in another OEMs system is very premature. Is it even a common rail setup? Have the long term effects of water in the system been evaluated yet. What are the effects of the water on internal components after the system has been left idle for a period of time.

I understand your concerns of de-emulsifing the water. Yes the water will collect at the bottom of the tank while the vehicle is sitting. When the vehicle is moving, the fuel sloshing around in the tank should bring the water back into solution where it can be dealt with by the filter as designed. Waters natural tendency in the fuel is to drop to the bottom anyway. Besides its not like there's a gallon of water in every tank of fuel that has to be dealt with.

Kennedy,
I understand your concerns about the filter removing water. Racor (yes its a Racor, assy SE50-01, all the others are relabeled Racors as I'm sure there's a dozen or so patents on the assembly and its common practice for all the filter manf. to do this for each other until the patents expire) filters perform extremely well at removing water, I have performed alot of competitive analysis work with their assemblies to back it up(unfortunately never got to test a DMAX assembly before I left). Sounds like the the filter(or filters) you had problems with could have been short circuited(poor adhesive bond, etc), that does happen from time to time when you manufacture millions of filters. If the filter is performing correctly it should effectively remove almost all the water that comes into contact with it.

I didn't intrend to step on anyones toes with this post, I just wanted to try to set the record straight on all the information flying around on these topics since some of it was incorrect.

[ 11-04-2002: Message edited by: Spoolin'It ]</p>

[CanadaKev]

George,
The filter I am using is Purolator.
The replacement element is a TF-10F.
Which is a 10 micron nominal(which the Purolator dealer claims is 85% efficient).


Hoot,
The tank is on a slope and I am feeding off the high end, but I do not have a drain cock at the other end. Should have though ;)

Spoolin'It,
Thanks, I will step up my filter changes.
Kev

[george morrison]

You will not step on any toes here as our only purpose is knowledge, information, learning..
That said, I have personally run many 'before & after' fuel analysis on vehicles and in not one instance have I seen emulsified water reduced. In the two Duramax cases, two different vehicles, two different fuels, one new filter, one with 3,000 miles on, the raw fuel water level in ppm was identical to after fuel filter water.. I have checked everything from VW TDI's to CAT D-10's and in every single case I have not seen any significant change in water content in the fuel.
On my own 1000 gallon fuel tank, I have a beautiful Velcon $400 1 micron jet fuel filter setup which advertises "Positive Water Removal: removes free and emulsified water from fuel". Well, my fuel goes into the filter at 66 ppm water and comes out the other side at 66 ppm water...

From my experience I have never seen fuel system component damage occur from emulsified water. Free water, yes, significant system damage, many, many times.. Free water has the highest potential for damaging our fuel systems. I have *NO* confidence in our fuel seperator capturing free water. In the Duramax it is nothing more than a settle point with a drain..

Thus, experientially, it makes much more sense to make absolutely certain any water that exists in the fuel (which indeed will always exist to some degree) is locked in emulsion and totally prevent/eliminate free water fallout.

George Morrison, STLE CLS

[Spoolin'It]

George,

Considering your pump on the bulk tank is probably flowing somewhere around 5 gal. per min. I wouldn't expect the filter to have the ability to remove any emulsified water as this is highly flow dependent and decays exponentially as flow rates go up. I'm guessing our system flow to be somewhere in the 30-40 gal. per hour(.5-.6 gpm) range at wide open throttle. In this range it is very possible for the filter to remove emulsified water.
I have overseen the running of the SAE J1488 test(no I didn't run it myself as the technician responsible for it has almost 30 years experience in filter testing so he runs it to retain consistency) and can tell you I have seen with my own eyes emulsified water removed from fuel by a diesel filter/water separator. The test is very harsh as water is added so that the fuel is near the saturation level (don't ask me to quote numbers as I didn't run the test and don't remember what the spec calls for exactly). If this wasn't possible the SAE and ISO wouldn't have bothered to waste the time and money to write and update specifications for the testing of it.
I'm curious what method you are using to analyze the fuel for water? We also only used glass containers and labware(syringes, etc) to prevent possible contamination of the samples, they were analyzed immediately while the test was running so there was no possible chance of the results being skewed. Is it possible that your samples were contaminated if plastic containers were used, plastic is also hydroscopic and could have skewed the results.
Finally all filter manufacturers perform differently in their ability to remove emulsified water, some good and some horrible. From what I have seen and have been told by people very knowledgible in the field, Racor is one of if not the best at this.
The bottom line is I'm going to continue to use Stanadyne additive and hope the filter does its job. The others will continue to use what you are using. For the rest, use the information provided by all to draw your own conclusions and use what you see fit. :cool:

[george morrison]

