Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
#136
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:08:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:
> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:26:48 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>> Bet you like hitting yourself in the head with a ball-peen hammer,
>>>> too...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> please try to think rationally for a moment - you're again projecting a
>>> problem /you/ have, onto a third party.
>>
>> Not at all. After all, you keep responding, don't you?
>>
>>
>
> you'll never have a chance of fixing a problem if you don't realize you
> have one. you have a problem. go fix it.
I'm trying, but you keep coming back for more...
> hachiroku wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:26:48 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>
>>>> Bet you like hitting yourself in the head with a ball-peen hammer,
>>>> too...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> please try to think rationally for a moment - you're again projecting a
>>> problem /you/ have, onto a third party.
>>
>> Not at all. After all, you keep responding, don't you?
>>
>>
>
> you'll never have a chance of fixing a problem if you don't realize you
> have one. you have a problem. go fix it.
I'm trying, but you keep coming back for more...
#137
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:18:39 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>> why is everyone so hung up on immersion? gasoline isn't exactly the
>>> greatest cooling liquid because it has a low specific heat capacity.
>>> what's important is circulation /within/ the pump, not /without/.
>>
>> So on one hand, you're saying gasoline flowing through the pump is
>> enough to cool it, and then you say gas isn't efficient enough at
>> cooling?
>>
>> Stop and think...maybe that's why they put them in the tank.
>>
>> Put the ball peen hammer away.
>>
>>
> lack of comprehension. projection of own inadequacy. get help.
You can't even remember what you said 5 posts ago,,,
>>> why is everyone so hung up on immersion? gasoline isn't exactly the
>>> greatest cooling liquid because it has a low specific heat capacity.
>>> what's important is circulation /within/ the pump, not /without/.
>>
>> So on one hand, you're saying gasoline flowing through the pump is
>> enough to cool it, and then you say gas isn't efficient enough at
>> cooling?
>>
>> Stop and think...maybe that's why they put them in the tank.
>>
>> Put the ball peen hammer away.
>>
>>
> lack of comprehension. projection of own inadequacy. get help.
You can't even remember what you said 5 posts ago,,,
#138
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
hachiroku wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:21:52 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>>> Telltale signs of an urban legend maybe?
>>> and without it, there would be 90% less usenet traffic.
>> Well - that, global warming, and K&N air filters.
>
> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>
> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response off
> the line, too.
And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is,
most people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its
inferior dirt-catching qualities.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:21:52 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>>> Telltale signs of an urban legend maybe?
>>> and without it, there would be 90% less usenet traffic.
>> Well - that, global warming, and K&N air filters.
>
> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>
> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response off
> the line, too.
And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is,
most people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its
inferior dirt-catching qualities.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#139
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
William R. Walsh wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> (I learned this when I worked as a designer/engineer/manager for a
> supplier
>> of fuel pump parts to GM/Delphi and Ford/Visteon.
>
> Just out of pure curiosity, did that supplier have a name and can you say
> who it was?
>
> William
Carbone of America. U.S. division of French-owned Carbone Lorraine.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
> Hi!
>
>> (I learned this when I worked as a designer/engineer/manager for a
> supplier
>> of fuel pump parts to GM/Delphi and Ford/Visteon.
>
> Just out of pure curiosity, did that supplier have a name and can you say
> who it was?
>
> William
Carbone of America. U.S. division of French-owned Carbone Lorraine.
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
#140
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
news:9p-dnYVndtpdy9rVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AB3CB39BB914tegger@208.90.168.18...
>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
>> news:FNWdnWduiuxhqNvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Gas stations generally filter the fuel before
>>> delivering it to vehicles, so it is not likely that the rust came
>>> from the gas station.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gas dispensers (pumps) have a sort of basket filter and nothing more.
>> The screen on the filter is fairly crude, maybe four times smaller
>> than a window screen. Small rust particles could easily get through
>> that, but would be caught by the sock, which is a much finer mesh
>> than the pump filter.
>>
>> Having said all that, the gas station tanks I've seen appear not to
>> be made
>> of metal. Maybe they do have a metal inner lining. But if they did,
>> these would either be awfully big stampings or have lots of
>> leak-prone weld seams. Anybody know for sure?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> 2 big fuel dispenser brands around here are Gilbarco and Tokheim,
In my neck of the wodds it seems to be mostly Gilbarco.
