Sandwich Plate Adapters for Bypass Filters

[mangusta1969]

RacersWholesale is a pretty good source of sandwich plate adapters and oil lines from several different manufacturers. Note that these plates have one port blocked off and are intended for one way feed of oil at the base of the engine's oil filter. With this type of adapter providing a source of pressurized oil to the bypass filter, oil filtered by the bypass filter should be returned to a low or no pressure area of the engine.

Site url:

http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/accusump.htm


Most of these plates do not have any restrictor/bypass valves, such as would be used with a two port set up with an external oil cooler.

A second url at the same site:

http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/jiftite-a.htm

has some interesting flow information for couplings of different diameters. If the stated manufacturer information is correct on this url, a -6 fitting and 3 foot length of -6 hose (6/16 or 3/8 inch ID) flows only 6.5 gpm of fluid at 20 psi input pressure. With the same 20 psi input pressure, a -10 fitting and 3 foot length of of -10 hose (10/16 or 5/8 inch ID) flows 20.2 gpm. This indicates that less than a doubling of size in the oil piping results in more than three times the flow capacity under the same conditions.

I have not purchased any adapter plates from RacersWholesale, but I have used them in the past for other parts and I was impressed with their speed of service, range of equipment, and competitive prices.

Hope this information helps someone.

Steve

 

[Gary Allan]

It took me a while ..the link leads to Accusump a pressure compensation device ..but I found them. MOCAL seems to be the only one that offers 1/2" ported sandwich. Expensive ..but with an integrated thermostat

..it's not too bad.


Those figures don't quite add up for me on their charts. The 10 should be 2.77 the diameter of the -6 ..so it can't have triple the flow anyway that I can figure it.

...Ah!! the -10 was a two foot ..the -6 was a three foot length..

[ January 03, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Gary Allan ]

 

[mangusta1969]

Sorry if I confused anyone on the urls in my previous post.

The first page that I referred to above
http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/accusump.htm

has 4 Canton sandwich plate adapters at the bottom of the page. Each of these adapters supports 1/2 inch NPT fittings and costs $45-$46.

At the bottom of the same page are links to Permacool and Mocal adapters. The Permacool adapters (PER part numbers) cost $25 each; the Mocal units are a little pricey, at $80 each. Like the Canton adapters, the Mocal units have 1/2 NPT threads; the Permacool adapters use 3/8 NPT fittings.

Because of the low flow rates involved, you do not need to use large oil lines/fittings with a bypass filter. As an example, the EPS-10 Oilguard unit (.25 GPM rated flow) has 1/4 inch NPT fittings on it.

To make this posting a little more complete, here are some Frantz sandwich adapters.

https://vs01.tvsecure.com/~vs01037/orders/index.htm

Depending on size, these Frantz adapters cost $55-$65 and are intended strictly for use as an oil feed point for a bypass filter. Frantz has adapters for almost any size oil filter mounting.

And here are some more sandwich adapters from Jegs:

http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/CategoryDisplay?cgmenbr=361&cgrfnbr=758

As previously discussed in this forum, be careful in your sandwich adapters selection for bypass filters. I would not recommend the use of any adapters that force all oil for the full flow filter to go through a small restriction (i.e., anything smaller than 1/2 inch ID).

 

[mangusta1969]

Gary,

Thanks for catching the 2 foot vs 3 foot difference in that web page reference that I used above:

http://www.racerpartswholesale.com/jiftite-a.htm

That length difference in the piping really invalidates the flow comparison that I described, as there is some increased wall friction for the longer length of pipe. Instead, look at the same page and note the diameter and flow figures at 20 psi for two feet of piping for -8 and -10 hose/fittings in the bottom two tables:

-8 (1/2 inch ID) 11.62 GPM
-10 (5/8 inch ID) 20.25 GPM

If the manufacturer figures are correct, a 25% increase in ID (.5 to .625 inches), causes an increase of 74% in GPM flow.

That was the real point I was trying to make, because the relationship of flow at a given pressure to pipe diameter is not linear, even a small restriction somewhere in the oil's flow path has a big effect on the maximum flow capacity at that pressure.

Gary, I am not sure where your 2.77 figure came from in the -10 to -6 pipe size comparison above. The -10 pipe (.625 inches ID) is 1.67 times larger than the -6 pipe (.375 inches ID); this is a 67% increase in size. Anyway, thanks for the catch and let's hope I am a little closer to the mark this time.

Steve

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

I am not sure where your 2.77 figure came from in the -10 to -6 pipe size comparison above.

---

I'm trying to duplicate it myself for the second time.

I dispenced with the fractions and just did by magnetude. I also have long ago simplified the piR2 formula to .785 of a square of the same diameter/side.
Hence I got 78.5 square inches for a 10" diameter hose and 28.26 square inches for a 6" diameter hose. 78.5/28.26 is a ratio of 2.777778 .....which should remain constant for whatever x you plug into it as long as the ratio of 6:10 in diameter is maintained.

I checked my math a few times ..but my premise could be flawed. I rarely do such calculations anymore and am prone to "simple and conceptual" mistakes.

I do like how the site in question did post seperate data for valved application, incorporating the "valve constant" into the mix.


btw- thanks for the expanded view of the link. I've really got to get my medication changed

. Maybe my blood sugar is out of whack today

 

[mangusta1969]

I know that feeling.

You are comparing areas (for which your math is correct - 2.77 is the ratio of the areas). The actual areas involved are .3067 sq inches to .1104 sq inches, though). I was just comparing the IDs (for which my math is correct - 1.25 is the ratio). You can't really use the differences in cross-sectional area OR the differences in ID of the pipe to compute the flow, however, so we just have to go with the manufacturer calculations (unless some fluids guy weighs in here).

The flow in a pipe or other small restrictions within a pipe system is really controlled by more more complicated formulas that take into account cross-sectional areas, density of the fluid, frictional losses due to fluid/pipe wall issues, the shape of the restriction, velocity of the fluid in the pipe, etc.

 

[Gary Allan]

Agreed

. It's not all that "one dimensional" as it is on the chaulkboard. I did have the opportunity in one of many gainful, but "not lasting long enough" careers, to actually learn the friction coefficients for certain conduits. Calculating flow through a concrete aquaduct over such and such a length at such and such a vertical drop over yadayada.

The interesting thing I found was the, what I call, "telescoping antenna" effect of fluid flow (keep in mind that I've never taken any formal physics). That is, the outermost layer contacts the friction of the outside of the conduit, is slowed, and creates turbulance that kinda cascades toward the center with decreasing impact, making the center most area of the flow the fastest.

Interesting stuff

..but I'm somewhat "stale" in working with it.

 

[msparks]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Agreed

The interesting thing I found was the, what I call, "telescoping antenna" effect of fluid flow (keep in mind that I've never taken any formal physics). That is, the outermost layer contacts the friction of the outside of the conduit, is slowed, and creates turbulance that kinda cascades toward the center with decreasing impact, making the center most area of the flow the fastest.

Interesting stuff

..but I'm somewhat "stale" in working with it.

---

Rivers have the same effect. If you've every been canoeing you will know that the center of the river is always faster. I would imagine that this principle works for all fluids. (unless it's teflon lined)then the opposite would be true