Is a fuel primer bulb legit?

[Dsanduril]

The Racor I have is the 215-230-245 series spin-on filter. I like the plunger pump. They make similar filters with a diaphragm pump, have not tried those. Also don't really know if they are available in other styles besides spin-on. The advantage, over a primer bulb is that you don't have two extra connections in the hose (or this whole discussion about legality/best practice/compatibility). The disadvantage is that the plunger screws into the top of the filter housing when not in use and has a rubber seal. That's an extra point where air can leak into the system, negating all that careful bleeding.

https://www.parker.com/Literature/EM...Filtration.pdf

[BlackHeron]

'Best Practices' and all...

"WEAR YOUR PFD:
Most drownings occur way out at sea, right? Wrong! Fact is, 9 out of 10 drownings occur in inland waters, most within a few feet of safety. Most of the victims owned PFDs, but they died without them. A wearable PFD can save your life, if you wear it.
If you haven't been wearing your PFD because of the way it makes you look or feel, there's good news. Today's PFDs fit better, look better and are easy to move around in.
One more thing. Before you shove off, make sure all on board are wearing PFDs. To work best, PFDs must be worn with all straps, zippers, and ties fastened. Tuck in any loose strap ends to avoid getting hung-up.
When you don't wear your PFD, the odds are against you. You're taking a chance on your life."

https://www.dco.uscg.mil/CG-ENG-4/PFDSel/

Slavishly following one guideline and demanding everyone else do so as well, while ignoring others.

How many people who get panty-bunches over a little thing like a primer bulb inline on a small recreational onboard dieael are also smokers? Drive even one MPH over posted the speed limit? Use an anchor ball dayshape when on the hook?

[zstine]

Originally Posted by rbk

Builders do not certify anything in part or whole. Independent testing agencies test components independently or as part of a system. UL for instance has listed components that will not be certified independently but will be UL compliant as part of a certified system. While it is the testing agencies job to certify components and systems it is the responsibility of the installer/manufacturer to comply with their recommendations. If manufacturers certified their own systems and components without third party independent testing there would be a major loophole to certify inadequate components.

Sorry this regulatory discussion is somewhat off topic. I think RBK and I are basically saying the same thing, but I just want to clarify any misunderstanding...

In the USA, Builders absolutely certify that the boat they built complies with regulations and there are checks in place to ensure manufactures don't lie about it (essentially the government certifies the manufacture and the manufacture certifies the boat). If you are a manufacturer, the laws are here:

https://www.uscgboating.org/regulati...s-handbook.php

Taken directly from the US Coast Guard link above: "While we encourage recreational boat owners to use the information for their benefit, compliance with the regulations is the responsibility of the boat manufacturers."

In the USA, there is no certification body that certifies the boat is compliant or even seaworthy like CE in Europe, though NMMA is voluntary and is basically ABYC cert. UL and other testing bodies can certify component parts on the boat and if the boat is required to have XYZ rated fuel tank, then the builder can buy one certified by UL or someone else OR the builder can, in most (all?) cases, test and certify the component themselves, though this would be very costly in some cases.

For a lengthy discussion on regulations see: https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ic-228104.html

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by BlackHeron

... How many people who get panty-bunches over a little thing like a primer bulb inline on a small recreational onboard diesel are also smokers? ...

Whilst I would admit to this hypocrisy, I would never, for instance, point out, much less argue, that smoking is not illegal.
Were I discuss the merits (I'm not so inclined), I would argue against the practice, as very worst practice.


And FWIW:
In Canada, The Construction Standards for Small Vessels (2010) - TP 1332 E, does apply to recreational vessels.
TP 1332 E ➥ https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafet...nu-521.htm#wb1

Section 7 Fuel Systems ➥ https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/marinesafet...u-521.htm#wb11
Specifies, in part:
7.4.2 Flexible fuel supply and return lines installed in the engine space must be USCG type A1 or A1-15 hose.
7.4.3 Flexible fuel supply and return lines installed outside of the engine space must be:
USCG type A1, A1-15, B1 or B1-15 hose on vessels of not more than 6 metres;
USCG type A1 or A1-15 hose on vessels of more than 6 metres.