> and
> it looks most of their models take fuel filters like these
> http://www.jmesales.com/department/1888/1/Filters.aspx
These look nothing like the pump filters I was shown. The filters I saw
more resembled a larger and somewhat coarser version of the basket
filter that goes in some Toyotas' windshield washer reservoir filler
necks.
> so my guess is
> that in addtion to the pickup screen/sock, they also have a
> replaceable filter. Of course, that assumes that gas stations replace
> the filters on a periodic basis and that there is no bypass mechanism
> if flow through the filter is diminished.
It was explained to me that the primary problem with underground tanks
is not dirt or rust, but stirred-up water in freshly-filled tanks.
Apparently tanks are supposed to be taken offline for a couple of hours
to let water settle out, but nobody actually does that. Gas stations do
not filter water out, it seems.
>
> The tanks being installed around here appear to be made of fiberglass
> like the ones on this site: http://www.rng.com/rng/zcl/rngss31.html
I see similar ones, but the ones I see are a much lighter green, even
almost white.
--
Tegger
news:9p-dnYVndtpdy9rVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AB3CB39BB914tegger@208.90.168.18...
>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
>> news:FNWdnWduiuxhqNvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com:
>>
>>> Gas stations generally filter the fuel before
>>> delivering it to vehicles, so it is not likely that the rust came
>>> from the gas station.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gas dispensers (pumps) have a sort of basket filter and nothing more.
>> The screen on the filter is fairly crude, maybe four times smaller
>> than a window screen. Small rust particles could easily get through
>> that, but would be caught by the sock, which is a much finer mesh
>> than the pump filter.
>>
>> Having said all that, the gas station tanks I've seen appear not to
>> be made
>> of metal. Maybe they do have a metal inner lining. But if they did,
>> these would either be awfully big stampings or have lots of
>> leak-prone weld seams. Anybody know for sure?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> 2 big fuel dispenser brands around here are Gilbarco and Tokheim,
In my neck of the wodds it seems to be mostly Gilbarco.
> and
> it looks most of their models take fuel filters like these
> http://www.jmesales.com/department/1888/1/Filters.aspx
These look nothing like the pump filters I was shown. The filters I saw
more resembled a larger and somewhat coarser version of the basket
filter that goes in some Toyotas' windshield washer reservoir filler
necks.
> so my guess is
> that in addtion to the pickup screen/sock, they also have a
> replaceable filter. Of course, that assumes that gas stations replace
> the filters on a periodic basis and that there is no bypass mechanism
> if flow through the filter is diminished.
It was explained to me that the primary problem with underground tanks
is not dirt or rust, but stirred-up water in freshly-filled tanks.
Apparently tanks are supposed to be taken offline for a couple of hours
to let water settle out, but nobody actually does that. Gas stations do
not filter water out, it seems.
>
> The tanks being installed around here appear to be made of fiberglass
> like the ones on this site: http://www.rng.com/rng/zcl/rngss31.html
I see similar ones, but the ones I see are a much lighter green, even
almost white.
--
Tegger
#141
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Ray O wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:RPCdnYTxjp98-trVnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Ray O wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:MdqdndoTpso0xNrVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>> <snipped>
>>>>> The bathing of the pump in fuel certainly doesn't do it any harm.
>>>>> But I strongly suspect that the overwhelmingly primary motivation
>>>>> on moving the pump to the tank was consolidating more parts into
>>>>> fewer assemblies to be installed into the vehicle.
>>>> no, its vapor lock avoidance. if the pump is at the top of a long
>>>> suction column, the liquid in the column can separate and once
>>>> there's vapor, pumping is seriously impaired. you could draw from
>>>> the bottom of the tank, but then you get guaranteed particle
>>>> blockage and much greater chance of damage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Vapor lock was not a problem when electric fuel pumps for fuel
>>> injected engines were not integrated in the fuel tank, so it
>>> doesn't make sense to make a change for a problem that didn't
>>> exist. Vapor lock could occur in the old mechanical fuel pumps
>>> that produced less than 10 PSI. Electric fuel pumps for fuel
>>> injected engines run over 40 PSI so vapor lock is not a problem.
