In-the-tank fuel pumps cause death and destruction

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Moats wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Thomas Moats wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Denny" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Thomas Moats" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>><snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>If you have about a week to wait for the fuel to tranfer........
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No,, about half an hour maximum will empty a 72 liter tank - and
> >>>>>>totally unmonitored, so you can do another job while it is being
> >>>>>>drained. The schrader valve is removed to remove a significant amount
> >>>>>>of restriction from the line.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>><snip>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>That is bull.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Actually, no it's not. It works great as long as you have a working fuel
> >>>>pump.
> >>>>
> >>>>Denny
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>If your fuel pump is working why would you would you drain it that way? It
> >
> > is
> >
> >>>very time consuming. You will not pull 72 liters or 19 gallons in a half
> >
> > hour.
> >
> >>>
> >>I believe the original poster said transfer pump, not the car's fuel
> >>pump. That method would work just fine.
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> >>
> >
> > Yes he was referring to a transfer pump. Even with a transfer pump, he will
not
> > remove 19 gallons or 72 liters in a half an hour. The lines are too small in
> > diameter. There is restriction from both the pump in the tank and fuel
filter.
> > Then once the return line is no longer under fluid the possibility of
sucking
> > air if the regulator is of an open center design. Which means you can no
longer
> > pump fluid.
> >
> >
>
> I thought I could find a flow table with a quick search, but no luck
> yet. I think you'll find that even a 1/4" tube will flow a lot more
> gasoline that you might guess. 19 gallons in 30 minutes is only 0.63
> GPM, and that is really a very low flow rate given any pressure at all.
>
Well lets do the math. As I stated in a another post it takes about 7 minutes to
fill a 2 gallon can from the schrader valve on my car. That is 3.5 minutes per 1
gallon with a stock OEM pump. 3.5 minutes x 19 gallons is 66.5 minutes. The
pump in my Crown Vic is rated at 21 GPH. It delivers out the schrader valve at
just under 19 GPH. That is why I say bull-**** to the claim of pumping out 19
gallons or 72 liters in half an hour. It can not be done with a stock pump in
the tank, and it cant be done with a transfer pump pulling the fuel out the
schrader valve. That is especially true if the pump in the tank does not work,
it will provide too much resistance to the flow and most likely cause the
plastic fuel lines to collapse.

> Matt
>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Moats wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Thomas Moats wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Denny" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Thomas Moats" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>><snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>If you have about a week to wait for the fuel to tranfer........
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No,, about half an hour maximum will empty a 72 liter tank - and
> >>>>>>totally unmonitored, so you can do another job while it is being
> >>>>>>drained. The schrader valve is removed to remove a significant amount
> >>>>>>of restriction from the line.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>><snip>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>That is bull.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Actually, no it's not. It works great as long as you have a working fuel
> >>>>pump.
> >>>>
> >>>>Denny
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>If your fuel pump is working why would you would you drain it that way? It
> >
> > is
> >
> >>>very time consuming. You will not pull 72 liters or 19 gallons in a half
> >
> > hour.
> >
> >>>
> >>I believe the original poster said transfer pump, not the car's fuel
> >>pump. That method would work just fine.
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> >>
> >
> > Yes he was referring to a transfer pump. Even with a transfer pump, he will
not
> > remove 19 gallons or 72 liters in a half an hour. The lines are too small in
> > diameter. There is restriction from both the pump in the tank and fuel
filter.
> > Then once the return line is no longer under fluid the possibility of
sucking
> > air if the regulator is of an open center design. Which means you can no
longer
> > pump fluid.
> >
> >
>
> I thought I could find a flow table with a quick search, but no luck
> yet. I think you'll find that even a 1/4" tube will flow a lot more
> gasoline that you might guess. 19 gallons in 30 minutes is only 0.63
> GPM, and that is really a very low flow rate given any pressure at all.
>
Well lets do the math. As I stated in a another post it takes about 7 minutes to
fill a 2 gallon can from the schrader valve on my car. That is 3.5 minutes per 1
gallon with a stock OEM pump. 3.5 minutes x 19 gallons is 66.5 minutes. The
pump in my Crown Vic is rated at 21 GPH. It delivers out the schrader valve at
just under 19 GPH. That is why I say bull-**** to the claim of pumping out 19
gallons or 72 liters in half an hour. It can not be done with a stock pump in
the tank, and it cant be done with a transfer pump pulling the fuel out the
schrader valve. That is especially true if the pump in the tank does not work,
it will provide too much resistance to the flow and most likely cause the
plastic fuel lines to collapse.

