Return-Path: Received: from imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.69] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 762224 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:30:54 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.69; envelope-from=atlasyts@bellsouth.net Received: from [68.215.126.18] by imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050228033010.GFDB2296.imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net@[68.215.126.18]> for ; Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:30:10 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:31:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: [FlyRotary]Belt rumnations; soliciting Opinions of racers please.... From: Bulent Aliev To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3192388298_6348581" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3192388298_6348581 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable CAN YOU PLEASE TRIM THESE MESSAGES? IT IS A MISH-MASH! NO IDEA WHICH IS FIRST OR LAS. Buly On 2/27/05 9:14 PM, "Paul" wrote: > I have a small 12 volt bilge pump for my birdbath/fountain. Mfr claims it > moves 640 gph of water. If I divide gallons per hour by 60=3D gpm should w= ork > out to around 10.66 gpm. This is a tiny 12 volt bilge pump that my > photovoltaic cell runs, with no battery. (only works when the sun is > overhead). You can hold it in the palm of your hand nearly close your han= d > around it. Seems like it wouldn't take much larger of a motor to push 30= gpm > if this puny thing will pump 10+ gpm. It will empty a bilge pretty fast.= I > realize this is unrestricted water, but still, it has to move all that wa= ter > out of a boat bilge, and does a fine job. It pumps the water in my founta= in > too high, had to put a restrictor on it. Paul Conner >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Jack Ford >> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:00 PM >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [FlyRotary]Belt rumnations; soliciting Opinions= of >> racers please.... >>=20 >> I had a 3/4 horsepower pump that moved 13 gallons per minute of water ou= t of >> a 100' deep well, 40' head minimum. >> It was a lot faster than that until I drew the well down to it's product= ion >> rate, but I only measured the production rate. >> =20 >> Extrapolating from that, 3 horsepower will move 52+ GPM. Different kind = of >> pump, different environment. >> =20 >> Data point. >> =20 >> Jack Ford >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: Jim Sower >>> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >>> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:36 PM >>> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [FlyRotary]Belt rumnations; soliciting Opinion= s of >>> racers please.... >>>=20 >>> Al, >>> I made a quick analysis from facts obtained elsewhere. I surmised that= PL >>> was right about the 10 hp at high rpm because I've heard that number fr= om so >>> many sources over the years. How considerably off do you think PL was = and >>> why? I seem to recall that PL's case against EWP was that since water = pumps >>> require 10 hp, you'd need a 10 hp motor to drive the EWP. As for the = 0.1 >>> hp of EWP, I'm pretty sure someone on this list that's using one report= ed >>> that his EWP draws about 5 amps in operation. Starting from there, the= math >>> is pretty straightforward. >>> Anyway, I'm a believer until I hear something really compelling ... Jim= S. >>>=20 >>> Al Gietzen wrote: >>>> The case for EWP for example is performance. PL insisted that an EDWP >>>> absorbs over 10 hp at 6000 rpm. He is probably damned close. He then= made >>>> the unfortunate leap that therefore an EWP must absorb the same power.= Not >>>> true. EWP conservatively absorbs 14V x 5 A =3D 70 W =3D~ 0.1 hp. He was = off >>>> by about two orders of magnitude or about 9.9 hp. Don't know about yo= u >>>> but I can always use an extra 9.9 hp. >>>> =20 >>>> PL may have been considerably off; but at .1hp with the EWP you will b= e >>>> getting only a fraction of the flow of the belt driven pump; even if i= t >>>> were 100% efficient. Keep in mind that converting power into electric= ity >>>> is about 85% efficient, as is converting electricity back into power. = 0.85 >>>> x 0.85 =3D 0.72; so you have lost 28% of the power in the process. Pump= ing >>>> coolant against even a small pressure head takes power. Any =91performa= nce >>>> improvement=92 you may see with EWP vs belt driven pump comes from lower= flow >>>> rate. =20 >>>> Al >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>>>> >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>>>=20 >>>>>> >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >>>>=20 >>>> =20 >>>>> >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>>=20 >>>>> >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >>=20 >> 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 >=20 >=20 > 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 >=20 >=20 >>> >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >=20 --B_3192388298_6348581 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [FlyRotary] Re: [FlyRotary]Belt rumnations; soliciting Opinions = of racers please.... CAN YOU PLEASE TRIM THESE MESSAGES? IT IS A MISH-MASH!= NO IDEA WHICH IS FIRST OR LAS.
Buly

