Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.68] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 520605 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 12:14:34 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.68; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20041106171404.GHMQ2350.imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2004 12:14:04 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] EWP Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 11:14:11 -0600 Message-ID: <000001c4c424$08a0f710$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4C3F1.BE068710" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4C3F1.BE068710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So I will add to Bulent's question - what will be the current draw at = 25 gallons per minute when installed in a functioning cooling system? =20 =20 Ken Powell =20 =20 I'm going to put a meter on mine, maybe today. In the mean time, below = is an excerpt from one of Todd's posts that I found in the archive. = Current is WAY low on the Davies Craig pump. If I can verify this, I'd say there's = no problem running one of them when the alt fails. =20 =20 Cheers, Rusty (mourning the departure of one of my fillings) =20 =20 =20 Hi Guy's I brought home a new mag tube & transmitter, which I tested = first against a calibration standard, so I'm certain of it's accuracy. I ran a full set of tests tonight and was somewhat surprised at the results. I ran the first test with the Ford evap cores in the system, = plumbed in parallel. * Max flow 9.3 usg/m 35 l/m=20 * 12.07 volt battery supply voltage=20 * .49 amps current draw=20 * 1.8 amps max inrush current Second test had no evap cores in the system. Simply recirced water through pump - engine - header tank - pump. * max flow 13.0 usg/m 49 l/m=20 * 12.06 volt battery supply voltage=20 * .37 amps current draw=20 * 3 amps max inrush current. Third test, I plumbed in a set of GM (Harrison) evap cores in = parallel, into the system. I hung them just below my mounted Ford cores, using = they same pipe sizes in an effort to have comparable test conditions. * max flow 7.7 usg/m 29 l/m=20 * 12.4 volts supply voltage (I hooked a trickle charger to the battery)=20 * .47 amps max current draw In each test configuration test results are with heater valve = closed. Heater core added .5 usg/m in each case. =20 In all of the above tests the electronic pump controller was = bypassed to give full battery voltage to the pump. With the pump controller in use, = as the water was cold well water, controller had pump at minimum flow which = was measured at .6 usg/m - 2.2 l/m. I suppose I should have dipped the RTD = probe into hot water to watch the flow increase, however all test equipment is packed up and system is back together. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4C3F1.BE068710 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
So I will add to Bulent's question - what will be the current draw = at =20 25 gallons per minute when installed in a functioning cooling = system? =20
 
Ken Powell
 
 
I'm going to=20 put a meter on mine, maybe today.  In the mean time, below = is an=20 excerpt from one of Todd's posts that I found in the archive.  = Current=20 is WAY low on the Davies Craig pump.  If I can verify this, = I'd say=20 there's no problem running one of them when the alt=20 fails.  
 
Cheers,
Rusty=20 (mourning the departure of one of my = fillings)
 
 
 
Hi=20 Guy's
        I brought home a new = mag=20 tube & transmitter, which I tested first against a calibration = standard, so=20 I'm certain of it's accuracy. I ran a full set of tests tonight and was = somewhat=20 surprised at the results.

        I=20 ran the first test with the Ford evap cores in the system, plumbed in=20 parallel.
  • Max flow 9.3 usg/m  35 l/m =
  • 12.07 volt battery supply = voltage=20
  • .49 amps current draw=20
  • 1.8 amps max inrush = current
    Second test had no = evap cores in=20 the system. Simply recirced water through pump - engine - header tank -=20 pump.
  • max flow 13.0 usg/m   49 = l/m=20
  • 12.06 volt battery supply = voltage=20
  • .37 amps current draw=20
  • 3 amps max inrush = current.
    Third test, I = plumbed in a set=20 of GM (Harrison) evap cores in parallel, into the system. I hung them = just below=20 my mounted Ford cores, using they same pipe sizes in an effort to have=20 comparable test conditions.
  • max flow 7.7 usg/m   29 = l/m=20
  • 12.4 volts supply voltage (I hooked a = trickle=20 charger to the battery)=20
  • .47 amps max current = draw
    In each test = configuration test=20 results are with heater valve closed. Heater core added .5 usg/m in each = case.
 
    In all of the above = tests the=20 electronic pump controller was bypassed to give full battery voltage to = the=20 pump. With the pump controller in use, as the water was cold well = water,=20 controller had pump at minimum flow which was measured at .6 = usg/m - 2.2=20 l/m. I suppose I should have dipped the RTD probe into hot water to = watch the=20 flow increase, however all test equipment is packed up and system is = back=20 together.
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4C3F1.BE068710--