Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.148.227.152; envelope-from=rlwhite@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 08:19:06 -0600
From: Bob White <rlwhite@comcast.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: oil cooler lines
Message-Id: <20060508081906.12c3af85.rlwhite@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-1096216@logan.com>
References: <list-1096216@logan.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, 08 May 2006 09:29:39 -0400
Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com> wrote:

> Bob White wrote:
> 
> >I did some measurements of flow rate with two different viscosity's of
> >fluids with an EWP.  Counter intuitive as it may seem, I found no
> >difference in flow rate between viscosity's of 1.3 cp and 5.3 cp.
> >
> >  
> >
> Possible explanation.  If the EWP motors are the permanent magnet type 
> motors, they will have a certain RPM that they want to maintain, and 
> they will draw enough current to do that until they burn themselves up.  
> Is this right, Bill D.?  Could be that the higher viscosity fluid had 
> the same flow but would be drawing significantly more juice to do it.
> 

As it turns out, I took current measurements during the test.  There is
an increase in current with the higher viscosity although I wouldn't
call it significantly more, particularly the current with unrestricted
flow.

Here's the data

No restriction:
Fluid         Temp (F)    Volt/Current     Flow Reading (uncorrected)
Water          55           13.8V/8.4A       10.8
EG/W (50/50)   53           13.8/8.6A        11

Restricted to flow EG/W (50/50) at 6 GPM
Fluid         Temp (F)    Volt/Current     Flow Reading (uncorrected)
Water          49           13.8V/7.0A       5.5 to 6
EG/W (50/50)   52           13.8/7.5A        6

Bob W.

-- 
http://www.bob-white.com
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (first engine start 1/7/06)
Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/