From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] EWP test data
To: flyrotary
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 19:59:11 -0500
Message-ID: <web-2080582@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <000201c2ee6c$8ae2e740$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>:

        I just reviewed the spec on the pump and Davies Craig claims 20 - 80 
l/m. So I guess in this system I'm within those specs. I was surprised that I 
didn't have a higher flowrate with no evap cores in the system. I was really 
surprised that the GM cores had a lower flow rate than the Ford cores as I had 
been warned that they would not provide sufficient flow. This is a pleasant 
surprise as I found that the Ford cores were easier to find, easier to remove 
from the plenum, easier aluminum to weld on and far easier to mount. Hopefully 
they will also work better.

    Great work Todd.  Do you know what year the Ford and GM cores were 
(approx?).  Your results on the Ford and GM cores are the direct opposite 
according to the Contact! article on those two cores.  So, yes, I am surprised 
at the results.  It would be interesting to compare the internals of those two 
types of cores.  I've been warning folks of the reported unsuitability of Ford 
cores based on the Contact! article and it appears, based on your tests, that 
the warning has been erroneous.  

    Getting that much flow with that low a current draw is another fact that 
is 
contrary to "conventional" wisdom of how much power a water pump consumes.  So 
lots of good information here.  Leon are you listening?

    So thanks a bunch for sharing your findings, Todd.  That's the sort of 
thing that helps us all out.  Now, I wonder if I could swap my GM cores for 
Ford cores in time for Sun & Fun? Hummmm.

    Ed Anderson