I'd propose that good engineering practice dictates at least two filtrations in any fluid system.
I propose this theory is not supported by science. (Sorry Don
)
Even the oil in our engines gets two filtrations, the screen at the pump then the fine paper element. And then it is rapidly re-filtered through these filters as the engine runs.
These are two different levels of "filtration" particle size. With this level of reasoning the oil filler neck can also be construed as a filter as it blocks large rocks from entering the system. The screen on the oil pump keeps large bits from damaging the pump. The oil filter keep particle sizes far smaller from reaching the engine bearings. Further, that final filter particle size restriction occurs only once in the engine system.
As for gasoline, ditto. Our cars have a filter in the tank near the electric fuel pump, then a second filter for fine filtration in the engine bay. As the fuel injectors are oversupplied with fuel, the extra fuel goes back to the tank for yet another trip through the filters. So a modern car has at least two fuel filters doing repeated duty.
Again, there is a filter for the mechanical pump to keep from damaging it. The filter in the tank is not the particle size blocker for the injector nozzles.
Beside that, the flow back to the tank is an artifact of the pump system design for other reasons, pump durability and pressure regulation, not primarily for repeated filtration. Besides, where would a closed system add new larger particles that need to be routinely filtered?
Can anyone guess how many times gasoline is filtered during refining, during distribution, delivery to the gas station, and at the pump into our car. It is upwards of 20 times.
It is filtered that many times because it is an open system where particles can be introduced at each transfer point, not because the fuel needs inherent re-filtering. Gasoline does not make larger particle sizes of it own accord. If your carbs have a direct connection between where made and where used, you wouldn't need but one insurance filter for a particle size just smaller than will fit through the smallest fuel orifice in the carb.
You might want to think about fuel filtration in aviation practice, if you think one filtration is sufficient.
I do. I am a pilot. My airplane has a single micro mesh screen at the fuel pump that is checked yearly.
If you are talking again about fuel distribution filtering, that again is due to the "non-closed system" nature of distribution, not by any inherent property of fuel to create large particle sizes.
But if engineering practice is unconvincing, ...
I must reject your "engineering practice" theory as unsupported by engineering fact. You have drawn conclusions with incorrect observations, and unsupported reasons for "filters" as you found them.
...then turn to Mother Nature. How many filtration steps do your kidneys offer to your blood. It ain't just one, and it is certainly repeated. What about the air we breathe? First filtered by our nostril size, then by nose hairs, then by lung alveoli, etc.
So, if we turn to nature, then we should be able to ingest large amount of arsenic because other animals can without harm, right?
While apples and oranges do share a similar roundish shape, most would concur they are really quite different.
Talk to any doctor about a corollary between mechanical machines and biological organisms, and you will find a wide disparity in how they function and react. Their is also a large disparity as to how predictable their function is. A machine's components are put there for specific need (if based on science/physics). Whereas, biological devices are borne of chaos. The biological device "designs" that didn't work right were eliminated via evolution.
Further, the biological devices that you refer to are NOT absolute filters, they are statistical filters. To catch that last particle they need several trips through the system. It only takes one missed particle to block a slow jet, and it is not self repairing as a biological device often is.
So yes, stick in a tidy in-line filter, and feel good and proper about being sensible and thorough. Don.
Ah, I think we get the true message, here. It is all about feeling good and having faith that what you change is for the better. (Sound like a religious principle?) And what is "tidy" about making a plumber's nightmare and a gravity defying routing out of a once direct and free flowing fuel supply system?
Adding extra filtration to an absolute particle size blocker (beyond what will be blocked by the using system during function), is superfluous (aside from making the owner "feel good").
I suggest you might get the same benefit from the wearing the filter on a chain around your neck. That way, you can feel good about having a spare with you, "just in case".
Might I suggest using deductive reasoning rather than Abductive Reasoning?
Abduction
allows inferring a as an explanation of b. Because of this, abduction allows the precondition a to be inferred from the consequence b. Deduction and abduction thus differ in the direction in which a rule like "a entails b" is used for inference. As such abduction is formally equivalent to the logical fallacy affirming the consequent or Post hoc ergo propter hoc, because there are multiple possible explanations for b.
Unlike deduction and in some sense induction, abduction can produce results that are incorrect within its formal system. Hence the conclusions of abduction can only be made valid by separately checking them with a different method, either by deduction or exhaustive induction. However, it can still be useful as a heuristic, especially when something is known about the likelihood of different causes for b.deductive reasoning
1. inference in which the conclusion cannot be false given that the premises are true.Cheers,
