|
Message
I was not trying to imply that an EWP is more
reliable than a belt. I said that I really like that idea. Our canard pushers
have the control systems running along the firewall, where a broken belt can
take them out in an instant. I don't like that. An engine without
belts...I like that.
I don't know if an EWP is
more reliable than a belt. I do know, however that it is better designed for a
cooling system than a belt driven waterpump. A belt driven water pump slows down
at idle, where there is typically less airflow through the radiator. Right when
you need the most flow, the belt driven water pump goes on vacation. The EWP on
the other hand, senses the rise in coolant temperature, and increases flow even
at an idle. The belt driven water pump cannot do that. Conversely, while
at cruise and you have more air cooling the radiator, it is then that the belt
driven water pump really kicks in, due to the engine's higher rpm's. The
EWP is smarter than that. It realizes that you are not at wide open throttle,
and at cruise, and slows down the flow. Paul Conner
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 9:37
AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: E-shaft
permanent magnet alternator
Your comment below implies that an EWP is *more*
reliable than a belt. I don't think that has been shown to be the case yet.
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045
With an
alternator driven by the e-shaft and an EWP, I could have an engine that
required no belts. I REALLY like that idea. Did I say I
REALLY like that idea? Paul
Conner
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG
Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date:
2/25/2005
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005
|