Water is being analyzed by Karl Fischer method and is reported in PPM and in accordance with ASTM methodology for KF. And yes, I can agree that with diesel at or near water saturation point, some water can be pulled from diesel. That said, I have 6 inches of scar tissue on my derriere from 20 years of working with large mining equipment and their corresponding large fuel systems. Through those years mining equipment can sometimes be parked for weeks/months and on startup encounter serious fuel system damage from water. Water that has settled out and in a large fuel injector pump, the amount of water can be significant, and catastrophic. From that we learned quickly the advantages of heavy treatment with a high quality emulsifier to maintain fuel/water stability and prevent free water settle. It saved us thousands.
Admittedly our systems are much smaller and water level much lower but the same possibility exists at any given time for a free water settle that made it by the seperator emulsified. Sit for a week, a month and the seperation can once again occur this time in the pump and whamo..

From my chemist background, if I can tie up free water I will have minimized all the negatives that free water brings relative to diesel fuel and diesel fuel systems. By having an ever present, very effective emulsifer working it is like an insurance policy..
Regarding my Velcon jet fuel diesel filter. It is rated at 60 gpm and we have a 50 gpm pumping system with it.
Regarding plastic vials and glass. I have used both glass and plastic collection containers and have not seen any difference in reported water levels between the two. The time from sample to process is generally less than 48 hours. We have processed samples from all over the United States plus numerous samples from our own site. Emulsified water levels have been consistent in every single case: I have yet to see reduction take place with any type of filter/desiccant/medium. However, we are talking about 35 to 70 ppm of water which is good, low level water content.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[ 11-04-2002: Message edited by: george morrison ]</p>

[Kennedy]

I'm no chemist, but if we de-mulsify the water so that it settles to the bottom of the tank, then shake it up and pump it, what's to say it will settle out and drop the bottom of the filter? There is definitely vibration in our engine mounted filters. Then we look at water levels before/after filter and see they are the same so what did the filter/seperator ACTUALLY do?

For the record, my after filter sample was taken at a whopping flow rate of whatever the hand pump will do...

[pitboss]

... and I'm REALLY no expert, but it sounds like experts basically agreeing on the principles, like water is bad in large quantities. How much is too much, or maybe more important, how good is very little?

You disagree on effectiveness of filters, but seem to agree either there's not enough water to worry about (if emulsfied), or our current filter set-up and flow rate leaves us nothing to worry about (if Racor). Either way we're OK.

But what about the potential upside? How about a primary tank (say in the box) treated with de-emulsifying additive, with free water caught enroute to the primary like Hoot's stop-cock idea - maybe combine it somehow with, or add downstream but before the primary a second Racor-type filter unit to provide double fuel filtration. Maybe something like Transfer Flow's aux pump could run it.

Assuming it's possible, are there any performance gains possible, is it more a cost vs. savings on maintenance issue, or is it a total non-issue because we really do have nothing to worry about?
:confused:

[ 11-04-2002: Message edited by: pitboss ]

[ 11-04-2002: Message edited by: pitboss ]</p>

[txguppy]

Just a FYI. I recently took a 3K+ trip to South Dakota and back to Texas. More than 2/3 of it in rain/snow. While fueling-up, I noticed excessive moisture on he pump hose nozzles. I judiciously wiped them dry at each refueling. I feel I kept a substancial amount of moisture out of the fuel tank by doing this.
I also covered the fuel door opening with the wipe rag to keep any airborn moisture from entering the tank.

txguppy

[Spoolin'It]

&gt;Water is being analyzed by Karl Fischer method
At least we finally agree on something :D , titration appears to be the agreed upon method in the industry.
As far as your Velcon, I can't believe they even tried claiming removing emulsified water at those flow rates :eek: . At 50-70 ppm you might be below the threshold of where it can still separate water (particle size below micron rating of media). I never claimed these things to be 100% efficient. Yes some water will still get by as efficiency is in the low 90%. I can't recall our ppm rating after the filter as I was concerned with the % efficiency from dirty to clean side at the time, and thats all that was reported. Not to mention its been over a year since I even looked at any of this stuff.

Kennedy,
Much smaller area, 99% full 100% of the time so minimized sloshing, water will settle. Vibrations from the motor will actually help to dislodge water particles from the filter media.

Pitboss,
Water is bad period. The reality is you are never going to remove 100% of it, and as you can see there are opposing views as how to deal with it. The two leading diesel filter OEMs Stanadyne and Racor sell additives that de-mulsify , makes their job easier as whole water is far easier to remove and detect than emulsified. Not to mention they want to avoid getting calls from p o'd OEMs with a warranty claim they will have to explain or pay if water causes problems on the wrong side of the filter.
Are 99.9% of us ever going to have a problem with water, probably not. I would like to know if it is in there though so that if it is a recurring problem I can start looking for a new fuel supplier.
Has anyone even seen the WIF warning come on yet??

