From: Jerry Hey

To: Rotary motors in aircraft

Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 9:25 AM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: For Al EWPs & Sump Heat Exchangers was Re: Experiement vs Theory take 2

On Sunday, January 16, 2005, at 08:49 PM, Leon wrote:

Electric Water Pumps are one of the major points of contention.  You,  my good friend Al,  might NEVER say an EWP wouldn't work in an airplane.  However,  I have literally dozens and dozens of ACRE emails full of Lamar's abusive invective and derrisive drivel,  mathematically proving conclusively beyond all reasonable doubt that EWPs can't work,  don't work,  & won't ever work,  and also stating categorically that the guy that makes them,  Richard Davies,  of Davies Craig here in Melbourne Australia is a fraud,  a cad,  a bounder, and a scam artist!   Boy,  is he lucky Richard is such a nice guy!!
 
Unfortunately,  there are now possibly 1000 odd people who, (including Jerry Hey), believe this.  And it's all lies!!  Coz Todd Bartrim demonstrated conclusively that they do perform,  even in aircraft, as advertised. (Thereby falsifying the hypothesis that they don't work). But you will never hear or see a retraction or an apology to correct what was a blatant error of assumptions,  false premises and dubious mathematics.

I have come to realize that what Paul has to say may not only not be true but in fact can be intentionally false. I have also experienced a pile of profane, invective laden e-mail attacking me and those who supported me concerning the p ports. Most of these were sent privately. I have also had my comments suppressed so that in no way could I present my side in a friendly debate about a technical matter.

Why so much strong emotion about whether a p-port should be a little larger or smaller is a question that I cannot answer. At a certain point Paul seemed to cross a line where fairness was no longer required. For sure, not accepting his reasoning, mathematical or otherwise, can trigger rage.

Canceling my subscription to ACRE was not a decision easily reached, but in the end, there was no choice at all. That was the way it had to be. I do miss much of the theoretical discussion on ACRE. I found it educational and challenging. Jerry

 

 

Hello guys,

 

long time lurking, sometimes hurting to write a comment, but mostly better "biting the tongue", but on the Pports, ....have to ask!

 

a) To this list: Though I promised to post top, I see about half the posters post bottom, so I will continue bottom too.

I don't remember who posted the simplest reasoning, but I agree completely: "Never saw any books with chapters running backwards!:)

 

 

b) To the other list:

Jerry, IF you did not "part the PL-imperium branded as a non-believer", just get back on the subscription, but "refrain from commenting!:)".

Myself just in for the theory ( for lack of time-space-funding to start to play), I do like the ideas on ACRE, but no way do I take it all for gospel.

 

Especially the Pport discussion was getting a little nerving from the "P"-side. (Hell, just can't let go can he! .....maybe you should have politely asked if it is okay, that you try your port-size, whatever seems to be optimal in his universe.....)

 

Though it is for sure extremly basic for most on this list, I was going a couple of times through Paul Yaw's Technical articles on his site, http://www.yawpower.com/techindx.html

Especially the part about exhaust improvements being the 1st place to find power (pumping losses/blow down/ pressure phase tuning) is very interesting. It took me a couple of trials to really understand what he means, but finally I got to it - Inertia.

http://www.yawpower.com/jantech.html

 

As Paul (Yaw) says in his Intake article: "If the exhaust cycle is less than optimum, there is not much point in making other modifications."

However if the exhaust is optimized the Inertia- reasoning applies just the same to the intake as it does to the exhaust.

http://www.yawpower.com/martech.html

 

On the Pport, I never saw PL mention any comparison between Inertia effects in a Pport of different sizes.

The LM-engine was probably running between 6-8k rpm all the time. Most likely the 2" (or was it 2,5"?) Pport is optimum there with the best balance between cross-section and inertia (flow-speed)

 

At the proposed engine speeds for your engine (Jerry's engine), a smaller port (what will yours be, 1.5" or 1.75"?) the higher velocity of your size compared to the LM-Pport size might just give you the advantage after all - Inertia being "square" dependend on speed!

 

Did anyone ever a (even theoretical !!:) ) comparison on Pports with different sizes/Inertia/Velocity/Volumetric efficiency?

 

I am sure I could dig it out from my old mechanical engineering books, but not being able to test/retest/ proof anything on an actual engine/dyno, I will just be wasting a lot of time on "theory" again....

However someone might have all the data there already, .....would you mind to share, please?

 

Leon, did you ever do any real tests like that? I know you did a lot of experimenting and got to what works and what not, but is there any comparative data, too?

 

Another question, mainly to Leon:

 

Is there anything out there concerning the angle of the Pport relative to the housing-portsurface/rotor?

 

Theory (..sorry!:)) If one is to modify a non-Pport housing it should be possible, with about the same work, to incline the Pport some, one way or the other. Inclined, so that the incoming gas flows towards the direction of the rotor movement, might help to fill the chamber a little more.

As I said I am very new to this, so please bear with me, just trying to get the idea of it all!

 

 

Thanks for any comments, hints, wisdom!

 

Thomas Jakits (jealous of anyone with something rotary to play with!!)