On 2/27/05 9:14 PM, "Paul" <sqpilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I have a small 12 vo= lt bilge pump for my birdbath/fountain. Mfr claims it moves 640 gph of water= .  If I divide gallons per hour by 60=3D gpm should work out to around 10= .66 gpm. This is a tiny 12 volt bilge pump that my photovoltaic cell runs, w= ith no battery. (only works when the sun is overhead). You can hold it in th= e palm of your hand nearly close your hand around it.  Seems like it wo= uldn't take much larger of a motor to push 30 gpm if this puny thing will pu= mp 10+ gpm.  It will empty a bilge pretty fast. I realize this is unres= tricted water, but still, it has to move all that water out of a boat bilge,= and does a fine job. It pumps the water in my fountain too high, had to put= a restrictor on it.  Paul Conner
----- Original Message -----=
From: Jack Ford <mailto:jackoford@theofficenet.com>  
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net= >  
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:00 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [FlyRotary]Belt rumnations; soliciting Opin= ions of racers please....

I had a 3/4 horsepower pump that moved 13 gallons per minute= of water out of a 100' deep well, 40' head minimum.
It was a lot faster than that until I drew the well down to it's production= rate, but I only measured the production rate.
Extrapolating from that, 3 horsepower will move 52+ GPM. Dif= ferent kind of pump, different environment.
Data point.
Jack Ford
----- Original Message -----=
From: Jim Sower <mailto:canarder@frontiernet.net>  
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net= >  
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:36 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [FlyRotary]Belt rumnations; soliciting Opin= ions of racers please....

Al,
I made a quick analysis from facts obtained elsewhere.  I surmised tha= t PL was right about the 10 hp at high rpm because I've heard that number fr= om so many sources over the years.  How considerably off do you think P= L was and why?  I seem to recall that PL's case against EWP was that si= nce water pumps require 10 hp, you'd need a 10 hp motor to drive the EWP. &n= bsp; As for the 0.1 hp of EWP, I'm pretty sure someone on this list tha= t's using one reported that his EWP draws about 5 amps in operation.  S= tarting from there, the math is pretty straightforward.
Anyway, I'm a believer until I hear something really compelling ... Jim S.<= BR>
Al Gietzen wrote:
The case for EWP for example is performance.  PL insisted that an EDW= P absorbs over 10 hp at 6000 rpm.  He is probably damned close.  H= e then made the unfortunate leap that therefore an EWP must absorb the same = power.  Not true.  EWP conservatively absorbs 14V x 5 A =3D 70 W =3D~ = 0.1 hp.  He was off by about two orders of magnitude or about 9.= 9 hp.  Don't know about you  but I can always use an extra 9.9 hp.=

PL may have been considerably off; but at .1hp with the EWP you will be get= ting only a fraction of the flow of the belt driven pump; even if it were 10= 0% efficient.  Keep in mind that converting power into electricity is a= bout 85% efficient, as is converting electricity back into power. 0.85 x 0.8= 5 =3D 0.72; so you have lost 28% of the power in the process.  Pumping co= olant against even a small pressure head takes power.  Any ?performance= improvement? you may see with EWP vs belt driven pump comes from lower flow= rate.  
Al
  
 
  
>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotar= y/List.html

  
>>  Homepage:  htt= p://www.flyrotary.com/

>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotar= y/List.html
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 vir= us found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005

>>  Homepage:  http:/= /www.flyrotary.com/
>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotar= y/List.html


 --B_3192388298_6348581--