[ 11-05-2002: Message edited by: Spoolin'It ]</p>

[Kennedy]

"Has anyone even seen the WIF warning come on yet??"

My point exactly. We KNOW that modern diesel fuel contains a substantial amount of water pure and simple. Now if a de-mulsifying treatment and water seperator were doing their job, WHERE IS THE WATER???


If we remove 50ppm of water from say 1000 gallons throughput, (enough to go 15,000 miles) how much water SHOULD we have? I'd bet it would be enough to turn on the WIF light...

[ 11-05-2002: Message edited by: kennedy ]</p>

[Spoolin'It]

You finally made me do math. At 50ppm 1000 gal of fuel would leave behind .2 liters of water, if the filter was 100% efficent(which its not). That leaves 4 milliliters of water per tankful if you added 20 gallons at a fillup, or roughly a drop of water per tank. As george stated before, your samples arn't showing earth shattering levels of water here.
My concern with water isn't with minute levels as this, but lies with a larger amount getting unintentionally dumped in the system. Do you want to get warned that there is a problem with the last batch of fuel you purchased so you can never fill up there again/complain to owner that they have a problem. Or would you rather disguise the water, sneak it past the filter, probably never know it existed, possibly get multiple bad fill-ups if you return unknowingly to the same station and ultimately risk causing damage to the system.

[Kennedy]

Pure and simple, I doubt that there is ANY additive in the world that can handle more than a 1:1 ratio of water. If one were to get a giant slug of water I'd hope that the filter/seperator would catch it, but wouldn't hold my breath. That said, since diesel fuel CAN hold a lot of water in emulsion, I'd rather be certain to keep it there guarded by my additive.

My water content was .3's which is on the low end of the spectrum. I believe that this comes down to tank maintenance on the part of my vendor. In fact, condensation/humidity is so heavy up here due to temp swings/trees/corn etc that I have to preach to some of these trailer mfr's to put drain holes in their tubing! :rolleyes: Tipped up an EZ-Dumper the other day and it started draining water out of a main lift support tube and it was only here a couple of months! :eek:


Anyhow, as your math shows, there is a siginficant amount of water in every tankful. IF the de-mulsifier/seperator were doing it's job, we'd have the WIF light coming on AND evidence in the base when changing filters...

[ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: kennedy ]</p>

[george morrison]

To echo John Kennedy's comments: we have seen so much evidence through the years in 6.5TD's exhibiting corrosion, damaged pumps and injector units, from free water I feel it so important to 'lock up' water in emulsion, preventing/minimizing free water drop out in the system. As has been discussed here in depth, once a vehicle begins to move, the agitation will bring free water back into semi-emulsion. The water may well make it through the seperator as it is in loose emulsion state. However, if the vehicle is shut down and allowed to sit for a period, once again the water will settle out, this time in the injector pump without chemical emulsion enhancement. Scored pumps, damaged pumps, etc. etc.. This has been the case again and again with the 6.5TD's. I have been in shops with as many as 5 6.5's at a time waiting for completely new fuel systems from corrosion damage.. Free water damage.
Through the magic of chemistry we can lock up free water and prevent its damaging affects.
Engine manufacturer's must of course equip new vehicles with a free water removal system as 90% of end users will not be using any form of emulsifier, or any additization at all! Using emulsifying agents is contrary to what the engine manufacturer's can even think about recommending. Could you imagine buying a new vehicle and page one in the owner's manual says "do not operate this vehicle without using appropriate emusifying fuel additization".. So, they must go with some form of rudimentary water separator, etc.
And it is certainly nice to have it there "just in case". That said, it is a great insurance policy to use additization that will eliminate normal water damage from our fuel systems AND provide all the other additive benefits such as lubricity enhancement, cetane improvement, cold flow and injector detergency...
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: george morrison ]

[ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: george morrison ]</p>

[imported_]

Sooooooo, what's a good emulsifying additive to use? What's the best?

[DmaxMaverick]

Remember this?

http://www.aquazole.com

Imagine adding a de-emulsifying agent to that stuff!

[letsgo]

george

Your last summary just put my mind to rest, I was beginning to wonder if using FPPF additive since new had helped my DURAMAX or just wasting my money.

Spoolin'it

thanks for the filter input.