>>
>> i'm talking about the sucking side, not the pushing side. if you
>> suck hard enough on any liquid, the column separates. if it's a
>> liquid full of volatiles, especially on a hot day at high altitude,
>> you'll not have to suck very hard. hence you attempt to keep the
>> column rise as close to zero as possible. putting the pump down in
>> the tank achieves exactly that.
>
> I have no experience with fluid dynamics so I'll have to take your
> word about the phenomenon. I would imagine that while 40+ PSI is
> enough to prevent vapor lock on the pushing side, it isn't enough to
> cause the column separation that you are describing since I've never
> heard of that happening either. Wouldn't increasing the diameter of
> the suction side reduce the pressure and therefore the tendency of
> the column to separte? If so, it seems like that would be a simpler
> solution than re-designing the fuel pump, tank, and mounting hardware.
>
> In other words, it seems to me that lowering assembly costs would be
> the primary reason for mounting the fuel pump in the tank, and
> reducing the phenomenon you are describing would be a secondary side
> benefit.
I would think not just assembly costs, but overall costs - a pump n the
tank, I would think, should be able to utilize a cheaper and lighter casing
as it does not need to stand up to the elements any longer. FWIW, it would
also result in fewer connection points outside the tank, thereby allowing
for fewer failure points.
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:RPCdnYTxjp98-trVnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Ray O wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:MdqdndoTpso0xNrVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>> <snipped>
>>>>> The bathing of the pump in fuel certainly doesn't do it any harm.
>>>>> But I strongly suspect that the overwhelmingly primary motivation
>>>>> on moving the pump to the tank was consolidating more parts into
>>>>> fewer assemblies to be installed into the vehicle.
>>>> no, its vapor lock avoidance. if the pump is at the top of a long
>>>> suction column, the liquid in the column can separate and once
>>>> there's vapor, pumping is seriously impaired. you could draw from
>>>> the bottom of the tank, but then you get guaranteed particle
>>>> blockage and much greater chance of damage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Vapor lock was not a problem when electric fuel pumps for fuel
>>> injected engines were not integrated in the fuel tank, so it
>>> doesn't make sense to make a change for a problem that didn't
>>> exist. Vapor lock could occur in the old mechanical fuel pumps
>>> that produced less than 10 PSI. Electric fuel pumps for fuel
>>> injected engines run over 40 PSI so vapor lock is not a problem.
>>
>> i'm talking about the sucking side, not the pushing side. if you
>> suck hard enough on any liquid, the column separates. if it's a
>> liquid full of volatiles, especially on a hot day at high altitude,
>> you'll not have to suck very hard. hence you attempt to keep the
>> column rise as close to zero as possible. putting the pump down in
>> the tank achieves exactly that.
>
> I have no experience with fluid dynamics so I'll have to take your
> word about the phenomenon. I would imagine that while 40+ PSI is
> enough to prevent vapor lock on the pushing side, it isn't enough to
> cause the column separation that you are describing since I've never
> heard of that happening either. Wouldn't increasing the diameter of
> the suction side reduce the pressure and therefore the tendency of
> the column to separte? If so, it seems like that would be a simpler
> solution than re-designing the fuel pump, tank, and mounting hardware.
>
> In other words, it seems to me that lowering assembly costs would be
> the primary reason for mounting the fuel pump in the tank, and
> reducing the phenomenon you are describing would be a secondary side
> benefit.
I would think not just assembly costs, but overall costs - a pump n the
tank, I would think, should be able to utilize a cheaper and lighter casing
as it does not need to stand up to the elements any longer. FWIW, it would
also result in fewer connection points outside the tank, thereby allowing
for fewer failure points.
#142
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:24:30 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>Ray O wrote:
>> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9AB3CB39BB914tegger@208.90.168.18...
>>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
>>> news:FNWdnWduiuxhqNvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> Gas stations generally filter the fuel before
>>>> delivering it to vehicles, so it is not likely that the rust came from
>>>> the gas station.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gas dispensers (pumps) have a sort of basket filter and nothing more. The
>>> screen on the filter is fairly crude, maybe four times smaller than a
>>> window screen. Small rust particles could easily get through that, but
>>> would be caught by the sock, which is a much finer mesh than the pump
>>> filter.