> Matt
>

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Thomas Moats wrote:
>
> > Bull****
> > Won't work
> > Slow
>
> Well, Thomas, we're arguing from what we've done and what's worked. You,
> on the other hand, are insisting that it couldn't possibly work.
> Difference is, we've done it and it has worked.

The claim was to be able to pump out 19 gallons in 1/2 hour through the fuel
pressure port on the fuel rail. It can not be done. The pump on a Crown vic is
rated at 20GPH. To make the claim true you would need to at least double the GPH
and take away the normal restrictions of the fuel system. I did not say you can
not pump fuel from the pressure port, I do it on a regularly. I'll say it again,
it takes on average 7 minutes to fill a 2 gallon fuel container. Do the math.
The claim is bull-****.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004, Thomas Moats wrote:
>
> > Bull****
> > Won't work
> > Slow
>
> Well, Thomas, we're arguing from what we've done and what's worked. You,
> on the other hand, are insisting that it couldn't possibly work.
> Difference is, we've done it and it has worked.

The claim was to be able to pump out 19 gallons in 1/2 hour through the fuel
pressure port on the fuel rail. It can not be done. The pump on a Crown vic is
rated at 20GPH. To make the claim true you would need to at least double the GPH
and take away the normal restrictions of the fuel system. I did not say you can
not pump fuel from the pressure port, I do it on a regularly. I'll say it again,
it takes on average 7 minutes to fill a 2 gallon fuel container. Do the math.
The claim is bull-****.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How many cars have you heard of that have exploded or caught fire from
>>>an in-tank fuel pump? In my case, the answer is zero so I don't lose
>>>much sleep over it.
>>
>>Well *sure* you say that *now*. But would you have wanted to be the
>>first engineer in history to propose doing that? 8^)
>
>
> I'd have no qualms being that engineer, and here's why: Gasoline is
> combustible in only a narrow ratio range with air. Bored suburban kids
> used to get empty paint cans from the hardware store, put a barbecue
> sparker with long leads in the side of the can, use an eyedropper to put
> two drops of gasoline in the can, hammer on the lid, stretch the sparker
> leads and hit the button to cause a loud noise and a flying can lid.
>
> One drop of gasoline didn't work. Three or more didn't work. TWO drops --
> and only two drops -- worked.

Were you by chance a bored suburban kid, or were you the kid behind the
counter at the hardware store (or both)?

> The ratio of fuel to air is always much too high (or, if you prefer,
> the ratio of air to fuel is always much too low) for these hallucinatory
> panoramas of firy death some people (even engineers, amazingly enough)
> have been talking about in this thread. That's why they don't happen.

Ouch!!

Forget for the moment that you are technically right. You think you
could convince the management, lawyers, insurance companies, and stock
holders that, statistically over the lifetime of 20 million vehicles,
the perfect conditions resulting in huge publicity and multi-million
dollar lawsuits would never be met - not even one time? You know -
seriously - taking your paint cans and eyedroppers into the conference
room just might do it.

Reminds of the engineer that told me I was over-reacting when I went
ballistic when a 3 foot long flame shot out of a known leaking hydrogen
fitting due to a welder welding above it and showering down sparks - oh
- he had draped the hydorgen equipment with a canvas tarp before he
started "to be safe". He was telling me that the conditions for
hydrogen exploding were so specific that the chances of it happening
were extremely small. The funny thing is that hydrogen in a process
oven not 10 feet from that very spot where the flame shot out had
exploded, blowing the door off of the oven so hard that it moved a 40
ton press a few inches when it struck it. Fortunately, no one was
standing in front of the door at the time. Here's the kicker: That
incident happened - not *AFTER* the 3 foot flame incident, but 3 years
*BEFORE* that - and he still told me I was over-reacting - that an
explosion could never happen.

Saying "Oh - that could never happen - let's go ahead and do it" is how
you end up on the 6 o'clock news. 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Bill Putney wrote:
>
>
>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How many cars have you heard of that have exploded or caught fire from
>>>an in-tank fuel pump? In my case, the answer is zero so I don't lose
>>>much sleep over it.
>>
>>Well *sure* you say that *now*. But would you have wanted to be the
>>first engineer in history to propose doing that? 8^)
>
>
> I'd have no qualms being that engineer, and here's why: Gasoline is
> combustible in only a narrow ratio range with air. Bored suburban kids
> used to get empty paint cans from the hardware store, put a barbecue
> sparker with long leads in the side of the can, use an eyedropper to put
> two drops of gasoline in the can, hammer on the lid, stretch the sparker
> leads and hit the button to cause a loud noise and a flying can lid.
>
> One drop of gasoline didn't work. Three or more didn't work. TWO drops --
> and only two drops -- worked.