The two posts fuel filter/fuel additive

http://forum.62-65-dieselpage.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply&f=3&t=004436

fuel filter test results

http://forum.62-65-dieselpage.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=004373

the debates have been very informative and constructive and it is all FREE, when all is resolved I hope that the administrator will do a final summery and post it in the Feature Articles as there is a lot of reading to filter through to find all the pertinent points.

thanks

[ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: letsgo ]</p>

[Spoolin'It]

George,

Comparing our filter to the Stanadyne top-loader in the 6.5 is like comparing the whole truck to a model T. That assembly was designed at least 15 years ago, the whole industry has learned alot since then, if you notice Stanadynes current line doesn't even come close to resembling that. I don't recall how much room there is at the bottom of that unit to store water but I don't believe its very much. If you notice the new Stanadyne and our Racors are radically different designs from that, there is plenty of room for water to fall out and safely be stored.
Thats about as far as I'm going to go with the comparison since I'm still bound by a confidentiality agreement and don't want any trouble.

&gt;Could you imagine buying a new vehicle and page one in the owner's manual says "do not operate this vehicle without using appropriate demusifying fuel additization".. So, they must go with some form of rudimentary water separator, etc.

Yet both Ford and GM have both given their stamp of approval to Stanadyne additives in the past(Ford as recently as '99 for the PS). VW even went as far as to write a service bulletin for the TDI in 2001 recommending Performance Formula, and they don't even have any Stanadyne components in their vehicles. Cat and Deere have also given the seal of approval. If de-mulsification was so bad why are all these OEM's approving it??? I went to FPPF's site and couldn't find any OEM approvals listed for their products and giving the thumbs up to emulsification?

[george morrison]

I well recognize that my position is quite opposite that of many OEM positions concerning the question: "to emulsify or not to emulsify".. Again, my feelings on the subject are the result of 20+ years of experience (notably, 6 inches of scar tissue as previously discussed) in all weather conditions in equipment costing millions of dollars and the resulting hundreds of thousands of dollars of fuel system damage resulting from free water in diesel fuel. In that same time I have never experienced a fuel system failure from emulsified water in diesel fuels.

I am all for demulsification if one has a 10,000 gallon tank with a bottom water drain but once diesel fuel gets into a dynamic, shaking, rattling system, it is too easy for faux-emulsion followed by a Monday morning destroyed injector pump from free water settle.. Been there, done that.. There is just nothing quite like an $18,000 injector pump destroyed by free water and having to authorize the rebuild.
Thus my personal crusade promoting the use of fuel additives containing effective emulsifier agents, along with the other good additive attributes.
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[srubrn]

Somehow I missed this thread before and I just read all of the post. My question is what is a good additive. Is one better than the other?
Kinda makes me want to got back to a gasser!!

[george morrison]

One of the largest purchasers of fuel additives with emulsifying capabilities is the U.S. military.. The army's vehicles have been equipped with water seperation devices for years but learned very early on that as vehicles were placed around the world the most effective way to keep them operational was to use fuel additization that contained a whole host of components most importantly emulsifying chemistry. As equipment is moved around the world, a de-emulsifier in fuel would allow/promote free water to settle out resulting in corrosion in fuel tanks, microbe and algae growth, clogging of fuel filters and non-running equipment.
By using additives with good emulsion capabilities free water was essentially eliminated: eliminate free water, eliminate microbe/algae growth, eliminate system corrosion, eliminate free water freezing, etc. etc..
So, even though equipment manufacturers use/recommend water seperators and demulsifiers, the world's largest customer of rolling stock and diesel fuel uses emulsifying additization in all its diesel fuel.. Something about "their vehicles *have* to run"...

George Morrison, STLE CLS

[srubrn]

George,
Name a good emulsifying agent!!

[srubrn]

Ya'll gotta check this filter out. It's almost unbelievable. Go to this link and tell what you think
http://gulfcoastfilter.com/

[george morrison]

Regarding a good emulsifying agent. I have extensive experience with FPPF and Primrose fuel additives in large fleet application. Both use agressive emulsifiers along with lubricity enhancers, corrosion inhibitors, injector cleansing agents, cetane boost and pour/flock point depressants.
It would be great if someone would put together a listing of which diesel fuel additives emulsify and which de-emulsify water. Product data sheets for some companies are unclear about their exact action with respect to water...
George Morrison, STLE CLS

[CTmax]

George, Spoolin'it, Jon,
Thanks for all the info. The wealth of knowledge and information in this forum never ceases to amaze me. I too would like to see a listing of additives and their properties. This information would be helpful. Thanks again for all the information.

[IndigoDually]

A gasser is not the answer if You are looking to store fuel either. The gas of recent years has had a very limited shelf life before varnish and other nasty things happen to the stored fuel. A friend of mine has a small engine repair shop, in recent years he has seen more problems that are caused by "Bad Gas" than ever before.
I add stabilizer to every can of gas that I have as soon as I fill it no matter how quickly I plan on using it. Since I have been using stabilizer I have not had any (Knock on Wood) fuel related problems in small engines and seasonal equipment.

John

[chipper]

I contacted Conoco a few years ago about storing unleaded gas & they said a max of 3 months.