>>>
>>> Having said all that, the gas station tanks I've seen appear not to be
>>> made
>>> of metal. Maybe they do have a metal inner lining. But if they did, these
>>> would either be awfully big stampings or have lots of leak-prone weld
>>> seams. Anybody know for sure?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tegger
>>>
>>
>> 2 big fuel dispenser brands around here are Gilbarco and Tokheim, and it
>> looks most of their models take fuel filters like these
>> http://www.jmesales.com/department/1888/1/Filters.aspx so my guess is that
>> in addtion to the pickup screen/sock, they also have a replaceable filter.
>> Of course, that assumes that gas stations replace the filters on a periodic
>> basis and that there is no bypass mechanism if flow through the filter is
>> diminished.
>>
>> The tanks being installed around here appear to be made of fiberglass like
>> the ones on this site: http://www.rng.com/rng/zcl/rngss31.html
>
>and around here. there's been a huge tank replacement program here in
>california for some years now. very few metals tanks left, if at all.
Most gastanks (storage/underground) are fiberglass, but one of the
biggest manufacturers of tanks in Canada, Clemmer Industries is about
a mile from my home and made 10s of thousands of steel underground
storage tanks (as well as above ground) over the years. There are
still some double wall steel tanks made, but I think they are all for
above ground use.
They make the glass ones now too - I think they are wound glass.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>Ray O wrote:
>> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9AB3CB39BB914tegger@208.90.168.18...
>>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
>>> news:FNWdnWduiuxhqNvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> Gas stations generally filter the fuel before
>>>> delivering it to vehicles, so it is not likely that the rust came from
>>>> the gas station.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gas dispensers (pumps) have a sort of basket filter and nothing more. The
>>> screen on the filter is fairly crude, maybe four times smaller than a
>>> window screen. Small rust particles could easily get through that, but
>>> would be caught by the sock, which is a much finer mesh than the pump
>>> filter.
>>>
>>> Having said all that, the gas station tanks I've seen appear not to be
>>> made
>>> of metal. Maybe they do have a metal inner lining. But if they did, these
>>> would either be awfully big stampings or have lots of leak-prone weld
>>> seams. Anybody know for sure?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tegger
>>>
>>
>> 2 big fuel dispenser brands around here are Gilbarco and Tokheim, and it
>> looks most of their models take fuel filters like these
>> http://www.jmesales.com/department/1888/1/Filters.aspx so my guess is that
>> in addtion to the pickup screen/sock, they also have a replaceable filter.
>> Of course, that assumes that gas stations replace the filters on a periodic
>> basis and that there is no bypass mechanism if flow through the filter is
>> diminished.
>>
>> The tanks being installed around here appear to be made of fiberglass like
>> the ones on this site: http://www.rng.com/rng/zcl/rngss31.html
>
>and around here. there's been a huge tank replacement program here in
>california for some years now. very few metals tanks left, if at all.
Most gastanks (storage/underground) are fiberglass, but one of the
biggest manufacturers of tanks in Canada, Clemmer Industries is about
a mile from my home and made 10s of thousands of steel underground
storage tanks (as well as above ground) over the years. There are
still some double wall steel tanks made, but I think they are all for
above ground use.
They make the glass ones now too - I think they are wound glass.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#143
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 22:58:49 -0500, "Ray O"
<rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>news:MdqdndoTpso0xNrVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.n et...
>> Bill Putney wrote:
><snipped>
>>> The bathing of the pump in fuel certainly doesn't do it any harm. But I
>>> strongly suspect that the overwhelmingly primary motivation on moving the
>>> pump to the tank was consolidating more parts into fewer assemblies to be
>>> installed into the vehicle.
>>
>> no, its vapor lock avoidance. if the pump is at the top of a long suction
>> column, the liquid in the column can separate and once there's vapor,
>> pumping is seriously impaired. you could draw from the bottom of the
>> tank, but then you get guaranteed particle blockage and much greater
>> chance of damage.
