| Home | Mailing Lists | Bookstore | Weather | Tide Predictions | Bowditch |

T&T: 10/2 vs 2/2 redux

From: A H FOSTER (no email)
Date: Tue Jul 04 2006 - 04:01:43 EDT

  • Next message: (no name): "Re: T&T: Electric fuel pump"

    Message: 15
    Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 09:58:01 -0700 (PDT)
    From: Peter Pisciotta <>
    Subject: T&T: 10/2 vs 2/2 redux
    To: TrawlerList TrawlerList
     <>
    Message-ID: <20060703165801 dot 17118 dot qmail at web53212 dot mail dot yahoo dot com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
    > Somewhere there must be a
    > manufacturers rationale and test
    > results that support the staged
    > filter method and that it is not
    > based on old stationary engine history
      We already know a 2-micron filter will clog a lot
    faster than a 10-micron filter - ask anyone on this
    list who runs 2-micron primaries for validation -
    chances are, they've had to change their primaries
    while underway. Question is: is there benefit to
    running 2/2 filtration (2-micron primary, 2-micron
    secondary) over 10/2 (so-called stepped filtration,
    the industry standard)?
      I'll pose this question to the 2/2 folks: the fear is
    having the eingine-mounted filter clog underway and
    then have to replace, prime, and re-start the engine
    (the "Oh my gawd" factor).
       
      I'm not so sure that is the big "fear".
       
       
      But is there any
    first-hand, real-life experience to back this up? I
    mean, is there actually gunk that gets past a
    10-micron primary and clogs a 2-micron secondary
    between service intervals?
       
      Based on what has been posted here, it looks like what I thought I knew was true. The engine mounted filters (on a Lehman at least) are NOT 2 micron filters.
       
      Personally, I've never had
    it happen, but concede it's possible so the question
    becomes does that risk outweigh 1) vastly increased
    liklihood of 2/2 clogging (monitoring is, after all, a
    manual process and glass bowls eventually get foggy);
       
       
      It's hardly a "vastly increased" risk of clogging if you just increase the size of the filter body you use when you step down in micron size elements.
      And as far as the plastic bowls getting cloudy, mine are well over 10 years old and fine. So that's a bit of a non-issue. And one that's easily over come in any case by just replacing a cloudy bowl.
       
      
    2) risk of possible engine damage due to elevated
    vacuum and fuel temps; and finally 3) the remarkably
    consistent guidance of billions of dollars of R&D and
    warranty dollars?
      But the 2/2 position seems so, well, logical - where's
    the flaw? I suspect the answer lies in the microscopic
    nature of the particles. We are worried about the
    stuff we can see (fuel tank gunk - rust, dirt, water,
    asphaltines, etc). The engine manufacturers are
    worried about microscopic-sized particles. At that
    level, they're okay with 10/2 filtration (in fact,
    they recommend it). Sure, a 2-micron filter will
    filter out the big crud, but unless the filter is very
    large, it will load-up and clog, placing a burden on
    the engine (their concern) and potentially cause the
    engine to starve/die mid-ocean (my concern). According
    to the experts (and my personal experience), using a
    properly maintained 10/2 system will not cause the
    2-micron secondary to clog and an unexpected engine
    stop, but using a 2/2 system may.
      So, I think I've laid out the 10/2 position pretty
    well, albeit belabored (its not a simple position).
    I'll look for the 2/2 folks to move past logic and
    post their actual experiences with clogged 2-micron
    secondaries when installed in a 10/2 system. Depending
    upon that outcome (as I said, I've never had it
    happen), I'll have to weigh that evidence with the
    liklihood of having a 2-micron primary clog in a 2/2
    system. I think that's the heart of the decision, at
    least for me.
       
       
      I think the bottom line is bigger particals can lead to increased wear. (Hence bypass oil filtration.) So why risk it when it's really easy to reduce the risk.
       
      The vacuum increase and fuel temp. are other nonissuses, at least on the low HP engines most trawler types use, from what I've seen.
       
      In the end I think both schools of thought work just fine. Just as long as you change you filter elements on a regular basis.
       
                                                                                           Capt. Bill
    _______________________________________________
    http://lists.samurai.com/mailman/listinfo/trawlers-and-trawlering

    To unsubscribe send email to
     with the word
    UNSUBSCRIBE and nothing else in the subject or body of the message.

    Trawlers & Trawlering and T&T are trademarks of Water World
    Productions. Unauthorized use is prohibited.


  • Next message: (no name): "Re: T&T: Electric fuel pump"



    | Home | Mailing Lists | Bookstore | Weather | Tide Predictions | Bowditch | Trawlerworld |