Were you by chance a bored suburban kid, or were you the kid behind the
counter at the hardware store (or both)?

> The ratio of fuel to air is always much too high (or, if you prefer,
> the ratio of air to fuel is always much too low) for these hallucinatory
> panoramas of firy death some people (even engineers, amazingly enough)
> have been talking about in this thread. That's why they don't happen.

Ouch!!

Forget for the moment that you are technically right. You think you
could convince the management, lawyers, insurance companies, and stock
holders that, statistically over the lifetime of 20 million vehicles,
the perfect conditions resulting in huge publicity and multi-million
dollar lawsuits would never be met - not even one time? You know -
seriously - taking your paint cans and eyedroppers into the conference
room just might do it.

Reminds of the engineer that told me I was over-reacting when I went
ballistic when a 3 foot long flame shot out of a known leaking hydrogen
fitting due to a welder welding above it and showering down sparks - oh
- he had draped the hydorgen equipment with a canvas tarp before he
started "to be safe". He was telling me that the conditions for
hydrogen exploding were so specific that the chances of it happening
were extremely small. The funny thing is that hydrogen in a process
oven not 10 feet from that very spot where the flame shot out had
exploded, blowing the door off of the oven so hard that it moved a 40
ton press a few inches when it struck it. Fortunately, no one was
standing in front of the door at the time. Here's the kicker: That
incident happened - not *AFTER* the 3 foot flame incident, but 3 years
*BEFORE* that - and he still told me I was over-reacting - that an
explosion could never happen.

Saying "Oh - that could never happen - let's go ahead and do it" is how
you end up on the 6 o'clock news. 8^)

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Moats" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The same sheet-metal that makes the "fire-wall" also separates you from
>> the fuel
>> tank.
>>
>
> Due to the lawyers I don't believe we have firewalls any more...... that
> would insinuate that a fire is possible. They are now called bulkheads.
> Bob
That's odd, my Service Manual still refers to it as the 'firewall'.

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Moats" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The same sheet-metal that makes the "fire-wall" also separates you from
>> the fuel
>> tank.
>>
>
> Due to the lawyers I don't believe we have firewalls any more...... that
> would insinuate that a fire is possible. They are now called bulkheads.
> Bob
That's odd, my Service Manual still refers to it as the 'firewall'.

Thomas Moats wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Thomas Moats wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Full_Name" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:00:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Have you all observed that not one automobile has a drain valve installed
>>>>>to the fuel tank?
>>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>Most diesel tanks do. Most diesel engines also have water separators
>
> somewhere
>
>>>in the fuel system. There is a physical difference between gasoline and
>
> diesel
>
>>>fuel as to why.
>>
>>Actually, their isn't. Water doesn't mix with either.
>
>
> Your correct, water does not mix in either. Diesel does not evaporate like
> gasoline which is the physical difference I was referring, and the fuel systems
> are not required by law to have an closed evaporative system like gasoline tanks
> have. Because of this most if not all diesel tanks are exposed to large amounts
> of outside atmosphere which contains water which condenses in the tank.

But that isn't the reason that diesels take water in the fuel much more
seriously. The reason is that diesels have very high pressure injector
pumps. These pumps operate with very tight tolerances and any water
that gets into them is very likely to cause instantaneous failure of a
very expensive piece of hardware. That is why diesel engines have much
better filtration sytems (dirt is as bad as water obviously) and take
extreme measures to keep water out of the injector pump.


Matt

Thomas Moats wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Thomas Moats wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Full_Name" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 23:00:03 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Have you all observed that not one automobile has a drain valve installed
>>>>>to the fuel tank?
>>>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>Most diesel tanks do. Most diesel engines also have water separators
>
> somewhere
>
>>>in the fuel system. There is a physical difference between gasoline and
>
> diesel
>
>>>fuel as to why.
>>
>>Actually, their isn't. Water doesn't mix with either.
>
>
> Your correct, water does not mix in either. Diesel does not evaporate like
> gasoline which is the physical difference I was referring, and the fuel systems
> are not required by law to have an closed evaporative system like gasoline tanks
> have. Because of this most if not all diesel tanks are exposed to large amounts
> of outside atmosphere which contains water which condenses in the tank.

But that isn't the reason that diesels take water in the fuel much more
seriously. The reason is that diesels have very high pressure injector
pumps. These pumps operate with very tight tolerances and any water
that gets into them is very likely to cause instantaneous failure of a
very expensive piece of hardware. That is why diesel engines have much
better filtration sytems (dirt is as bad as water obviously) and take
extreme measures to keep water out of the injector pump.


Matt