>>
>
>Vapor lock was not a problem when electric fuel pumps for fuel injected
>engines were not integrated in the fuel tank, so it doesn't make sense to
>make a change for a problem that didn't exist. Vapor lock could occur in
>the old mechanical fuel pumps that produced less than 10 PSI. Electric
>fuel pumps for fuel injected engines run over 40 PSI so vapor lock is not a
>problem.
>
Not totally true. Vapour lock/Cavitation on the INLET side of the pump
HAS been a problem with electric fuel pumps, both carbureted and (more
commonly) fuel injected. The fuel at reduced pressure on the inlet
boils at a significantly reduced temperature - and pumps have a lot of
trouble pumping vapour.
>Bill Putney's explanation is much more feasible.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
<rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
>"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>news:MdqdndoTpso0xNrVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.n et...
>> Bill Putney wrote:
><snipped>
>>> The bathing of the pump in fuel certainly doesn't do it any harm. But I
>>> strongly suspect that the overwhelmingly primary motivation on moving the
>>> pump to the tank was consolidating more parts into fewer assemblies to be
>>> installed into the vehicle.
>>
>> no, its vapor lock avoidance. if the pump is at the top of a long suction
>> column, the liquid in the column can separate and once there's vapor,
>> pumping is seriously impaired. you could draw from the bottom of the
>> tank, but then you get guaranteed particle blockage and much greater
>> chance of damage.
>>
>
>Vapor lock was not a problem when electric fuel pumps for fuel injected
>engines were not integrated in the fuel tank, so it doesn't make sense to
>make a change for a problem that didn't exist. Vapor lock could occur in
>the old mechanical fuel pumps that produced less than 10 PSI. Electric
>fuel pumps for fuel injected engines run over 40 PSI so vapor lock is not a
>problem.
>
Not totally true. Vapour lock/Cavitation on the INLET side of the pump
HAS been a problem with electric fuel pumps, both carbureted and (more
commonly) fuel injected. The fuel at reduced pressure on the inlet
boils at a significantly reduced temperature - and pumps have a lot of
trouble pumping vapour.
>Bill Putney's explanation is much more feasible.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
#144
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB4C7583370Ategger@208.90.168.18...
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
> news:9p-dnYVndtpdy9rVnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
>>
>> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9AB3CB39BB914tegger@208.90.168.18...
>>> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote in
>>> news:FNWdnWduiuxhqNvVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@comcast.com:
>>>
>>>> Gas stations generally filter the fuel before
>>>> delivering it to vehicles, so it is not likely that the rust came
>>>> from the gas station.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gas dispensers (pumps) have a sort of basket filter and nothing more.
>>> The screen on the filter is fairly crude, maybe four times smaller
>>> than a window screen. Small rust particles could easily get through
>>> that, but would be caught by the sock, which is a much finer mesh
>>> than the pump filter.
>>>
>>> Having said all that, the gas station tanks I've seen appear not to
>>> be made
>>> of metal. Maybe they do have a metal inner lining. But if they did,
>>> these would either be awfully big stampings or have lots of
>>> leak-prone weld seams. Anybody know for sure?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 2 big fuel dispenser brands around here are Gilbarco and Tokheim,
>
>
>
>
> In my neck of the wodds it seems to be mostly Gilbarco.
>
>
>
>> and
>> it looks most of their models take fuel filters like these
>> http://www.jmesales.com/department/1888/1/Filters.aspx
>
>
>
> These look nothing like the pump filters I was shown. The filters I saw
> more resembled a larger and somewhat coarser version of the basket
> filter that goes in some Toyotas' windshield washer reservoir filler
> necks.
>
>
>
>> so my guess is
>> that in addtion to the pickup screen/sock, they also have a
>> replaceable filter. Of course, that assumes that gas stations replace
>> the filters on a periodic basis and that there is no bypass mechanism
>> if flow through the filter is diminished.
>
>
>
> It was explained to me that the primary problem with underground tanks
> is not dirt or rust, but stirred-up water in freshly-filled tanks.
> Apparently tanks are supposed to be taken offline for a couple of hours
> to let water settle out, but nobody actually does that. Gas stations do
> not filter water out, it seems.
