Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.69; envelope-from=jerryhey@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple;
  s=test1; d=earthlink.net;
  h=Date:Subject:Content-Type:Mime-Version:From:To:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:X-Mailer;
  b=KMH8UnpexaJVglMRzMlYZB6U6DjaeUNcw0c+cy/CszSt577/51MwcKXX1sRSwPaK;
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:59:04 -0500
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Water Pump Viscosity Test
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--203241904
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Jerry Hey <jerryhey@earthlink.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-811065@logan.com>
Message-Id: <D13973FD-988F-11D9-BE56-0003931B0C7A@earthlink.net>


--Apple-Mail-2--203241904
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=WINDOWS-1252;
	format=flowed

Bob,  I appreciate the well thought out test although I am not ready to=20=

say I understand its implications.  How much coolent flow is required=20
is related to other variables such as radiator size and air volume=20
passing through the radiator. It may  be the case that slower coolent=20
flow is preferable or at  least acceptable.   We know that the EWPs=20
will work if the other variables are optimised.  Leon=92s racing=20
experinece with EWPs and Todds ability to cool a turbo with an EWP,=20
have me thinking that we need to focus on the other components of the=20
cooling equation and not worry about the  EWP.  Jerry


On Friday, March 18, 2005, at 10:40  PM, Bob White wrote:

>
> Thanks Rusty.  It was a real breakthrough when I realized I was trying
> to test viscosity and not temperature.  I have pictures at
> http://tinyurl.com/4cj4w if anyone is interested.
>
> I'm not sure what I'm going to do now.  Lookin at the equations on the
> Engineering Tool Box, I think I can only expect about 16 GPM with the
> 55 GPM pump.  I'd like to know how Meziere rates those pumps.  I've
> seen lower flow and higher current across the board.
>
> Bob W.
>
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:25:06 -0600
> "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Nice test Bob.  Good idea to test two different fluids, rather than=20=

>> trying
>> to raise the temp.  Of course it's too bad that the flow didn't=20
>> increase
>> like the silly French guy <g> said it would, but not surprising.  I=20=

>> would
>> have been amazed if it had really changed that much.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rusty (gotta fly a Cherokee 140 in a couple weeks, yuck)
>>
>
>
> --=20
> http://www.bob-white.com
> N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon)
>
>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>

--Apple-Mail-2--203241904
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=WINDOWS-1252

Bob,  I appreciate the well thought out test although I am not ready
to say I understand its implications.  How much coolent flow is
required is related to other variables such as radiator size and air
volume passing through the radiator. It may  be the case that slower
coolent flow is preferable or at  least acceptable.   We know that the
EWPs will work if the other variables are optimised.  Leon=92s racing
experinece with EWPs and Todds ability to cool a turbo with an EWP,
have me thinking that we need to focus on the other components of the
cooling equation and not worry about the  EWP.  Jerry


=20

On Friday, March 18, 2005, at 10:40  PM, Bob White wrote:


<excerpt>

Thanks Rusty.  It was a real breakthrough when I realized I was trying

to test viscosity and not temperature.  I have pictures at

http://tinyurl.com/4cj4w if anyone is interested.


I'm not sure what I'm going to do now.  Lookin at the equations on the

Engineering Tool Box, I think I can only expect about 16 GPM with the

55 GPM pump.  I'd like to know how Meziere rates those pumps.  I've

seen lower flow and higher current across the board.


Bob W.


On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 20:25:06 -0600

"Russell Duffy" <<13brv3@bellsouth.net> wrote:


<excerpt>Nice test Bob.  Good idea to test two different fluids,
rather than trying

to raise the temp.  Of course it's too bad that the flow didn't
increase

like the silly French guy <<g> said it would, but not surprising.  I
would

have been amazed if it had really changed that much. =20


Cheers,

Rusty (gotta fly a Cherokee 140 in a couple weeks, yuck)


</excerpt>


--=20

http://www.bob-white.com

N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon)


<excerpt><excerpt> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

 Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

</excerpt></excerpt>

</excerpt>=

--Apple-Mail-2--203241904--