[Dsanduril]

If you want to argue best practice, the USCG does not allow SAE J-1527 hose on any commercial vessel over 65' or carrying more than 12 passengers (regardless of length) other than as a 30" whip for flexibility at the equipment (46 CFR 182.720 and 182.130). For these uses the USCG requires an SAE J-1942 hose. Arguably then best practice would be to use the more robust J-1942 hose with its required steel braid jacket and the required J-1475 crimped end fittings (no barbs or hose clamps please). J-1527 is much less expensive, both hose and fittings, and this is the real reason the recreational boat business is allowed to use it. It sacrifices some level of safety for benefit of cost, but in the case of the recreational market the powers that be have determined that the risk:benefit is acceptable.

Parker makes their 221FR series hose that is both J-1527 and J-1942 compliant, carries the steel braid required in 46 CFR 182.720 and has the flame-spread and permeation characteristics of A1 hose (don't know about A1-15). At a real dealer it runs well north of USD10/ft, even on FleaBay it runs about twice what the same size J-1527 costs.

[olaf hart]

I carry a separate length of fuel line with a bulb in the middle.
CAV filters have a second inlet. I have a tap and a nipple on mine.
When I need to pump fuel through the system, just attach hose with the other end in a spare diesel container, open the tap, pump through system, close tap, detach, drain and store the hose in a plastic bag.
Voila..
It’s a once a year thing, just need it when I change the filters.

[CassidyNZ]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

That would be an extremely rare occurrence, odds of that happening are vanishingly small, happening twice?
To illustrate it, all automobiles that I know of are fuel injected, at lest the ones made in the last 30 or more years anyway, and as such that all have electric fuel pumps, vast majority of these pumps are actually located in the fuel tank.
I have never heard of a failure, which almost certainly would be an explosion and almost instantaneous SERIOUS fire

As others have said, if the bulb is above tank level, it cannot siphon. I’m always cautious about contesting anything Mainesail posts because normally his information is beyond reproach and high quality. But doing a logic test on the split bulb posted by Mainesail, I ask myself how does a bulb split like that? The only time the bulb is under pressure is when it is being squeezed. And if it split at that point, the “squeezer” would have a handful of diesel that would be a bit of a give-away of the problem.

At any other time that fuel is flowing the bulb is in a suction state. So was this split caused by suction? I guess that’s the implied cause. But the logic test asks how is that possible with the check valves in the bulb offering free flow through the bulb in a suction state and no vacuum to speak of - certainly not enough vacuum to split rubber. In the unlikely event there was vacuum present enough to split the bulb, the bulb would simply collapse.

The logic test further asks how did the engine run for long enough to spill 75 gallons of fuel before someone spotted a problem? Surely if the engine was running, it would stop within a very short time after the split occurred. So the boat owner would have a stopped engine and not check why? And if the engine wasn’t running, what would cause the bulb to split? Or was the bulb just passively sitting there and a split appeared in the rubber?

Anyway, those are just my mindless ramblings, fact is there is irrefutable evidence of a split bulb. However, one swallow does not a summer make. “An exception does not disprove a rule” and I agree with Jim Cate, the bulb in my boat is at the highest point in my fuel system, has been there for at least a dozen years that I know of, is still pliable and fully functional and should it fail, my engine will warn me pretty quickly.

Am I going to lose sleep over it? Not likely. The failure of a fuel bulb is probably just as rare as the failure of an electric fuel pump (and no I don’t have a scientific study to support that statement )

[FPNC]

The US Government created laws concerning installation of fuel systems in recreational vessels. These laws are classified in the 'Code of Federal Regulation' Specifically : 33 CFR, Sections 183.501–183.590C

The first sentence in the regulation is about applicability.

183.501 Applicability.

(a) This subpart applies to all boats that have gasoline engines, except
outboard engines, for electrical generation, mechanical power,
or propulsion.


Per the applicability, none of the requirements (Laws) in 33 CFR, Sections 183.501–183.590C apply to a recreational vessel powered with an inboard diesel engine.

ABYC regulations are only applied for compliance to meet ABYC certification or any 3rd party that may require ABYC compliance. ABYC regulations, while valuable, should not be confused with what is actual law in the USA.

[AKA-None]

And yes I always wear my pfd

[NorthCoastJoe]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

That would be an extremely rare occurrence, odds of that happening are vanishingly small, happening twice?
To illustrate it, all automobiles that I know of are fuel injected, at lest the ones made in the last 30 or more years anyway, and as such that all have electric fuel pumps, vast majority of these pumps are actually located in the fuel tank.
I have never heard of a failure, which almost certainly would be an explosion and almost instantaneous SERIOUS fire

They do fail I replaced mine in my truck, and no fire or explosion, the air-fuel ratio is too rich to ignite. Also, the gas tanks are a sealed system closed from the atmosphere environment.