>
>
>
>>
>> The tanks being installed around here appear to be made of fiberglass
>> like the ones on this site: http://www.rng.com/rng/zcl/rngss31.html
>
>
>
> I see similar ones, but the ones I see are a much lighter green, even
> almost white.
>
>
>
> --
> Tegger
>
I suspect that most, if not all, of the underground tanks around here were
changed over to the fiberglass kind because the penalties and cleanup costs
from a leaking underground storage tank could easily exceed the cost of
installing a newer tank with leak detection sensors.
It doesn't look like any tanks are taken off-line here either, probably
because they don't want to lose the income.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
#145
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 20:48:01 -0400, Commentator wrote:
>> In other words, it seems to me that lowering assembly costs would be the
>> primary reason for mounting the fuel pump in the tank, and reducing the
>> phenomenon you are describing would be a secondary side benefit.
>
> I would think not just assembly costs, but overall costs - a pump n the
> tank, I would think, should be able to utilize a cheaper and lighter
> casing as it does not need to stand up to the elements any longer. FWIW,
> it would also result in fewer connection points outside the tank, thereby
> allowing for fewer failure points.
Unfortunately, they are on the top of the tank, and dirt collects there.
Then the dirt gets wet in the rain and corrodes the send/return tubes. I
had to pull the tank on my Supra 3 times, and we used kid gloves around
the fitting, since they were pretty 'tender'.
>> In other words, it seems to me that lowering assembly costs would be the
>> primary reason for mounting the fuel pump in the tank, and reducing the
>> phenomenon you are describing would be a secondary side benefit.
>
> I would think not just assembly costs, but overall costs - a pump n the
> tank, I would think, should be able to utilize a cheaper and lighter
> casing as it does not need to stand up to the elements any longer. FWIW,
> it would also result in fewer connection points outside the tank, thereby
> allowing for fewer failure points.
Unfortunately, they are on the top of the tank, and dirt collects there.
Then the dirt gets wet in the rain and corrodes the send/return tubes. I
had to pull the tank on my Supra 3 times, and we used kid gloves around
the fitting, since they were pretty 'tender'.
#146
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>
>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>> off the line, too.
>
> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
> dirt-catching qualities.
I don't know about that...
If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
every 6,000 miles...)
I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
the stock air box.
>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>
>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>> off the line, too.
>
> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
> dirt-catching qualities.
I don't know about that...
If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear, and
most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
The key is keeping the filter oiled. Their recommendation was 12 months or
12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
every 6,000 miles...)
I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
the stock air box.
#147
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:18:39 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> why is everyone so hung up on immersion? gasoline isn't exactly the
>>>> greatest cooling liquid because it has a low specific heat capacity.
>>>> what's important is circulation /within/ the pump, not /without/.
>>> So on one hand, you're saying gasoline flowing through the pump is
>>> enough to cool it, and then you say gas isn't efficient enough at
>>> cooling?
>>>
>>> Stop and think...maybe that's why they put them in the tank.
>>>
>>> Put the ball peen hammer away.
>>>
>>>
>> lack of comprehension. projection of own inadequacy. get help.
>
>
> You can't even remember what you said 5 posts ago,,,
au contraire, that's /your/ problem. and worse, you can't even use google.
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:18:39 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> why is everyone so hung up on immersion? gasoline isn't exactly the
>>>> greatest cooling liquid because it has a low specific heat capacity.
>>>> what's important is circulation /within/ the pump, not /without/.
>>> So on one hand, you're saying gasoline flowing through the pump is
>>> enough to cool it, and then you say gas isn't efficient enough at
>>> cooling?
>>>
>>> Stop and think...maybe that's why they put them in the tank.
>>>
>>> Put the ball peen hammer away.
>>>
>>>
>> lack of comprehension. projection of own inadequacy. get help.
>
>
> You can't even remember what you said 5 posts ago,,,
au contraire, that's /your/ problem. and worse, you can't even use google.
#148
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:08:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:26:48 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Bet you like hitting yourself in the head with a ball-peen hammer,
>>>>> too...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> please try to think rationally for a moment - you're again projecting a
>>>> problem /you/ have, onto a third party.
>>> Not at all. After all, you keep responding, don't you?
>>>
>>>
>> you'll never have a chance of fixing a problem if you don't realize you
>> have one. you have a problem. go fix it.
