Brian422 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 I've been looking at fuel polishing and received conflicting advice from two different suppliers of in-line systems which are supposed to swirl the fuel in order to separate water and contaminates. After explaining that, according to the sales brochure' the Beta 43 flow rate at 1500 rpm is approximately 1.5 litres/ hour. WASP's reply.... 'our SWK2000/5M (metal bowl version) would be the one to choose; as it can handle fuel flow rates up to 5 litres/min .... However, I do have a concern .... I am nervous your fuel flow rate is too small to generate the centrifugal effect'. MFHydraulics reply.... 'As long as we have flow the purifier will work. The slower the flow the more efficient in separating the water and no chance of emulsifying the water in to the diesel'. Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steamraiser2 Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Look at the oilybits site.. the goldenrod filters are great for removing water Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Brooks Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 I've been looking at fuel polishing and received conflicting advice from two different suppliers of in-line systems which are supposed to swirl the fuel in order to separate water and contaminates. After explaining that, according to the sales brochure' the Beta 43 flow rate at 1500 rpm is approximately 1.5 litres/ hour. WASP's reply.... 'our SWK2000/5M (metal bowl version) would be the one to choose; as it can handle fuel flow rates up to 5 litres/min .... However, I do have a concern .... I am nervous your fuel flow rate is too small to generate the centrifugal effect'. MFHydraulics reply.... 'As long as we have flow the purifier will work. The slower the flow the more efficient in separating the water and no chance of emulsifying the water in to the diesel'. Anyone? Remember the Beta is "self bleeding" and so returns a fair amount of fuel back to the tank. Looking at pipe sizes etc as a blind guess I would say at least as much as the engine burns and at canal speed probably far more. I think that if you disconnected the return pipe and fed it into a container you might be surprised at just how much fuel goes back to the tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchcrawler Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Remember the Beta is "self bleeding" and so returns a fair amount of fuel back to the tank. Looking at pipe sizes etc as a blind guess I would say at least as much as the engine burns and at canal speed probably far more. I think that if you disconnected the return pipe and fed it into a container you might be surprised at just how much fuel goes back to the tank. Mine returns sufficient to keep the feed tank for my Dickinson Diesel stove topped up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Brooks Posted January 21, 2013 Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 Mine returns sufficient to keep the feed tank for my Dickinson Diesel stove topped up. And I suspect that you have an overflow back to the main tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian422 Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Remember the Beta is "self bleeding" and so returns a fair amount of fuel back to the tank. Looking at pipe sizes etc as a blind guess I would say at least as much as the engine burns and at canal speed probably far more. I think that if you disconnected the return pipe and fed it into a container you might be surprised at just how much fuel goes back to the tank. Apologies for misquoting Beta 43 (BV1903/ BV2203) product brochure, I should have said 'fuel consumption' as against 'flow rate'. A canal speed my Beta 43 engine speed is between 1200 rpm and 1500 rpm. http://www.betamarinenw.com/Engines/Resources/Brochure%20-%20BV1903,%20BV%23D8EC9.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DandV Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) I think it is important to distinguish between having and operating an efficient well maintained fuel management system including effective filtration and water elimination and removal, and an abnormal event recovery operation. From my experience with an oil company Firstly minimise contamination ingress. Good fuel cap seals, and fuel vents located above rain splash zones. Where possible purchase fuel from a reputable high throughput source. In the oil company I avoided and advised against routine dosing like the plague but many posters here recommend it. Secondly have a well maintained fuel filtration system, good filters preferably with water traps. Investigate any premature failing of filters or excessive water at drain points. If possible routinely (Our diesel dispensing tanks were sampled monthly but this is probably excessive for narrowboat tanks, Twice a year?) draw bottom sample off the tank and check for water and crud. If abnormalities, or including a diesel bug infestation are found investigate, try to locate source, check adequacy of fuel cap seals and tank venting, filtration and water removal hardware and operating regimes. Then employ fuel polishing (and possibly a clean up bactericide and emulsifier as an abnormal event recovery method.) If this becomes routinely necessary something is wrong. Investigate Don Edited January 23, 2013 by DandV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now