[fred4936]

I knew I was going into a gray area, but I failed to see the many shades when I posted this! Thanks to all for bringing up so many aspects of this. I do like the concept of the bulb, especially now that the system is empty. It is currently lying in the bilge, with the tank in the starboard lazerette. From all the above, this is not an "A" list item, aside from getting it out if the bilge and making it the highest point in the system. I will correct that this week. If I do keep it, it will be a maintenance item. I do like the idea of the fuel filter with a built in pump. As mentioned, this would be a good troubleshooting tool as well.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by NorthCoastJoe

They do fail I replaced mine in my truck, and no fire or explosion, the air-fuel ratio is too rich to ignite. Also, the gas tanks are a sealed system closed from the atmosphere environment.

I replaced one too, also in my truck, actually it was part of a cartridge that included the fuel level sensor etc., it quit working, but didn’t burst into flames or melt anything, just quit working, everything eventually will fail, and given enough time and a large enough sample, anything that can happen eventually will, sort of like Catalytic convertor fires, in the beginning they happened, but mainstream auto manufacturers have learned how to prevent them, cause you just don’t hear of them anymore.

Just me, intentionally and knowingly including a weak link in a system just shouldn’t be done if there is another way, and a fuel bulb is such a weak link. It’s simply not approved for below deck use, and OK, so I’m not required to use the “good stuff” but I chose to, whatever that may be, recreational vessels aren’t required to carry an EPIRB, but I do, they are only required a couple of cheap dry chemical fire extinguishers, but I exceed that requirement as well, PFD’s, flares etc., and fuel systems. Every inch of my fuel line is A1-15. I could have gone to the auto part store and bought auto fuel hose, it would work and apparently isn’t illegal, but it’s no where near as good as A1 hose. Good meaning flame resistant and less chance of it being damaged and failure.

There are many, people who try to tell us we need all kinds of additional systems, that I believe we really don’t need, but to not use the best components available in a fuel system is foolish, but then I have scars over about 10% of my body from 3rd degree burns, so I am more afraid of fires than most people.
As a kid I flipped a farm tractor over on me and was trapped under it for I’d guess 30 min to an hour and was burnt from hot hydraulic fluid and of course soaked in fuel, watching the battery spark and waiting for the fire that thankfully never happened.
If International Harvester hadn’t used a fiberglass cover on the battery and had used sheet metal, I wouldn’t be alive now. They knew I think as it was the only pierce of fiberglass on the tractor. A savvy Engineer saved me.

[jimbunyard]

If they made them out of better material, say the same thing they make diaphragm pump diaphragms from (rubber/fabric laminations), I'd say yes.

The only ones I've seen are just rubber, which will eventually fail. On gas engines, the failure seems to be most most often hardening, I assume from volatiles being 'washed out' of the rubber, or possibly UV degradation.

As a reference point, I had one in a diesel application fail recently; it was 8 years old, mounted in the engine compartment (no UV), and didn't leak fuel (was mounted just above the fuel tank). Found that it had failed whilst doing the monthly engine running; the air leak killed the engine.

While investigating the cause the bulb crumbled in my hand, so I took it out, hooked the line directly to the primary filter and pumped the system back up with the (tedious, infernal, but reliable) lever on the lift pump. Didn't even need to bleed the engine...

Bought an electric pump (not yet installed), if memory serves, might have used the primer bulb 4 times in the 8 years it was in place

[kmacdonald]

Keep the primer bulb. I am assuming it's in place of an electric lift pump. Use it to fill filters and bleed the fuel system. Note: I don't use CG certified fuel line because better is available. The hose and fittings I use do not require clamps. Just push on. Same with my CNG hoses. It will be decades before the ABYC and CG catch up with the rest of industry, if ever.

I can give references to ACTUAL professionals if you would like them. Just send me a PM.

[fred4936]

I just used the bulb to prime the system. Worked well! So I will now replace the hoses so I can move it up where it can't leak into the bilge it it does break. I will also get a suitable hose to use in place of the bulb, and once it is out, will give it a visual inspection. It does feel supple, but is of unknown vintage. Will likely use the hose straight from tank to filter, then keep the bulb for priming. Having both seems like the way to go. Thanks again to all!