>
>
> I'm trying, but you keep coming back for more...
>
>
no, i'm serious. you need to work with a professional.
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 06:08:53 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>
>> hachiroku wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:26:48 -0700, jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Bet you like hitting yourself in the head with a ball-peen hammer,
>>>>> too...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> please try to think rationally for a moment - you're again projecting a
>>>> problem /you/ have, onto a third party.
>>> Not at all. After all, you keep responding, don't you?
>>>
>>>
>> you'll never have a chance of fixing a problem if you don't realize you
>> have one. you have a problem. go fix it.
>
>
> I'm trying, but you keep coming back for more...
>
>
no, i'm serious. you need to work with a professional.
#149
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Ray O wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:RPCdnYTxjp98-trVnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Ray O wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:MdqdndoTpso0xNrVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>> <snipped>
>>>>> The bathing of the pump in fuel certainly doesn't do it any harm. But
>>>>> I strongly suspect that the overwhelmingly primary motivation on moving
>>>>> the pump to the tank was consolidating more parts into fewer assemblies
>>>>> to be installed into the vehicle.
>>>> no, its vapor lock avoidance. if the pump is at the top of a long
>>>> suction column, the liquid in the column can separate and once there's
>>>> vapor, pumping is seriously impaired. you could draw from the bottom of
>>>> the tank, but then you get guaranteed particle blockage and much greater
>>>> chance of damage.
>>>>
>>> Vapor lock was not a problem when electric fuel pumps for fuel injected
>>> engines were not integrated in the fuel tank, so it doesn't make sense to
>>> make a change for a problem that didn't exist. Vapor lock could occur in
>>> the old mechanical fuel pumps that produced less than 10 PSI. Electric
>>> fuel pumps for fuel injected engines run over 40 PSI so vapor lock is not
>>> a problem.
>> i'm talking about the sucking side, not the pushing side. if you suck
>> hard enough on any liquid, the column separates. if it's a liquid full of
>> volatiles, especially on a hot day at high altitude, you'll not have to
>> suck very hard. hence you attempt to keep the column rise as close to
>> zero as possible. putting the pump down in the tank achieves exactly
>> that.
>
> I have no experience with fluid dynamics so I'll have to take your word
> about the phenomenon. I would imagine that while 40+ PSI is enough to
> prevent vapor lock on the pushing side,
the pushing side isn't the problem - as you say, line pressure cures all.
> it isn't enough to cause the column
> separation that you are describing since I've never heard of that happening
> either. Wouldn't increasing the diameter of the suction side reduce the
> pressure and therefore the tendency of the column to separte? If so, it
> seems like that would be a simpler solution than re-designing the fuel pump,
> tank, and mounting hardware.
doesn't work, unfortunately.
>
> In other words, it seems to me that lowering assembly costs would be the
> primary reason for mounting the fuel pump in the tank, and reducing the
> phenomenon you are describing would be a secondary side benefit.
other way about. it's got to work first, cut costs a [close] second.
you could have longer suction lines with minimal rise back in the old
days of block-mounted mechanical fuel pumps, but those tanks were open
to atmosphere and thus not subject to vacuum like they are today. once
you start sucking hard, especially on a warm day, from a tank that's
already at negative pressure, you only need evolution of a small vapor
bubble to cause a major fuel delivery problem. making sure practically
/all/ the fuel delivery line is pressurized is the cure, and we now know
the best way to achieve that.
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:RPCdnYTxjp98-trVnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>> Ray O wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:MdqdndoTpso0xNrVnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> Bill Putney wrote:
>>> <snipped>
>>>>> The bathing of the pump in fuel certainly doesn't do it any harm. But
>>>>> I strongly suspect that the overwhelmingly primary motivation on moving
>>>>> the pump to the tank was consolidating more parts into fewer assemblies
>>>>> to be installed into the vehicle.
>>>> no, its vapor lock avoidance. if the pump is at the top of a long
>>>> suction column, the liquid in the column can separate and once there's
>>>> vapor, pumping is seriously impaired. you could draw from the bottom of
>>>> the tank, but then you get guaranteed particle blockage and much greater
>>>> chance of damage.
