|
|
Hi Ed,
On 17 Oct 2002, at 19:03, Marvin Kaye wrote:
I don't pretend to be a thermodynamic
> expert and only used the data presented by the Davies Website to
> infer that (based on that data) it would appear the power used in
> driving a mechanical pump at high rpms is mostly wasted energy.
##
Corect!!! You are most perceptive. It's a GIANT water brake.
Same basic principle upon which water brake dynamometers work.
To put more load on the dyno, just restrict the output of the pump.
Like driving around with the hand brake on, or resting your left foot
on the brake pedal all the time in an auto!!
Still
> some questions but willing to await the outcome of Todd's experiment.
##
Yair, well seeing I don't have an aircraft to do the tests right at this
moment, (Greg Poole's Velocity is a good 9 months away before
we can start ground tests) I'll do some pretty good approximations
on the chassis dyno when I come back. I should be able to
emulate take-off and climb-out loads pretty closely. I can even turn
off the draft to see what happens as well!
>
> While I don't think this list is likely to become like the
> "other" list,
##
Hmmmm, ... I'll keep my options open on that one!!
> I also do not think we are committed to forgo technical discussions on
> any topic.
##
I fully agree. But practical wins out over theoretical every time. If it
DOES work in practice, then the theory that says it CAN'T (like
the bumble bee bit) it's the theory that needs some re-working and
modification. See, I KNOW these things work. I know WHY they
work. So whomsoever says tat they don't or can't is WRONG.
##
But I don't expect anyone to do something just on my sayso. I
now need to present you guys with the cogent repeatable test data
(coming in about six weeks), and if you still don't believe me, you
can go and repeat my experiments, because I will carefully define
exactly what I'm doing, and the test conditions will be repeatable
anywhere in the world.
##
Then, if you (or anyone else for that matter) CAN then
demonstrate that I'm wrong, I'm more than happy to eat humble
pie, publically recant, and do pennance acting as your chauffeur
while you enjoy a 2 week holiday at my expense in Sydney.
Some views will undoubtedly be incorrect and merit
> changing and others will be on the money - to the benefit of us all.
> I am as eager as anyone to see new advances in our adaptation of the
> rotary to aircraft use, on the other hand - I will admit to perhaps
> being overly cautious to same - given some of the potential downside
> if they fail to deliver up to snuff.
##
One thing I have learned over the years. Always try to prove
yourself wrong. You can't be too cautious, and I'm TOTALLY
paranoid about safety!! So I want to make sure that under extreme
heat stress, the things will work they way they NEED to work
before I trust my (and Todd's) butt to it.
##
This is why I'm going to spend some bux on a day or two on the
dyno. But qualitative observations so far indicate that they do work
as advertised, and anecdotal evidence from other users seem to
confirm my experience..
>
> That said, I applaud Todd for stepping forward to as you say
> "Determine
> if it ACTUALLY works for aircraft use"
##
I should have all the QUANTITATIVE tests done well before Todd
gets airborne on his maiden flight.
>and your "prodding" of some of
> us to look past our current perceptions or misconceptions. So have a
> great holiday, get your battery recharged, and see you on the list
> when you return.
##
Thanks Ed, but 'm not actually going away on holidays, (I'll still be
in Sydney - just doing something different) and I will still be
monitoring the lists on a daily basis over breakfast. It's just that I
won't be wading around up to my armpits in grease and spanners.
Best wishes & kindest regards,
Leon Promet
leon@promotorsport.com.au
>
> Best Regards
>
> Ed Anderson
>
>
> > This newsletter is beginning to sound like that "Other One"! Mostly
> > theoretical prognostications and very little actual experiment.
>
> >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
|
|