|
Hi Al, Rusty,
My take is not that the EWP is
57 times more efficient than a mechanical water pump. If I understood the
charts on the Davies EWP site, it indicates to me that a mechanical pump at
engine rpm of 6000 may be a case of a lot of wasted power. In other words,
at the higher rpm a lot of the energy is simply wasted in churning water through
restrictions, surface friction and against head pressure.
That would seem to imply that perhaps a
mechanical pump could be turned at a lot lower rpm and still provide adequate
coolant circulation flow rate for cooling. If however, this is
the case - you would have thought the OEM of autos would have jumped on that
like a dog on a bone to gain a 5% increase. Although the cost/benefit
trade-off reasons for manufacturing mulit million units may have dictated
otherwise.
As Leon points out the 80 lit/min flow is equivalent to approx 25 US
gallons/min. The only figure I recall seeing on the Mazda (if
memory serves me correctly) coolant is approx 13 GPM flow. If that is the
case, then the data on the EWP indicates it will have no problem meeting
the flow needs of the rotary. .
So, I don't think anyone is
claiming the EWP is 57 times more efficient than a mechanical pump, however, it
does seem to imply mechanical pumps at engine rpm of 6000 are wasting a lot of
energy to no additional cooling benefit.
Thats my 0.02 worth on the topic and I think
I'll now wait to see what we hear from Todd.
Best Regards
Ed Anderson
flow----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 8:43
AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Tech
Data
Some improvement in
efficiency over a belt drive wouldnt
surprise me, but 57 times as
efficient? That would be a shocking
improvement in efficiency. You'd think
that the OEM's would be all over
that.
Not only would 57 times as efficient be
shocking; it is impossible. A 1 1/2 times increase would qualify
as amazing.
Al
|