>>>>
>>> Vapor lock was not a problem when electric fuel pumps for fuel injected
>>> engines were not integrated in the fuel tank, so it doesn't make sense to
>>> make a change for a problem that didn't exist. Vapor lock could occur in
>>> the old mechanical fuel pumps that produced less than 10 PSI. Electric
>>> fuel pumps for fuel injected engines run over 40 PSI so vapor lock is not
>>> a problem.
>> i'm talking about the sucking side, not the pushing side. if you suck
>> hard enough on any liquid, the column separates. if it's a liquid full of
>> volatiles, especially on a hot day at high altitude, you'll not have to
>> suck very hard. hence you attempt to keep the column rise as close to
>> zero as possible. putting the pump down in the tank achieves exactly
>> that.
>
> I have no experience with fluid dynamics so I'll have to take your word
> about the phenomenon. I would imagine that while 40+ PSI is enough to
> prevent vapor lock on the pushing side,
the pushing side isn't the problem - as you say, line pressure cures all.
> it isn't enough to cause the column
> separation that you are describing since I've never heard of that happening
> either. Wouldn't increasing the diameter of the suction side reduce the
> pressure and therefore the tendency of the column to separte? If so, it
> seems like that would be a simpler solution than re-designing the fuel pump,
> tank, and mounting hardware.
doesn't work, unfortunately.
>
> In other words, it seems to me that lowering assembly costs would be the
> primary reason for mounting the fuel pump in the tank, and reducing the
> phenomenon you are describing would be a secondary side benefit.
other way about. it's got to work first, cut costs a [close] second.
you could have longer suction lines with minimal rise back in the old
days of block-mounted mechanical fuel pumps, but those tanks were open
to atmosphere and thus not subject to vacuum like they are today. once
you start sucking hard, especially on a warm day, from a tank that's
already at negative pressure, you only need evolution of a small vapor
bubble to cause a major fuel delivery problem. making sure practically
/all/ the fuel delivery line is pressurized is the cure, and we now know
the best way to achieve that.
#150
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Repeatedly Running On A Low Tank?
Hachiroku 繝上メ繝繧ッ wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>
>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>> off the line, too.
>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>> dirt-catching qualities.
>
>
> I don't know about that...
>
> If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
> installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>
> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear,
subjective waffle. define. quantify.
> and
> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
no, 2-stroke does not necessarily mean wear.
>
> The key is keeping the filter oiled.
1. the pores remain the same size, regardless of oil content. that
defines particle size.
2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's
why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the
same regardless of flow rate.
> Their recommendation was 12 months or
> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
> every 6,000 miles...)
>
> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
> the stock air box.
that's not quantitative.
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:24:56 -0400, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>>> I dunno about the K&N filters...
>>>
>>> I had a '95 Tercel, and got a cold air intake for it for $50. Now, I
>>> didn't put a K&N on it, but it was a similar filter, and my gas mileage
>>> went from ~40 to ~45 MPG. And I did notice a better throttle response
>>> off the line, too.
>> And more dirt was ingested by the engine, which is OK as long as you
>> realize the tradeoffs in making the decision to use it. Problem is, most
>> people believe the advertising hype but are ignorant of its inferior
>> dirt-catching qualities.
>
>
> I don't know about that...
>
> If you read the instructions, you soak the filter with oil before
> installing it. The oil helps the material catch dirt.
>
> I had an old Yamaha MC that had a foam and oil filter, and it was a dirt
> bike to boot. At about 50,000 miles I tore the engine down, bored and
> honed and fitted a new piston and rings. There wasn't a lot of wear,
subjective waffle. define. quantify.
> and
> most of what was there was from being a 2 stroke.
no, 2-stroke does not necessarily mean wear.
>
> The key is keeping the filter oiled.
1. the pores remain the same size, regardless of oil content. that
defines particle size.
2. oil filters let though more dirt as the flow rate increases. that's
why paper filters are used so much these days - filtration remains the
same regardless of flow rate.
> Their recommendation was 12 months or
> 12,000 miles, I did it every other oil change (as Dim beam can tell you,
> every 6,000 miles...)
>
> I would also remove the tube and have a look, and it was no dirtier than
> the stock air box.
that's not quantitative.